# Hunting is in a spot of bother



## Tiddlypom (25 November 2020)

For those who don’t ever venture into the Hunting board, it may be news to you that the hunting scene is currently in some turmoil. This is the thread about it on there.

https://forums.horseandhound.co.uk/threads/what-most-of-us-knew-already.797370/

For a few days after the publication of the leaked Hunting Office webinars, the mainstream media did not pick it up. That silence ended last night with a report on ITVs News at Ten.

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-11-24...ting-webinars-held-by-huntings-governing-body

Forestry England have now suspended all trail hunting licences whilst waiting for the outcome of the police and CPS investigation into the Hunting Office webinars.

This is going to run and run.


----------



## Rumtytum (25 November 2020)

I hope this finally spells the end for every hunt which broke the law and it can’t come quick enough.


----------



## Frumpoon (25 November 2020)

I really hope the legitimate bloodhound  and drag packs dont suffer as a result


----------



## Not_so_brave_anymore (26 November 2020)

Real numpty question: why is fox hunting more fun than trail hunting, from a riding point of view? Doesn't it tend to lead to more hanging around, and more trying to cross impassable country, and generally more frustration?


----------



## Teaboy (26 November 2020)

I really do not understand why, if they are going to the effort of having runners, do they insist on still illegal hunting. They are completely brain washed by tradition.


----------



## Clodagh (26 November 2020)

Not_so_brave_anymore said:



			Real numpty question: why is fox hunting more fun than trail hunting, from a riding point of view? Doesn't it tend to lead to more hanging around, and more trying to cross impassable country, and generally more frustration?
		
Click to expand...

I stopped hunting post ban. To me there is no point just going for a fun ride, which is trail hunting.
It is impossible to explain, though, I don’t get remotely interested in football but I understand that to some people it is very exciting.


----------



## palo1 (26 November 2020)

Not_so_brave_anymore said:



			Real numpty question: why is fox hunting more fun than trail hunting, from a riding point of view? Doesn't it tend to lead to more hanging around, and more trying to cross impassable country, and generally more frustration?
		
Click to expand...

Trail hunting is supposed to replicate pre-ban fox hunting as closely as possible so the runners/trail layers try to lay a trail that is authentically natural; hence close cover and ground that may be impassable for horses. Generally it is not impassable for hounds though and hunting was, for the purists, about following hounds and watching them work rather than for the riding.  Obviously for many, many people the ridden element was the reason for hunting and those followers appreciated open country, longer runs and plenty of jumping.  In some hunt countries that is how the country works anyway but for other packs, often less fashionable, the country was not so conducive to that sort of riding.  That is sort of what results in slower going, more hanging around etc.  I think that is why hunting in some places is so much 'smarter/more expensive' because you are more likely to have a good gallop and jump plenty.  That is not how it is round here and never has been.


----------



## ycbm (26 November 2020)

Teaboy said:



			I really do not understand why, if they are going to the effort of having runners, do they insist on still illegal hunting. They are completely brain washed by tradition.
		
Click to expand...

They have to appear to lay a trail, otherwise its obvious that they are hunting illegally. They aren't interested in trail hunting,  they only want to hunt fox.


----------



## Sandstone1 (26 November 2020)

They just like killing things.  Pure and simple.   Also some of them are not good enough riders for drag hunting as its faster and has less stopping and starting and hanging around than fox hunting.


----------



## ycbm (26 November 2020)

Sandstone1 said:



			They just like killing things.  Pure and simple.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think it is that simple. I've been having discussions with hunters on this forum for many years now,  and it's clear that there is a deeply held belief among many that hunting with hounds is genuinely the most humane and effective way of controlling the fox population.  

I respect that view,  and taking cubbing and obvious malpractice by some hunts out of it,  I could almost be persuaded.  But add those,  and the anti social things some hunts  (including drag packs) do when out, then I believe fox hunting is past its time. 

Hopefully these recordings will make that a fact. 
.


----------



## oldie48 (26 November 2020)

"I respect that view,  and taking cubbing and obvious malpractice by some hunts out of it,  I could almost be persuaded.  But add those,  and the anti social things some hunts  (including drag packs) do when out, then I believe fox hunting is past its time. "

I have to agree with this. I am the boundary of two hunts. Locally we have had a good deal of housing development which has led to a heavier volume of traffic everywhere, not just on the main roads, a lot of land is heavy clay and we seem to be having higher rainfall, particularly early on in the season and more land owners are reluctant to have big fields trashing the ground. We have an increase in flooding. It's pretty clear that one of the hunts does not hunt within the law, is frequently "off country" and is unable toarn horse owners that they will be around, which means they have lost a lot of local support. Attempts to join forces with neighbouring hunts have ended in bickering and disagreement. In 2019 they were affected by flu, this year by covid, I'm sure many hunts are struggling financially and tbh I think their days are numbered.


----------



## Regandal (26 November 2020)

I have classical cognitive dissonance with hunting.  Watching the meet and then the field moving off makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. My best ever horse was a hunter. 
The animal cruelty though is not acceptable. It’s had it’s day.


----------



## scruffyponies (26 November 2020)

Not_so_brave_anymore said:



			Real numpty question: why is fox hunting more fun than trail hunting, from a riding point of view? Doesn't it tend to lead to more hanging around, and more trying to cross impassable country, and generally more frustration?
		
Click to expand...

I have had the privilege to go out as a guest a couple of times pre-ban, a few times since, and more recently with a bloodhound pack.  Not being a 'regular', I know there's much I don't see or understand, but from a rider's perspective:

There is something wonderful about the unpredictability of the chase - mostly you're lost, trying to keep up, and occasionally terrified.  A fox doesn't stick to headlands; it takes a direct line sometimes, and gives you the gallop of your life.  Every day is totally different, and the foxes for the most part seem to get away.  Lest ways the only dead one I ever saw was caught in a snare.
Drag hunting as done by the fox hound packs (and the ones I have been out with were following the law) is as close as they can mimic a real scent to make the hounds work, and I'm not sure if they even tell the huntsman the exact route.  It has the advantage of being planned to the extent that hazards can be avoided (e.g. road and rail), and you still see the hounds working, but loses a little of the adrenaline rush from being more predictable.  In both cases there is some standing around, but you are watching and listening to the hounds (and the countryside around), and it's very pleasant.
The bloodhounds follow a runner, and the route is known.  Whilst it's a lovely ride, you follow the headlands and it's more like a fun ride with no gaps between groups of riders.  I found we were often holding back the horses to keep off the hounds, since runners, and bloodhounds are much slower than foxes.   There seems to be more standing around, if anything, waiting for quarry to get a head start etc.


----------



## ihatework (26 November 2020)

Sandstone1 said:



			They just like killing things.  Pure and simple.   Also some of them are not good enough riders for drag hunting as its faster and has less stopping and starting and hanging around than fox hunting.
		
Click to expand...

It is so far removed from being simple, that this sort of comment just highlights those that really don’t understand it and devalues the antis viewpoint.

Im not avidly pro hunting btw. I sit somewhat on the fence and probably lean more towards anti.


----------



## Sandstone1 (26 November 2020)

ihatework said:



			It is so far removed from being simple, that this sort of comment just highlights those that really don’t understand it and devalues the antis viewpoint.

Im not avidly pro hunting btw. I sit somewhat on the fence and probably lean more towards anti.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry but I do understand it and I have been hunting.  Can you explain to me how my comment devalues the anti viewpoint?  Hunting foxes is illegal trail hunting is not.


----------



## LEC (26 November 2020)

Hunting is a dying 'sport' - tbh its place in the world is a matter of time before it disappears and it will probably happen from imploding. More and more hunts need to amalgamate in order to survive. When rich hunts like the Quorn and Cottesmore looked to merge (though they didn't) then you know its only a matter of time. TBH the stupidity of the MFH doing this is just astounding. I don't know who sits in the office and checks the content but they should be chased on a trail and then shot..... 

I am ambivalent about hunting and come from a strong hunting background and my childhood was spent hunting but don't really see the point of it anymore. Life changes and however much we fight it we have become a more urbanised society.


----------



## SatansLittleHelper (26 November 2020)

Hunting is steeped in tradition...and therein lies the problem. It's been said that "tradition is peer pressure from dead people " and I couldn't agree more. Anyone who thinks this is a "humane" way to control the fox population needs to give their heads a wobble. Im not against culling as such but hunting a fox with so many horses and dogs is ridiculous and most definitely not "sporting".


----------



## Equine_Dream (26 November 2020)

SatansLittleHelper said:



			Hunting is steeped in tradition...and therein lies the problem. It's been said that "tradition is peer pressure from dead people " and I couldn't agree more. Anyone who thinks this is a "humane" way to control the fox population needs to give their heads a wobble. Im not against culling as such but hunting a fox with so many horses and dogs is ridiculous and most definitely not "sporting".
		
Click to expand...

Therein lies the issue....what is a humane way of controlling the population? Shooting is probably thought more humane but then a bad shot can leave the animal suffering for days. Some farmers also resort to poisoning which is an excruciating death.
It's something I've asked myself to. I used to be dead against hunting. Then met my husband who was from a farming background and saw some of the other side. I'm still not sure where I sit exactly on hunting. I have seen the damage caused by foxes and the affect it can have on farmers livelihoods, so I suppose I would go as far as to say controlling fox populations is a necessary evil.... but what is the best way to do that? I'm not so sure.


----------



## Crazy_cat_lady (26 November 2020)

I see there is nothing on the Horse and Hound Facebook page about it....

If I could ever afford it I'd take a hireling out with the bloodhound pack but this would worry me they hunt fox still. 

I would never go with a pack that hunts fox, pre or post ban its cruel and barbaric. If they need controlling, shoot them by someone who is a good shot. The fox would rather an instant death im sure than being chased for miles, terrified.


----------



## meleeka (26 November 2020)

SatansLittleHelper said:



			Hunting is steeped in tradition...and therein lies the problem. It's been said that "tradition is peer pressure from dead people " and I couldn't agree more. Anyone who thinks this is a "humane" way to control the fox population needs to give their heads a wobble. Im not against culling as such but hunting a fox with so many horses and dogs is ridiculous and most definitely not "sporting".
		
Click to expand...

This is how I feel.  Dog fighting is also a tradition (and probably more ‘sporting’ since it’s one on one), but nobody in their right mind would defend that.  The idea that is the kindest way to control the fox population is often at odds with the claim that participants rarely see a fox.


----------



## Sandstone1 (26 November 2020)

Fox hunting is not about controlling fox numbers.  Its about the thrill of the chase.   Its about a day out riding across the countryside and killing something.  Lets be honest here.


----------



## TGM (26 November 2020)

scruffyponies said:



			The bloodhounds follow a runner, and the route is known.  Whilst it's a lovely ride, you follow the headlands and it's more like a fun ride with no gaps between groups of riders.  I found we were often holding back the horses to keep off the hounds, since runners, and bloodhounds are much slower than foxes.   There seems to be more standing around, if anything, waiting for quarry to get a head start etc.
		
Click to expand...

I don't know what bloodhound pack you've been out with but that is certainly not the case in our area.  My husband is a master of our local bloodhound pack and the typical day is certainly not like that at all!  The route is only known by the quarry and the Master who organised the day, even our Huntsman doesn't know the exact route!  Yes it is true that they stick to the headlands on arable fields to respect the landowners (and I would hope all packs would do that) but a lot of the hunting is over pasture land and they are certainly not slow!


----------



## Equine_Dream (26 November 2020)

Crazy Cat Lady FYI bloodhounds do not hunt foxes 🙂 they are not bred or trained for it and when they catch their "prey" i.e. the runner, they do nothing but lick them to death. So you could hunt with the bloodhounds with no fear of any foxes being harmed.


----------



## southerncomfort (26 November 2020)

I once had a conversation with a huntsman who pointed out a copse that had been planted by them 'to encourage the foxes to breed'.

😒


----------



## LEC (26 November 2020)

southerncomfort said:



			I once had a conversation with a huntsman who pointed out a copse that had been planted by them 'to encourage the foxes to breed'.

😒
		
Click to expand...

There are thousands of examples of that in the countryside. Lots if farmers do this..... Whether its for shooting or hunting. Hedges that have been left, woods left, copses planted etc etc. Its also helpful when you get given EU grants under the guise of good management schemes.


----------



## ihatework (26 November 2020)

southerncomfort said:



			I once had a conversation with a huntsman who pointed out a copse that had been planted by them 'to encourage the foxes to breed'.

😒
		
Click to expand...

Yes, this type of behaviour and feeding foxes does somewhat impact the opinion it’s just about fox control. It isn’t, controlling a healthy population is just a small part of it. It’s also not about some bloodthirsty lust to kill. It’s a far more complex situation that LEC has summarised well why it is inevitable it will die out over the next decade, maybe/hopefully sooner.


----------



## Crazy_cat_lady (26 November 2020)

Equine_Dream said:



			Crazy Cat Lady FYI bloodhounds do not hunt foxes 🙂 they are not bred or trained for it and when they catch their "prey" i.e. the runner, they do nothing but lick them to death. So you could hunt with the bloodhounds with no fear of any foxes being harmed.
		
Click to expand...

I can't afford it any time soon it'll be something I'll be able to do when I no longer have my own, maybe but that is good to know, so do they just not have any instinct to chase fox?


----------



## emilylou (26 November 2020)

I don't have anything to say re: the original post. Apart from what a b****y mess.

But again, from a riders perspective, there really is nothing like it. I've never felt a truer sense of freedom than when being slightly lost, riding to the edge of my abilities, crossing all types of country following a pack of hounds. Its a wildness and sense of being at one with the environment around you with only your senses and wit keeping you alive (sometimes literally) that now doesn't exist in many other parts of life. That sense of freedom is lost so much in our increasingly regulated, urbanized, prescribed, nannying society- (which personally I am not willing to accept as the way of the future and hope to see change of the countryside being more valued and understood and the return and protection of more abundant wild places and wildlife- but that's a different topic entirely)
I've followed both trail and drag packs and trail hunting is much more fun. The rhythm of the day is different and less prescribed as the huntsman does not have knowledge of where the trail is set- with packs I follow usually trails are laid the day prior with further trails laid throughout the day depending on conditions.
I've also found drag riders to have less control and be more worrying to ride with as you get those who are out for a good blast and do not have control of their horses.
Its a huge and lovely community, I agree there are outdated views and malpractice within but for the most part, the majority are there for the love of the horse and hound, the outdoors and their friends within the community. I have never met anyone who I would describe as bloodthirsty and to understand hunting and hunt well you need a respect and understanding for the wildlife and country you are within.

When I was younger I was dead against hunting, I even campaigned against it. Obviously, now true fox hunting is against the law, but I have learnt lots about what hunting was since, and changed my views. Trail hunting should be as it says, -hunting a trail and I hope that for the future of hunting all packs will comply.
But as far as fox control goes, fox control happens regardless of hunting, the gun does not discriminate and kills far more foxes than hunting ever would and the snare and poison are worse.
The original enquiry that investigated hunting and eventually resulted in the 2004 ban agreed that hunting with hounds is the most humane way of controlling the fox population. Mainly because it IS discriminatory. A fit fox will easily outrun and outwit a pack of hounds, I've seen foxes run from cover away from hounds hunting a trail and then turn and lazily watch them, standing in plain sight in front of the field before casually strolling off.
Historically, hounds will typically only catch the older/younger/sick foxes, unless they are having a particularly good day. This leaves the healthy foxes free to carry on, improving the species overall, who will then 'hopefully' stick to wild prey (rabbits, pheasants etc) rather than targeting easier lambs and chickens as their abilities allow them to, thus making them less of a pest.
As well as this, simply running hounds over land deters foxes from claiming it as territory, thus reducing the number of foxes in an area that is hunted as the foxes perceive there to be less territory for them so do not breed as many litters, hence why hunting controls the population without ever sometimes seeing a fox- which is inarguably more humane and a good reason why trail hunting/drag hunting is still a valid form of control to some degree.

Of course, I am aware I am omitting the mention of obvious faux-pax of trespass, violence etc. which should not happen and disappoints me that is does, and those things are indefensible but trail hunting done well and done lawfully I hope does have a place in our future.


----------



## Equine_Dream (26 November 2020)

Crazy_cat_lady said:



			I can't afford it any time soon it'll be something I'll be able to do when I no longer have my own, maybe but that is good to know, so do they just not have any instinct to chase fox?
		
Click to expand...

A bloodhound is a different breed to a foxhound. From what I know (and I'm sure there are far more knowledgeable people on this forum who can elaborate further), bloodhounds are trained to track a scent, nothing more. Foxhounds are trained to track and kill. It's an instinct that has been highly tuned over the years of breeding foxhounds. Bloodhounds have no such instinct.


----------



## teapot (26 November 2020)

TGM said:



			I don't know what bloodhound pack you've been out with but that is certainly not the case in our area.  My husband is a master of our local bloodhound pack and the typical day is certainly not like that at all!  The route is only known by the quarry and the Master who organised the day, even our Huntsman doesn't know the exact route!  Yes it is true that they stick to the headlands on arable fields to respect the landowners (and I would hope all packs would do that) but a lot of the hunting is over pasture land and they are certainly not slow!
		
Click to expand...

See my local bloodhound pack releases the route map for the foot followers before the day of the hunt, so assume others have access to it if they want?


----------



## hollyandivy123 (26 November 2020)




----------



## TGM (26 November 2020)

teapot said:



			See my local bloodhound pack releases the route map for the foot followers before the day of the hunt, so assume others have access to it if they want?
		
Click to expand...

Do they publish the entire route?  I can understand letting foot followers know where each individual hunt starts and ends, or even certain vantage parts where they can watch from the road, but knowing the whole route does take some of the fun and uncertainty out of it, plus runs the risk of pedestrian 'spectators' crossing the route that the quarry have taken and disrupting the scent.  Which is why our local pack don't do it.


----------



## Tiddlypom (26 November 2020)

The National Trust have now joined Forestry England in pausing trail hunting on their land.

_"...we have taken the decision to pause trail-hunting on National Trust land and will not be granting any new licences for the remainder of the season. We do not currently have a date when this will be reviewed."_


----------



## palo1 (26 November 2020)

LEC said:



			Hunting is a dying 'sport' - tbh its place in the world is a matter of time before it disappears and it will probably happen from imploding. More and more hunts need to amalgamate in order to survive. When rich hunts like the Quorn and Cottesmore looked to merge (though they didn't) then you know its only a matter of time. TBH the stupidity of the MFH doing this is just astounding. I don't know who sits in the office and checks the content but they should be chased on a trail and then shot.....

I am ambivalent about hunting and come from a strong hunting background and my childhood was spent hunting but don't really see the point of it anymore. Life changes and however much we fight it we have become a more urbanised society.
		
Click to expand...

In 2015 the BBC reported that the number of people registered with a hunt (trail, drag and blood hound) had increased from the point of the ban to a number around 45,000.  Most hunts would accord that the number of people they have is not decreasing; though their country may be becoming more difficult to maintain for a number of reasons. 

 Many, many ordinary people follow legal hunts and that includes vets, nurses, doctors, teachers, bin-men, plumbers, shop workers etc etc.  Top level eventers and other horse sport professionals who are held up as examples to aspire to within equestrianism  (including Carl Hester) participate in hunting activities yet still the same old tropes about hunting and hunting people are marched out and often by people who clearly have no clue what the actual reality is.    Hunting has adapted and will go on adapting.  I hope so anyway.  I am not bloodthirsty, desperate to kill foxes (at all), ignorant of the countryside, rude to my neighbours, liable to trespass, assault people, facilitate the killing of pets or upsetting of other people; I am fed up of hearing these untruths about hunting people.  This current scandal which revolves around less than probably 2% (I haven't calculated it actually but have read all of both transcripts) of the words spoken is just another attack by a bunch of well funded vigilantes who have taken those words and phrases out of context and served them up on a plate for those that want such delicacies.  Not widely reported are also the stress on the importance of hunts filing 'honest' reports and recording accidents/incidents etc, never getting involved in conflicts etc. 

I totally get why people are easily stirred up by the news and I used to feel quite passionately anti-hunting BUT in this country we don't thankfully have a history of political and social change through vigilante action - which is widely and often violently deployed by the anti-hunt movement who are openly happy to admit to and plan for assualt, trespass and physical intimidation of both people and animals whilst never being prepared to show their faces or reveal their identity.  I can't honestly imagine contributing to any reasonable debate on this forum about the subject of hunting though...


----------



## hollyandivy123 (26 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			In 2015 the BBC reported that the number of people registered with a hunt (trail, drag and blood hound) had increased from the point of the ban to a number around 45,000.  Most hunts would accord that the number of people they have is not decreasing; though their country may be becoming more difficult to maintain for a number of reasons.

Many, many ordinary people follow legal hunts and that includes vets, nurses, doctors, teachers, bin-men, plumbers, shop workers etc etc.  Top level eventers and other horse sport professionals who are held up as examples to aspire to within equestrianism  (including Carl Hester) participate in hunting activities yet still the same old tropes about hunting and hunting people are marched out and often by people who clearly have no clue what the actual reality is.    Hunting has adapted and will go on adapting.  I hope so anyway.  I am not bloodthirsty, desperate to kill foxes (at all), ignorant of the countryside, rude to my neighbours, liable to trespass, assault people, facilitate the killing of pets or upsetting of other people; I am fed up of hearing these untruths about hunting people.  This current scandal which revolves around less than probably 2% (I haven't calculated it actually but have read all of both transcripts) of the words spoken is just another attack by a bunch of well funded vigilantes who have taken those words and phrases out of context and served them up on a plate for those that want such delicacies.  Not widely reported are also the stress on the importance of hunts filing 'honest' reports and recording accidents/incidents etc, never getting involved in conflicts etc.

I totally get why people are easily stirred up by the news and I used to feel quite passionately anti-hunting BUT in this country we don't thankfully have a history of political and social change through vigilante action - which is widely and often violently deployed by the anti-hunt movement who are openly happy to admit to and plan for assualt, trespass and physical intimidation of both people and animals whilst never being prepared to show their faces or reveal their identity.  I can't honestly imagine contributing to any reasonable debate on this forum about the subject of hunting though...
		
Click to expand...

Palo 1......using fox smell to run a trail was always going to be a problem, retraining the fox hounds to follow another scent would have been a more forward thinking approach............as you have to train the foxhounds to follow the fox scent in the first place through pack behaviour it would not be to difficult thing to consider, giving the length of the ban on fox hunting to date


----------



## LEC (26 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			In 2015 the BBC reported that the number of people registered with a hunt (trail, drag and blood hound) had increased from the point of the ban to a number around 45,000.  Most hunts would accord that the number of people they have is not decreasing; though their country may be becoming more difficult to maintain for a number of reasons.

Many, many ordinary people follow legal hunts and that includes vets, nurses, doctors, teachers, bin-men, plumbers, shop workers etc etc.  Top level eventers and other horse sport professionals who are held up as examples to aspire to within equestrianism  (including Carl Hester) participate in hunting activities yet still the same old tropes about hunting and hunting people are marched out and often by people who clearly have no clue what the actual reality is.
		
Click to expand...

Locally we have lost 3 hunts. There is a lack of ability to fund it and people to manage the hunt are reducing. Our local hunt which my grandfather hunted with and 2 further generations of my family has gone due to loss of kennels, loss of subscribers and loss of ability to be able to fund it. The committees in all hunts locally which I look at are all quite old and 'new blood' is simply not coming through as its time consuming and hard work. 

There are of course some hunts like the Beaufort who are funded by patronage but very few hunts survive this way. 

Secondly, agriculture itself has changed a lot in the last 15 years. I discuss with people how the halcyon days of hunting were in the 80s. Then others tell me that the 70s was even better because of agriculture practices, minimal traffice, no sheep fencing, with more land and less smallholding owners. Land has become increasingly tricky to cross. We are surrounded by the Motorway, serious A roads and trainlines. Very few areas are not impacted by increasing urbanisation. The urban sprawl as such with new housing developments. Social media has also had a massive impact on hunting as can be tracked and traced much more easily (unlike Covid). 

Hunting I am sure will carry on limping on. There is no appetite at legislative level to ban it especially while a Tory party stays in power. TBH I am not convinced Labour will earlier as technically it has been banned so everyone is happy with limp legislation. Long term, I just think hunting will become obsolete.


----------



## teapot (26 November 2020)

TGM said:



			Do they publish the entire route?  I can understand letting foot followers know where each individual hunt starts and ends, or even certain vantage parts where they can watch from the road, but knowing the whole route does take some of the fun and uncertainty out of it, plus runs the risk of pedestrian 'spectators' crossing the route that the quarry have taken and disrupting the scent.  Which is why our local pack don't do it.
		
Click to expand...

Yup, a friend follows them and she showed me the OS map marked with every route, and where trails started/finished, for one of the days she followed on. It did seem a tad too 'organised'...


----------



## Tiddlypom (26 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			This current scandal which revolves around less than probably 2% (I haven't calculated it actually but have read all of both transcripts) of the words spoken is just another attack by a bunch of well funded vigilantes who have taken those words and phrases out of context and served them up on a plate for those that want such delicacies
		
Click to expand...

I didn’t realise that diluting incriminating statements in amongst more mundane utterings was a valid defence .

I am not a well funded vigilante and I don’t know any, but I am quite capable of reading those transcripts and coming to my own conclusions. I am surprised  that you do not recognise that those who trail hunt, legally or not, have been completely stuffed by the Hunting Office mess up.



southerncomfort said:



			I once had a conversation with a huntsman who pointed out a copse that had been planted by them 'to encourage the foxes to breed'.

😒
		
Click to expand...

Now that is not as mad as it seems. Pre ban, the fox population and the countryside were managed in order to provide healthy foxes to hunt. A lot of good was done year round in order for the pre ban hunts to enjoy their sport - many would say that was done for abhorrent reasons, but nevertheless IMHO the foxes that didn’t get caught by the hunt lived better lives than when it is a free for all.

Yes, that is a real disconnect 🤔. Fox hunting was of its time, but that time has gone and I have no patience with those who have been deliberately flouting the law at any time since the Hunting Act came in.


----------



## palo1 (26 November 2020)

hollyandivy123 said:



			Palo 1......using fox smell to run a trail was always going to be a problem, retraining the fox hounds to follow another scent would have been a more forward thinking approach............as you have to train the foxhounds to follow the fox scent in the first place through pack behaviour it would not be to difficult thing to consider, giving the length of the ban on fox hunting to date
		
Click to expand...

I agree with this of course but I wasn't involved in drawing up the conditions of the Hunting Act which is a dreadful piece of legislation in many ways.


----------



## palo1 (26 November 2020)

Tiddlypom said:



			The National Trust have now joined Forestry England in pausing trail hunting on their land.

_"...we have taken the decision to pause trail-hunting on National Trust land and will not be granting any new licences for the remainder of the season. We do not currently have a date when this will be reviewed."_

Click to expand...

This isn't surprising at all.  The National Trust have been very ambivalent about all kinds of hunting for several years.


----------



## palo1 (26 November 2020)

Tiddlypom said:



			I didn’t realise that diluting incriminating statements in amongst more mundane utterings was a valid defence .

I am not a well funded vigilante and I don’t know any, but I am quite capable of reading those transcripts and coming to my own conclusions. I am surprised  that you do not recognise that those who trail hunt, legally or not, have been completely stuffed by the Hunting Office mess up.

Now that is not as mad as it seems. Pre ban, the fox population and the countryside were managed in order to provide healthy foxes to hunt. A lot of good was done year round in order for the pre ban hunts to enjoy their sport - many would say that was done for abhorrent reasons, but nevertheless IMHO the foxes that didn’t get caught by the hunt lived better lives than when it is a free for all.

Yes, that is a real disconnect 🤔. Fox hunting was of its time, but that time has gone and I have no patience with those who have been deliberately flouting the law at any time since the Hunting Act came in.
		
Click to expand...

I am sure you are not personally a well-funded vigilante! I was referring to LACS who are happy to support individuals and groups who are most certainly vigilantes and with no genuine animal rights agenda. The police and home office have rightly identified them as extremists who pose a significant danger.


----------



## scruffyponies (26 November 2020)

I'm not going to wade in to the debate, except to observe that my experience of hunting people, privately, and in private online spaces, is that they are amongst the most polite, inclusive, welcoming and kind I have ever met.  Left to their own devices they spend most of their time sharing soppy pictures of horses and doggies.

Those who think they are 'bloodthirsty toffs' should examine their own prejudices.


----------



## Annagain (26 November 2020)

Hunting's not for me - I'm not brave enough and the thought of galloping in a group and not being able to stop, let alone having to jump whatever's in my way, makes me go all wobbly legged, even when sitting down!  I took my old boy drag hunting (in the pre-ban days) and 3 or 4 times was enough for me to decide no thank you. It didn't help that he got progressively more excited each time to the point that we spent 90% of the last time we went rearing, plunging to pull the reins out of my hands and tanking off!

I get the need to control the fox population but don't think hunting is an efficient way to do that. One man with a gun and maybe a couple of dogs against 40 people on horseback, another 20 on foot, and a pack of dogs? It doesn't compare really in terms of time, resources, damage to land and logistics. A hunt can only hunt a piece of land once or twice a season, a man with a gun can go out several times a week. In terms of the humanity of it, I know a bad shot can cause suffering but I think the difference is there isn't an intention to cause suffering with a gun, the intention is to kill outright and anything else is accidental (although I have no idea how frequent bad shots are). With hunting, the intention was always to chase a fox to the point of exhaustion and then allow the dogs to rip it apart.


----------



## Annagain (26 November 2020)

duplicate


----------



## palo1 (26 November 2020)

scruffyponies said:



			I'm not going to wade in to the debate, except to observe that my experience of hunting people, privately, and in private online spaces, is that they are amongst the most polite, inclusive, welcoming and kind I have ever met.  Left to their own devices they spend most of their time sharing soppy pictures of horses and doggies.

Those who think they are 'bloodthirsty toffs' should examine their own prejudices.
		
Click to expand...

Probably the most sensible observation on this thread!!


----------



## ycbm (26 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			This current scandal which revolves around less than probably 2% (I haven't calculated it actually but have read all of both transcripts) of the words spoken is just another attack by a bunch of well funded vigilantes who have taken those words and phrases out of context and served them up on a plate for those that want such delicacies.
		
Click to expand...


Please explain how it's possible to take out of context advice to use two different phones,  one to compare notes (transcript actually says 'boast about') about the fun you've had and the other to organise and manage the meet,  with only that phone to be given to the police in case of an investigation?


----------



## Tiddlypom (26 November 2020)

United Utilities are also suspending trail hunting on their land until the police/CPS investigation is complete.

https://www.unitedutilities.com/corporate/Trail-hunting-on-our-land/


----------



## palo1 (26 November 2020)

ycbm said:



			Please explain how it's possible to take out of context advice to use two different phones,  one to compare notes (transcript actually says 'boast about') about the fun you've had and the other to organise and manage the meet,  with only that phone to be given to the police in case of an investigation?
		
Click to expand...

I don't see much point in engaging with you on this one ycbm but the point is that if you are going to film, with a phone, the activities of sabs you would not ever use a phone that had any personal information on as it is quite possible for that phone to be grabbed by a saboteur/anti and then you would be extremely vulnerable as would your friends, family and connections. Remember, hunt saboteurs have more form and convictions for violence and intimidation than hunts do for illegal hunting.   As for the 'boasting' about the fun you have had - I guess many people tell tall hunting tales - the depth and width of the ditch you jumped, how you managed to get your own back on so and so who shut the gate on you last week etc etc.  There is usually a great deal of joking, laughing, gossip and fun on the hunting field that you would not want others privy to - and people say things about other folk in the heat of the moment that could be utterly mortifying in the cold light of day too!! I know that you will be imagining that people will be 'boasting' about illegal activities etc etc but really??? do you honestly think that is truly likely?  I have NEVER heard anyone boasting about that sort of thing at all. Your imagination and desire to think the worst, without actual specific evidence is running away with you.


----------



## ycbm (26 November 2020)

The transcript  was nothing to do with having personal information the phone Palo. It was advice not to allow the police to see an exchange of communication "boasting about" the hunting.  

Yes, I think it's very likely people boasted about the runs they had out illegal hunting.  I think illegal hunting was happening much more than you are prepared to accept.  It was rife  in my area (same as TP's),  so much so that when the drag I went with folded,  I could not trail hunt within a reasonable traveling distance with any confidence of staying within the law.  

I think you are in denial.  
.


----------



## palo1 (26 November 2020)

ycbm said:



			The transcript  was nothing to do with having personal information the phone Palo. It was advice not to allow the police to see an exchange of communication "boasting about" the hunting. 

Yes, I think it's very likely people boasted about the runs they had out illegal hunting.  I think illegal hunting was happening much more than you are prepared to accept.  It was rife  in my area (same as TP's),  so much so that when the drag I went with folded,  I could not trail hunt within a reasonable traveling distance with any confidence of staying within the law. 

I think you are in denial. 
.
		
Click to expand...

Ok. I have read the transcripts too, in full and listened to/watched the webinar footage.


----------



## GoldenWillow (26 November 2020)

My personal experience with our local hunt is that they do not make any pretence of laying and following a trail as evidenced by going through my field, land that they certainly didn't have permission to be on or any of the adjoining land in a block of around 30 acres. It still makes me furious to think of it years on.


----------



## Tiddlypom (26 November 2020)

Palo, it is clear that your hunting means a lot to you, but I do not know if your local pack does indeed trail hunt or if it just pretends to. All packs say they hunt legally...

Trespass was very common in these parts for many years, too. Better now as they have gone legit.

I’ve related before how my equine vet hid in an outhouse as her farmer husband ranted at the hunt for crossing the part of his land that they had specifically been asked not to cross. Some of her clients were in the field...

Local farm had many injured cows and milk yield was down for weeks after part of the field crossed land they should not have been on, bringing down fencing and mixing milking and non milking cows. Very little to no apology given.

Re facilitating the killing of pets - hounds deliberately put into a piece of overgrown waste ground to thin out the feral cats while local mad cat woman looks on and wails - was told this by a hunt follower. Ok, these cats weren’t pets as such, but getting hounds to think that cats are fair game is not a great idea.

We all knew that some hunts were flouting the law and were hunting illegally, but the extent of the issue and how it is orchestrated from the top down is breathtaking.


----------



## L&M (26 November 2020)

This is why the Hunting Act has been such a disaster - either ban it or not, rather than creating such a stupid and unworkable act.

What worries me more is once hunting is banned properly, the antis will then move onto racing, shooting and fishing, and the impact on the rural economy will be devastating, with the country way of life as we know it becoming extinct. Country estates will no longer be viable and more and more land will be sold off for housing, with livestock farmers being increasingly demonised.

I also find it sad that a publication called the 'Horse and Hound' (the clue is in the name) has more activity on the forum from anti's than pro's. I wonder how many people on this forum enjoy 'fun rides' as the majority will disappear as more often than not organised by local packs?

Yes I do hunt and am not a 'blood thirsty toff' - I have a hairy cob, am an animal lover and make a living caring for people with dementia.

I feel very saddened by the current situation, as a few idiots at the MFHA could have just ruined things for the packs that have tried to abide by the law.


----------



## Wishfilly (26 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			I don't see much point in engaging with you on this one ycbm but the point is that if you are going to film, with a phone, the activities of sabs you would not ever use a phone that had any personal information on as it is quite possible for that phone to be grabbed by a saboteur/anti and then you would be extremely vulnerable as would your friends, family and connections. Remember, hunt saboteurs have more form and convictions for violence and intimidation than hunts do for illegal hunting.   As for the 'boasting' about the fun you have had - I guess many people tell tall hunting tales - the depth and width of the ditch you jumped, how you managed to get your own back on so and so who shut the gate on you last week etc etc.  There is usually a great deal of joking, laughing, gossip and fun on the hunting field that you would not want others privy to - and people say things about other folk in the heat of the moment that could be utterly mortifying in the cold light of day too!! I know that you will be imagining that people will be 'boasting' about illegal activities etc etc but really??? do you honestly think that is truly likely?  I have NEVER heard anyone boasting about that sort of thing at all. Your imagination and desire to think the worst, without actual specific evidence is running away with you.
		
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but if anyone is taking things out of context, I would say it is you. It was very clear that the having two phones was in reference to illegal activity. 

"So, if you’re in kennels and the police turn up, they can come in and deal with you for the offence, they can search the kennels and if there’s a computer there that they think there’s evidence on, they will seize it. Similarly, they will seize mobile phones and things like that again, looking for evidence.  So something for you hunt staff and terriermen, trail layers and everybody to consider, if you’re recording evidence for the Hunting Act, trail laying, whatever, don’t use the same phones or anything you’ve been using for social media and bragging about what you’ve been doing out hunting because if the police get hold of it, you’ll get both sides of it. "

The whole section is about what to do if you are accused of a crime. 

For example, this section comes not long after:

"The other thing, there’s no such thing as a friendly chat with the police. Everything is on the record, if you make a voluntary statement they will use it. They will caution you before they question you so they tell you, ‘you don’t have to answer any questions but they will use anything you say in court’ but if you voluntarily tell them something tell them something they will use that as well. "

To be clear, I think it is good for people to know their rights in law BUT I think it is very clear from the context that the speaker believes some people will have been involved in illegal activity. 

It's on page 17/18 of this transcript, if anyone wants to read the whole thing: https://www.huntsabs.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Video-2-Transcript.pdf


----------



## Wishfilly (26 November 2020)

FWIW, my local hunt have a had a bit of a shocker of a season so far- the hounds nearly caused a pile up on a major A road a few weeks back, and in a separate incident, they lost control of their hounds which then chased a pet dog (who, fortunately, was able to escape them).


----------



## Tiddlypom (26 November 2020)

L&M said:



			I also find it sad that a publication called the 'Horse and Hound' (the clue is in the name) has more activity on the forum from anti's than pro's.
		
Click to expand...

But what do you class as an anti?

Anyone who thinks that hunts should indeed trail hunt, and not flout the law and fox hunt? Shouldn’t that be all of us?


----------



## Michen (26 November 2020)

Tiddlypom said:



			But what do you class as an anti?

Anyone who thinks that hunts should indeed trail hunt, and not flout the law and fox hunt? Shouldn’t that be all of us?
		
Click to expand...

There are antis and there are people who don balaclavas and are happy to scare or upset animals in their “cause”.  I do hope there are none of those on the forum, though sadly I suspect there are, they are most unpleasant and sad individuals. 

I will never forget hacking Boggle back along a road, with my ankle dangling and clearly broken with the antis, sabs, whatever you want to call them revving the engine of their 4WD so far up his arse they almost bumped his hocks. All dressed in black with their faces covered. Completely happy to risk injuring my horse. 

Anyone, that’s an entirely separate conversation from the purpose of this thread, I’ve yet to read the transcript but will do so this week.


----------



## Sandstone1 (26 November 2020)

Michen said:



			There are antis and there are people who don balaclavas and are happy to scare or upset animals in their “cause”.  I do hope there are none of those on the forum, though sadly I suspect there are, they are most unpleasant and sad individuals.

I will never forget hacking Boggle back along a road, with my ankle dangling and clearly broken with the “antis” revving the engine of their 4WD so far up his arse they almost bumped his hocks.

Anyone, that’s an entirely separate conversation from the purpose of this thread, I’ve yet to read the transcript but will do so this week.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry to have to state the obvious here but what do you think the hunt is doing if not being happy to scare or upset animals?  Pretty sure the fox is fairly scared and upset when its running for its life from a pack of hounds followed by a large group on horseback!


----------



## Tiddlypom (26 November 2020)

L&M said:



			I feel very saddened by the current situation, as a few idiots at the MFHA could have just ruined things for the packs that have tried to abide by the law.
		
Click to expand...

Packs who have tried to abide by the law - and there are some - are going to get stuffed too, sadly.

There were 155 attendees at the second webinar, as the chair mentions the number when he winds the session up. It was not a small group exchanging unwise advice.


----------



## shortstuff99 (26 November 2020)

I'm not sure how anyone can be an animal lover and want to kill animals? I get the fun in doing legal hunting and drag hunting etc, but what fun is there in knowing an animal is chased, terrified and then ripped apart alive?

I don't hunt, as I said before I tried it and a more rude, unwelcoming and frankly horrible bunch of people I could've hoped to meet. 

However, I am not against fully compliant hunting and I'm not sure why the community doesn't do more to keep it compliant.


----------



## utter-nutter (26 November 2020)

L&M said:



			This is why the Hunting Act has been such a disaster - either ban it or not, rather than creating such a stupid and unworkable act.

What worries me more is once hunting is banned properly, the antis will then move onto racing, shooting and fishing, and the impact on the rural economy will be devastating, with the country way of life as we know it becoming extinct. Country estates will no longer be viable and more and more land will be sold off for housing, with livestock farmers being increasingly demonised.

I also find it sad that a publication called the 'Horse and Hound' (the clue is in the name) has more activity on the forum from anti's than pro's. I wonder how many people on this forum enjoy 'fun rides' as the majority will disappear as more often than not organised by local packs?

Yes I do hunt and am not a 'blood thirsty toff' - I have a hairy cob, am an animal lover and make a living caring for people with dementia.

I feel very saddened by the current situation, as a few idiots at the MFHA could have just ruined things for the packs that have tried to abide by the law.
		
Click to expand...



^ agree 100% with this.... once they've done 'finishing off' hunting, i can see other rural sports getting targeted....surely importing and raising 10000's of pheasants purely to be shot is more 'barbaric' and unethical.....just an opinion


----------



## paddy555 (26 November 2020)

utter-nutter said:



			^ agree 100% with this.... once they've done 'finishing off' hunting, i can see other rural sports getting targeted....surely importing and raising 10000's of pheasants purely to be shot is more 'barbaric' and unethical.....just an opinion
		
Click to expand...

 yes please, we can only be hopeful.   no shooting would make my Saturdays.


----------



## monkeymad (26 November 2020)

I can remember seeing a clip on the BBC years ago when a I was a child, where a hunt had been filmed and one of the hunt members was holding a fox by the tail and he threw it into the pack of hounds, whilst the rest of the hunt clapped. I still see that as a turning point in my life, when I realised that some people actually found pleasure in causing other living creatures fear and pain. I will be happy to see an end to this outdated tradition.


----------



## ycbm (26 November 2020)

Shooting has to go, eventually.   Breeding tens of thousands of birds to be shot for the pleasure of it, when many will be alive when they hit the floor, retrieved by a dog and then have their necks broken to finish them off. In any other context that would be a criminal offence. 
.


----------



## paddi22 (26 November 2020)

ycbm said:



			Shooting has to go, eventually.   Breeding tens of thousands of birds to be shot for the pleasure of it, when many will be alive when they hit the floor, retrieved by a dog and then have their necks broken to finish them off. In any other context that would be a criminal offence. 
.
		
Click to expand...

yep it seems crazy to allow it just because it's gentrified. if it was a group of teenagers on a housing estate with guns setting their dogs on chickens or the like, there would be uproar.


----------



## minesadouble (26 November 2020)

Oh well just to tip the balance we have plenty lads from council estates who regularly drive through our fences to lamp in our fields. The Police aren't interested despite the fact the perpetrators are hardly 'gentry'.


----------



## minesadouble (26 November 2020)

Oh, they did show a little bit of interest a couple of weeks ago when a bloke hit one of their dogs which was running on the public highway at 12.30 am. The driver was then dragged out of his car, beaten and left with a broken jaw.

The police then had the audacity to knock on our door and ask if we had any idea who it might be 'errrrr probably one of the people we gave up calling you about as you had absolutely zero interest' was my answer.


----------



## rextherobber (26 November 2020)

ycbm said:



			Shooting has to go, eventually.   Breeding tens of thousands of birds to be shot for the pleasure of it, when many will be alive when they hit the floor, retrieved by a dog and then have their necks broken to finish them off. In any other context that would be a criminal offence. 
.
		
Click to expand...

This. It's the huge number of injured birds which are just left to die a slow lingering death, which is so upsetting. When I was a child, there was always concerted efforts made to do as you, say, mop up the injured, but these days it seems more a case of just get off to the next drive and no thought given to any that aren't in the bag. A previous poster said they were worried if hunting was banned, "the antis" would move on to shooting, fishing etc. leading to basically the downfall of country estates. This need not be a bad thing, I think as with all things, change has happen, and the way estates and the countryside is used has to change with the times. (And it need not be used for housing, how about bike tracks and dog exercise fields and country trails... And surely hunts aren't the only people capable of organising a fun ride? Particularly as the land they are welcomed on seems to be ever shrinking...


----------



## utter-nutter (26 November 2020)

if many of these 'rural sports' were to go.. i could see the countryside and farms begun to be run in a more commercial like way, with farmers farming up headland and woodland that would be used as game cover. Obviously this doesn't apply to the giant commercial shoots that put many 10000 birds down, which obviously do run as a business, but more towards the small farm shoots that have a few days a each season and charge guns a little bit to cover costs. many farms try to make up profits with days shooting/fishing ect, i.e. things that work alongside farming, making the most of the land they have. Not always feasible to put in a bike track/dog walking field that can only be used in good ground conditions without livestock in the field!


----------



## utter-nutter (26 November 2020)

Sorry i don't mean to rant, I've just seen so many 'farmer' friends and friends of friends struggling now more than ever, these are good honest people, and against popular opinion not all of them are 'pro hunt', pro tory, definelty not 'Toffs'! everyone just loves to put people in a box! Whilst i am 'for' hunting..i totally understand whilst people are against it and do not at all condemn them for their own view, I'm not sure people are aware of the financial impact rural sports have on some peoples livelihoods and how for others it is a way of life. Personally think there are far worse things happening in world that peoples energy and money should be spent on! (HS2 for a start)


----------



## utter-nutter (26 November 2020)

rextherobber said:



			This. It's the huge number of injured birds which are just left to die a slow lingering death, which is so upsetting. When I was a child, there was always concerted efforts made to do as you, say, mop up the injured, but these days it seems more a case of just get off to the next drive and no thought given to any that aren't in the bag. A previous poster said they were worried if hunting was banned, "the antis" would move on to shooting, fishing etc. leading to basically the downfall of country estates. This need not be a bad thing, I think as with all things, change has happen, and the way estates and the countryside is used has to change with the times. (And it need not be used for housing, how about bike tracks and dog exercise fields and country trails... And surely hunts aren't the only people capable of organising a fun ride? Particularly as the land they are welcomed on seems to be ever shrinking...
		
Click to expand...


For the record the few shoots I've been on, every bird that has come down is collected whether its easy to find or not! Thankful i had a good dog. Obviously I cannot speak for every shoot


----------



## rextherobber (26 November 2020)

utter-nutter said:



			if many of these 'rural sports' were to go.. i could see the countryside and farms begun to be run in a more commercial like way, with farmers farming up headland and woodland that would be used as game cover. Obviously this doesn't apply to the giant commercial shoots that put many 10000 birds down, which obviously do run as a business, but more towards the small farm shoots that have a few days a each season and charge guns a little bit to cover costs. many farms try to make up profits with days shooting/fishing ect, i.e. things that work alongside farming, making the most of the land they have. Not always feasible to put in a bike track/dog walking field that can only be used in good ground conditions without livestock in the field!
		
Click to expand...

Farms and estates are already run in a commercial way, they have to be! (I was surprised that the pheasants were started this year, it seemed a huge gamble with the pandemic, and whether it pays off remains to be seen). Agree farmers are struggling, the weather alone has been a trail for the last couple of years.  Diversification is the way forward - who is to say in 20-30 years time we will be eating the amount of meat we are at the moment, climate change will play a part no doubt in the crops that are grown etc. It is an inescapable fact that people have more leisure time these days, and more people have transport, the countryside has be change to accommodate the fact that, like it or not, the world is changing. 
But this is all a bit off topic!


----------



## utter-nutter (26 November 2020)

rextherobber said:



			Farms and estates are already run in a commercial way, they have to be! (I was surprised that the pheasants were started this year, it seemed a huge gamble with the pandemic, and whether it pays off remains to be seen). Agree farmers are struggling, the weather alone has been a trail for the last couple of years.  Diversification is the way forward - who is to say in 20-30 years time we will be eating the amount of meat we are at the moment, climate change will play a part no doubt in the crops that are grown etc. It is an inescapable fact that people have more leisure time these days, and more people have transport, the countryside has be change to accommodate the fact that, like it or not, the world is changing.
But this is all a bit off topic!
		
Click to expand...


sorry should have been clearer, meant the smaller type farms, whose profit margins are a lot less and have less of a financial 'cushion' that larger landowners might have. But agree with you, diversification is key, and agree our eating habits need to change! (watch david attenbough documentary on netflix if of interest) the countryside needs to change, and people both urban and rural need to change with it!


----------



## SatansLittleHelper (27 November 2020)

The only type of "hunting" I have personally engaged with and actively participated in is falconry and hawking. Anything caught by the birds is then used to feed them with. Hunting any animal originated from a need to feed ourselves and animals...to do it for "fun" blows my brains. There is a certain mentality attached to this that I simply cannot relate to on any level.


----------



## blitznbobs (27 November 2020)

ycbm said:



			Shooting has to go, eventually.   Breeding tens of thousands of birds to be shot for the pleasure of it, when many will be alive when they hit the floor, retrieved by a dog and then have their necks broken to finish them off. In any other context that would be a criminal offence.
.
		
Click to expand...

Isn’t shooting the ultimate free range though? I’d rather commercial chicken farming went than shooting


----------



## Tiddlypom (27 November 2020)

minesadouble said:



			Oh well just to tip the balance we have plenty lads from council estates who regularly drive through our fences to lamp in our fields. The Police aren't interested despite the fact the perpetrators are hardly 'gentry'.
		
Click to expand...

We’ve got a Police Rural Crime Team now, and they are very on the ball about lamping etc.  It’s only a small team, but they do get themselves about the whole county.

This is a real step forward for us country bumpkins.


----------



## luckyoldme (27 November 2020)

minesadouble said:



			Oh well just to tip the balance we have plenty lads from council estates who regularly drive through our fences to lamp in our fields. The Police aren't interested despite the fact the perpetrators are hardly 'gentry'.
		
Click to expand...

That'll be those pesky little thugs from council estates again.


----------



## Tiddlypom (27 November 2020)

Another piece about the current hunting furore on last nights New at 10. It’s about 3 1/2 minutes long, so not just a snippet.
The issue has now been raised in Parliament.

https://fb.watch/20pRsZoQfu/

I know this clip is from a sab source, and I certainly don’t believe everything they post, but they are currently winning the social media battle by a country mile.


----------



## ycbm (27 November 2020)

blitznbobs said:



			Isn’t shooting the ultimate free range though? I’d rather commercial chicken farming went than shooting
		
Click to expand...

The birds aren't all eaten on the big commercial shoots,  BB. It used to be fairly easy for antis to find heaps of dumped birds but they are removed these days.  Not  many restaurants will serve a bird that might land it with compensation for remedial dentistry and  most modern diners wouldn't order it with a disclaimer for pellets being in it.  

And none of the commercial chicken farms would be allowed to breed for the meat market if the method of death was to pepper them with shot,  fetch the ones still alive with a dog and wring their necks.

I respect the activity is legal and makes a big contribution to the rural economy.  I'm not calling for a ban any time soon,  but it must eventually go,  it's completely unethical judged by modern animal welfare law.

FWIW fishing for sport is no better.  I think the two will go at the same time. I
This isn't a class thing.


----------



## suebou (27 November 2020)

Sorry ycbm, much of what you write is a generalisation. Our commercial shoot 10,000 pheasant, 5000 partridge, deer stalking, ducks...sends all meat to game dealers, unless wanted by the guns, keepers etc. Great care is taken to pick every bird, (I know, I’m doing it!) I know the origin and provenance of every bit of meat we eat over the winter season, which is important to me. It is incredibly healthy meat as well. This thread reinforces my family’s belief that our way of life is incredibly threatened and that people will not be happy until we are all eating highly processed meat from ‘factory ‘ farms.


----------



## ycbm (27 November 2020)

I'm glad your birds are sold,  SB, but that doesn't make the way they die acceptable.  I wouldn't feel that if you could guarantee a clean kill.  But your activity is causing a prolonged death to many birds,  a death which would be a criminal offence if it wasn't being done as part of a shoot.  

Sadly for you,  and I do mean that,  I think your family needs to plan for a future where mass shooting of birds bred to be shot as sport will not be legal.  
.


----------



## emilylou (27 November 2020)

ycbm said:



			The birds aren't all eaten on the big commercial shoots,  BB. It used to be fairly easy for antis to find heaps of dumped birds but they are removed these days.  Not  many restaurants will serve a bird that might land it with compensation for remedial dentistry and  most modern diners wouldn't order it with a disclaimer for pellets being in it. 

And none of the commercial chicken farms would be allowed to breed for the meat market if the method of death was to pepper them with shot,  fetch the ones still alive with a dog and wring their necks.

I respect the activity is legal and makes a big contribution to the rural economy.  I'm not calling for a ban any time soon,  but it must eventually go,  it's completely unethical judged by modern animal welfare law.

FWIW fishing for sport is no better.  I think the two will go at the same time. I
This isn't a class thing.
		
Click to expand...

If we are talking about the future of meat I don't know what you propose we all end up eating in the future? I am vegetarian so its not relevant to me, but personally I would much prefer to see an uptake of people eating wild raised and shot birds/large game, meaning that woodlands and moors would be considered an asset for a viable food source thus desired and protected spaces, and the increasing protection of our rivers for fisheries, allowing the whole ecosystem to thrive and in turn provide a viable food source for people. 

The main reason for catch and return fishing is that there is not enough stock to allow fishermen to take it, I am sure they would prefer to catch and eat it, if stocks were good enough. I am sure fishermen would invest and support increasing protections of our rivers to have more liberty to fish, meaning better environmental standards, local wild food and (hopefully) less polluting chicken farms.

Equally, I am much more tempted to eat a bird that has been raised truly free range, as game birds are, and has had the opportunity to live freely and exercise all natural behaviors to suffer only one bad day than I ever would be to eat any chicken raised in a shed without daylight.
I refuse to accept the status quo is the way forwards, hunting, shooting and fishing are from a time where people worked in harmony with the land and managed natural environments in a sustainable way and the way we are going currently is not working. We cannot continuously increase our food production, chop down trees and build houses. At some point it has to end and I really do think country sports have a valid place in a future that values the environment.


----------



## paddi22 (27 November 2020)

We do design work for a large company that supplies canteen food to offices worldwide at a high level and good quality. they are always predicting future trends for food so they can cater to what people want , and all their stuff coming down the line is based up a lot of  vegan, vegetarian and 'science foods' like lab grown meat. the surveys they do of the younger generation is showing a massive move away from meat.  it's just a different generation, they didn't grow up with the 'meat and two veg' my generation did. they regularly deliveroo ethnic foods, many of which don't even need meat due to the spices and flavour. they have a different awareness of food production, ethics in food  and a wider taste palette.


----------



## Nudibranch (27 November 2020)

scruffyponies said:



			I'm not going to wade in to the debate, except to observe that my experience of hunting people, privately, and in private online spaces, is that they are amongst the most polite, inclusive, welcoming and kind I have ever met.  Left to their own devices they spend most of their time sharing soppy pictures of horses and doggies.

Those who think they are 'bloodthirsty toffs' should examine their own prejudices.
		
Click to expand...

Bloodthirsty toffs maybe not. But inclusive, welcoming and kind? Absolutely not round here. That is an observation made as a hunt guest by the way and not just idle speculation.


----------



## southerncomfort (27 November 2020)

Tiddlypom said:



			We’ve got a Police Rural Crime Team now, and they are very on the ball about lamping etc.  It’s only a small team, but they do get themselves about the whole county.

This is a real step forward for us country bumpkins.
		
Click to expand...

Same here.  A couple of officers visited us to talk to us about rural crime.  They gave us an emergency number to call re: lamping/hare coursing, and an email address to report any other suspicious activity.


----------



## Equine_Dream (27 November 2020)

Sandstone1 said:



			Sorry to have to state the obvious here but what do you think the hunt is doing if not being happy to scare or upset animals?  Pretty sure the fox is fairly scared and upset when its running for its life from a pack of hounds followed by a large group on horseback!
		
Click to expand...

No one is saying any different but a tad hypocritical of self proclaimed devoted "animal lovers" who harass and intimidate those they accuse of harming animals (in many cases with no proof) only to do the same themselves. I've witnessed these people deliberately try and spook horses on slippery roads, screaming in terrified horses faces, kicking out at hounds....all in the name of animal welfare apparently.

I hold total respect for the opinion of those who disagree with hunting foxes. I hold no respect for these masked terrorists, as my experience has taught me their actions are nothing to do with the protection of animals.


----------



## Michen (27 November 2020)

Equine_Dream said:



			No one is saying any different but a tad hypocritical of self proclaimed devoted "animal lovers" who harass and intimidate those they accuse of harming animals (in many cases with no proof) only to do the same themselves. I've witnessed these people deliberately try and spook horses on slippery roads, screaming in terrified horses faces, kicking out at hounds....all in the name of animal welfare apparently.

I hold total respect for the opinion of those who disagree with hunting foxes. I hold no respect for these masked terrorists, as my experience has taught me their actions are nothing to do with the protection of animals.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks, I was half asleep to write a sensible reply last night.

Actually my horse was fine, but I found them very intimidating and scarey. I'd go as far to say as I felt more scared by them and on that road in that moment than being mugged in Nicaragua!

Horribly agressive.


----------



## rabatsa (27 November 2020)

A while ago there were a bunch of "antis" harrassing the local hunt, they had parked their minibus in someones entrance lane.  He went to talk to them about moving it and discovered that they were all students being paid £20 for the day.  He asked if they would go beating the following Saturday for £25 and yes, every single one of them abandoned being hunt sabs and became beaters for the winter.


----------



## Roasted Chestnuts (27 November 2020)

I’m more annoyed that the rabid hunt saboteurs have more to beat their ridiculous drum about animal cruelty ( despite the fact that they have caused deliberate harm to horse hound and man) to justify their abusive actions. I am neither pro nor anti hunt, no interest in it other than the galloping and jumping but I can do that in other ways, I just don’t like people who like who Use cruelty to justify more cruelty.

for the hunts that do hunt within the law with trail hunting and legal scents this may spell the end for them.


----------



## RHM (27 November 2020)

blitznbobs said:



			Isn’t shooting the ultimate free range though? I’d rather commercial chicken farming went than shooting
		
Click to expand...

Exactly! I am a shit vegetarian in that 99% of the time I don’t eat meat but when the local estates marksman cull some deer I will eat that. Surely that should be what we are aiming for in meat production? Completely free range, and killed by a professional while they are in their own environment?! I have no qualms with meat eating at all but the way animals are raised and treated to get to our plates is completely barbaric most of the time.


----------



## Clodagh (27 November 2020)

SatansLittleHelper said:



			The only type of "hunting" I have personally engaged with and actively participated in is falconry and hawking. Anything caught by the birds is then used to feed them with. Hunting any animal originated from a need to feed ourselves and animals...to do it for "fun" blows my brains. There is a certain mentality attached to this that I simply cannot relate to on any level.
		
Click to expand...

So does the falconer not enjoy himself? Surely if he wanted a hawk just as a pet he would just sit it on a perch and feed it frozen chicks? I do object to something being cruel if it is enjoyable and not cruel if it isn't.


----------



## JulesRules (27 November 2020)

Just my two pence worth,..
I just think that regardless of anything else the hunts that are still fox hunting are missing a trick and tarrring the legal hunts with their brush. This is 2020, the older traditional generation won't be around much longer and to preserve the history of the hunt and be sucessful financially they need to move with the times to attract the younger generation...and that means hunting legally and ethically and making themselves attractive to a bigger market. Tbere are plenty of people who would love a day out riding in the countryside but want nothing to do with killing animals for fun. The hunt could still offer farmers a humane fox culling service as a sideline. 

In terms of shooting, I don't actually have an issue with it as long as again it's done ethically and the meat enters the food chain. Licencing should take this into account to force the big guns to do this. I know some people have an issue with a poor shot and a bird then having it's neck wrung,  but surely a lovely free range life and a slightly sticky end is far preferable to a chicken raised in a high intensity environment with a so called humane end.


----------



## BeckyFlowers (27 November 2020)

RHM said:



			Exactly! I am a shit vegetarian in that 99% of the time I don’t eat meat but when the local estates marksman cull some deer I will eat that. Surely that should be what we are aiming for in meat production? Completely free range, and killed by a professional while they are in their own environment?! I have no qualms with meat eating at all but the way animals are raised and treated to get to our plates is completely barbaric most of the time.
		
Click to expand...

I completely agree with this and although I am 100% vegetarian so I wouldn't eat it anyway, I would much rather see meat production happen like this, where the animal is ultimately dispatched by a fully trained marksman.  I think the biggest problem people have with hunting and shooting is the apparent enjoyment that large groups of people seem to get out of killing sentient beings.  Killing animals should be done with compassion and respect for the animal and the land, in my opinion.  Not chased half way across the countryside and ripped apart by a pack of dogs so a bunch of horse riders can have a jolly time.  If hunting really was about controlling the fox population, why does it need to involve paying members of the public to join in?  Why can't it be done with a few of the estate staff members or trained marksmen?


----------



## Clodagh (27 November 2020)

RHM said:



			Exactly! I am a shit vegetarian in that 99% of the time I don’t eat meat but when the local estates marksman cull some deer I will eat that. Surely that should be what we are aiming for in meat production? Completely free range, and killed by a professional while they are in their own environment?! I have no qualms with meat eating at all but the way animals are raised and treated to get to our plates is completely barbaric most of the time.
		
Click to expand...

There are other posts on this subject now, but tbh I completely agree. Shooting is a harvest, of a sorts, watch a video of a broiler farm catch up, transport, slaughter and process and think would you rather be a pheasant?
We are a small farm with a small shoot, our whole farm is managed for the beneift of wildlife, bar foxes, magpies and mink. Apart from that everything gets to fill its boots. We have several species of owl, including barn, a thriving population of grey partridge that we reintroduced because we can, myriad hares and so many small brown jobs. We have plovers, redshank, fieldfare. We have buzzards and kites, kestrels and corvids... I could go on and on. If we stopped shooting someone higher up suggested it would be nice to make it accessible for cyclists and walkers - how would that help ground nesting birds? Leverets? 
I pick up on several larger shoots and we go to such lengths to find any injured birds. (and at home of course). You say the guns move on to the next drive, yes they do, but two or three pickers up will be sweeping the far hedges for a bird. I usually miss lunch and go home after dark.
Every single bird on every shoot I attend is eaten, most by humans and the not so good by animals.


----------



## Clodagh (27 November 2020)

When I used to hunt, the whole point of the day was the hounds. We are in cold scenting plough country, and watching an old hound work his way across a field and then the pack joining in, it is indescribable. 
I love dog work, the same that many of you on here enjoy schooling your horses. Seeing something do, well, what it was bred to do is the whole thing to me.
Working with my dogs to find an injured bird, and seeing them use their instincts, knowledge and training to do so gives me the same thrill as a dressage rider feeling their horse really engage and work with you.


----------



## ihatework (27 November 2020)

rabatsa said:



			A while ago there were a bunch of "antis" harrassing the local hunt, they had parked their minibus in someones entrance lane.  He went to talk to them about moving it and discovered that they were all students being paid £20 for the day.  He asked if they would go beating the following Saturday for £25 and yes, every single one of them abandoned being hunt sabs and became beaters for the winter.
		
Click to expand...

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣


----------



## minesadouble (27 November 2020)

luckyoldme said:



			That'll be those pesky little thugs from council estates again.
		
Click to expand...

It sure is because I recognise the car and where it parks 👌


----------



## Clodagh (27 November 2020)

Tiddlypom said:



			We’ve got a Police Rural Crime Team now, and they are very on the ball about lamping etc.  It’s only a small team, but they do get themselves about the whole county.

This is a real step forward for us country bumpkins.
		
Click to expand...

I called 999 5 times last weekend, we are under seige here. Our rural team is great, supporting us toffs as they do.


----------



## honetpot (27 November 2020)

Nudibranch said:



			Bloodthirsty toffs maybe not. But inclusive, welcoming and kind? Absolutely not round here. That is an observation made as a hunt guest by the way and not just idle speculation.
		
Click to expand...

When you send your child hunting, if they off lead rein you are basically relying on the  field to keep an eye on them for you, you can try and follow by car, but once they are across a couple of fields, it pretty much impossible. Perhaps we have been lucky, they went out with several hunts as PC guests, but people were lovely to my children, it taught them manners and the ability to speak to adults as an equal, with no anxious mum.
There used to be a lot of standing about, and perhaps a small badly clipped 11.2 pony is seen as cute, but they were always nice to them, even when they became teenagers.
 The thing about hunting is if you have a horse that is well behaved in company, and can stand still, you can just about take anything out, no one is really looking at what you ride, or how you ride. All our equines have been bargain basement, hunted from the field types with fluffy legs, not the super purpose kept hunter that I used to look after.


----------



## minesadouble (27 November 2020)

No such luck for us at all. The Police have no interest at all.
To be perfectly honest it's not the laming I object to, it's the damage they cause to the fences and crops with their vehicles. 
If they came on foot it would be tolerable at least.


----------



## Clodagh (27 November 2020)

minesadouble said:



			No such luck for us at all. The Police have no interest at all.
To be perfectly honest it's not the laming I object to, it's the damage they cause to the fences and crops with their vehicles.
If they came on foot it would be tolerable at least.
		
Click to expand...

We have spent a fortune on gates and digging ditches, the gates get nicked periodically but in between times they are on foot or on next doors land, but we do stick together.


----------



## rextherobber (27 November 2020)

At the end of the day, pheasant will never rival chicken as a meat, because it doesn't taste as nice. Not all shoots clear up the injured, or ensure all the meat enters the food chain,  ( in my area, you literally  annot give pheasant away!) Some hunt supporters are nice, some are not, some antis are nice, some are not. Bottom line is some hunts blatantly break the law, and the time has come for this to be addressed


----------



## paddy555 (27 November 2020)

BeckyFlowers said:



			Not chased half way across the countryside and ripped apart by a pack of dogs so a bunch of horse riders can have a jolly time.  If hunting really was about controlling the fox population, why does it need to involve paying members of the public to join in?  Why can't it be done with a few of the estate staff members or trained marksmen?
		
Click to expand...

This. 
I've often wondered why it needed so many horse riders to "assist" in fox control.


----------



## paddy555 (27 November 2020)

Equine_Dream said:



			No one is saying any different but a tad hypocritical of self proclaimed devoted "animal lovers" who harass and intimidate those they accuse of harming animals (in many cases with no proof) only to do the same themselves. I've witnessed these people deliberately try and spook horses on slippery roads, screaming in terrified horses faces, kicking out at hounds....all in the name of animal welfare apparently.
		
Click to expand...

as far as I can see both sides are as bad. I cannot stand either the hunters or the antis. 
The harassment I have seen came from the hunt towards the antis. One was a lone anti in a very large field with no one near for a couple of hundred yards. 2 mounted riders were beating the shit out of him. On another occasion I found an anti lying by the side of the road covered in blood. No idea who started that one but inflicting that much damage by either side is not on IMHO.


----------



## palo1 (27 November 2020)

paddy555 said:



			This.
I've often wondered why it needed so many horse riders to "assist" in fox control.

Click to expand...

Posts like this just reveal the level of ignorance there is about hunting   The horse riders do not 'assist' - except very occasionally and in a very secondary way for example to stop hounds heading where they shouldn't due to danger or lack of welcome but they are simply NOT necessary. The horse riders are there because they are following the hounds. The hound work is the 'sport' and watching hounds work really IS extraordinary especially if they have a good huntsman to work them.  Houndwork has remained the sport that riders follow regardless of whether the fox is a legal quarry or not.  Pre-ban obviously there was a determination to kill foxes, post ban the hound work is the focus and the reason why an animal based scent is laid as naturally as possible is so that hounds can continue to be suitably challenged.  The urine of a huntsman (as often used by drag hounds) just isn't the same- it has very different scenting properties to an animal based scent and provides much less of a challenge for hounds.


----------



## palo1 (27 November 2020)

SatansLittleHelper said:



			The only type of "hunting" I have personally engaged with and actively participated in is falconry and hawking. Anything caught by the birds is then used to feed them with. Hunting any animal originated from a need to feed ourselves and animals...to do it for "fun" blows my brains. There is a certain mentality attached to this that I simply cannot relate to on any level.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry but you are using one animal to hunt and kill another - that is no different to pre-ban hunting with hounds. Fox hunting (the killing of the fox) was NOT the fun bit - the FUN is watching hounds work - as you enjoyed your hawk working and for the horse riders to cross the country as best they could.


----------



## paddy555 (27 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			Posts like this just reveal the level of ignorance there is about hunting   The horse riders do not 'assist' - except very occasionally and in a very secondary way for example to stop hounds heading where they shouldn't due to danger or lack of welcome but they are simply NOT necessary. The horse riders are there because they are following the hounds. The hound work is the 'sport' and watching hounds work really IS extraordinary especially if they have a good huntsman to work them.  Houndwork has remained the sport that riders follow regardless of whether the fox is a legal quarry or not.  Pre-ban obviously there was a determination to kill foxes, post ban the hound work is the focus and the reason why an animal based scent is laid as naturally as possible is so that hounds can continue to be suitably challenged.  The urine of a huntsman (as often used by drag hounds) just isn't the same- it has very different scenting properties to an animal based scent and provides much less of a challenge for hounds.
		
Click to expand...

the word "assist" was used very sarcastically. It was  not used to infer the field were necessary to the activity.
I am not ignorant about hunting, I have been surrounded by them for the past 40 years  with their hounds on my land without permission.I can see why that happened pre ban but not sure why post ban  if they are following a scent which has not been laid on my fields.

I know exactly how superfluous the followers are to the activity of fox control. That was the point being made in the post I was replying to.


----------



## Clodagh (27 November 2020)

paddy555 said:



			I know exactly how superfluous the followers are to the activity of fox control. That was the point being made in the post I was replying to.
		
Click to expand...

They aren’t superfluous though, they are financing the whole shebang.


----------



## Tiddlypom (27 November 2020)

The field are there to pay towards the running costs of the hunt with their subscriptions and cap fees.

No field = no income.


----------



## paddy555 (27 November 2020)

Clodagh said:



			They aren’t superfluous though, they are financing the whole shebang.
		
Click to expand...

 well I suppose I have to give you that.


----------



## Sandstone1 (27 November 2020)

There are good and bad on both sides.  Antis and hunters, but the fact remains that hunting foxes is illegal and it is going on.  Anyone that says otherwise is either deluded or lying.   
Its a bit hypocritical to accuse antis of scaring animals when out chasing a animal to its death.
Im not getting in to a long drawn out argument here.   I have seen hunting from both sides, born and bred in the countryside, have owned livestock including poultry killed by a fox.  Owned and ridden horses and have been hunting but I cant morally agree with hunting im afraid.  yes its a tradition, yes its a country sport but things change and hunting is against the law and like it or not it cant go on in this day and age.  Its not even a good way of pest control. If you are pro hunting just be honest about why you go.


----------



## luckyoldme (27 November 2020)

minesadouble said:



			It sure is because I recognise the car and where it parks 👌
		
Click to expand...

But what's the relevance ?
Why is it necessary to say they are from a council estate?


----------



## Equine_Dream (27 November 2020)

The pack I hunt with are a legitimate trail hunt (I know I know they ALL say that). I wouldn't personally attend if I thought for a second that they were in fact hunting fox. While I hold mixed views it wouldn't sit well with me personally. I also know many of the landowners who allow the hunt on their land would not do so if they caught a wiff of illegal hunting.
Yet we have been subject to harassment by antis frequently. Despite the complete lack of evidence of illegal hunting and the openness which our hunt operates. The sabs are not interested. Yes those hunts who illegally hunt foxes are clearly wrong but so are the sabs who cause distress and harm to one animal under the pretence of protecting another are no better. Sabs have no right to take the moral high ground in this regard.
There is most definitely right and wrong on both sides but the smugness and righteousness of sabs does get up my nose I'll admit, especially when they are no better than the illegal hunts.


----------



## palo1 (27 November 2020)

Is it possible for people to read this paper from 2018 (revised from 2009) ?  https://vawm.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Hunting-Wildlife-Moral-Issue-March-2018.pdf It is from the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management and regards the moral issue around hunting and foxes in particular. Other studies consider a range of species management strategies too, including the second paper here: https://vawm.org.uk/animal-welfare/

Most of us believe that vets intrinsically have an objective and educated view of animal welfare issues and the VAWM is open to all vets with an interest in wildlife.  I think that anyone who has an interest in hunting or wildlife should read this; there is no 'counter' paper produced by wildlife vets or vets at all on this subject nor are the conclusions in these papers challenged by any science or veterinary organisation.


----------



## Nasicus (27 November 2020)

luckyoldme said:



			But what's the relevance ?
Why is it necessary to say they are from a council estate?
		
Click to expand...





			Oh well just to tip the balance we have plenty lads from council estates who regularly drive through our fences to lamp in our fields. The Police aren't interested despite the fact the perpetrators are hardly 'gentry'.
		
Click to expand...

Said in juxtaposition to the idea that only the toffs/rich enjoy hunting/bloodsports, and that the police aren't interest because of their 'rich' status.


----------



## paddy555 (27 November 2020)

I read 2 pages of the first link, Palo. Then I gave  up. Written supporting fox hunting clearly by pro hunters. The para below did put me off a bit. Nothing to stop them coming to the countryside if they wish to observe wildlife. Many of us live in the countryside and see this on a daily basis. On the day after hunting we also see the damage their horses hooves have done especially to open moorland and grass verges as they have charged around.. 

Hunting people are in an advantaged posion to observe changes in wildlife demographics by virtue of their numbers, their widespread distribuon and their commitment.
I have to say that most of the vets that I have had usually hide if the hunt is around. Those are the good vets who have a serious interest in animal welfare. They find themselves in the position of having to support their clients, some of whom hunt, by virtue of their employment. If I asked the ones who have been friends over the years I know what they would really like to answer. 

I don't know were fox hunting comes into any of this at all. It is banned. People now have  the opportunity to go for rides in the countryside trail riding. Perhaps the problem is the word HUNT. It is no longer a hunt, they are not hunting anything. They keep dogs who follow a scent and give their riders a day's outing. Perhaps they should be called a trail riding club to remove any suggestions of hunting. The public may like that better.


----------



## palo1 (27 November 2020)

paddy555 said:



			I read 2 pages of the first link, Palo. Then I gave  up. Written supporting fox hunting clearly by pro hunters. The para below did put me off a bit. Nothing to stop them coming to the countryside if they wish to observe wildlife. Many of us live in the countryside and see this on a daily basis. On the day after hunting we also see the damage their horses hooves have done especially to open moorland and grass verges as they have charged around..

Hunting people are in an advantaged posion to observe changes in wildlife demographics by virtue of their numbers, their widespread distribuon and their commitment.
I have to say that most of the vets that I have had usually hide if the hunt is around. Those are the good vets who have a serious interest in animal welfare. They find themselves in the position of having to support their clients, some of whom hunt, by virtue of their employment. If I asked the ones who have been friends over the years I know what they would really like to answer. 

I don't know were fox hunting comes into any of this at all. It is banned. People now have  the opportunity to go for rides in the countryside trail riding. Perhaps the problem is the word HUNT. It is no longer a hunt, they are not hunting anything. They keep dogs who follow a scent and give their riders a day's outing. Perhaps they should be called a trail riding club to remove any suggestions of hunting. The public may like that better.
		
Click to expand...

Paddy555 - you have given up on the document because of the bias you perceive yet if you look at the references, those are unbiased and largely produced by organisations that have no direct interest in hunting.  I agree that the issue is not around hunting and foxes at this point BUT I am all too aware of some entirely prejudiced and ignorant statements and attitudes about the entire premise of hunting.

I can't comment on the quality of your vets -I have met and used good and bad vets myself but for a veterinary body to research and produce this document suggests that there was and continues to be a group of professionals involved in wildlife welfare and management that challenge the attitudes that you and others have.  It's great to debate and discuss but it really helps to be in possession of facts, information and as the current woke-spoke would have it 'the science'. If you don't like the science, research and data and you are unable to challenge it with an alternative set of facts then you are probably not winning the argument!!


----------



## Amirah (27 November 2020)

So according to the document wild foxes die painful deaths as nature is cruel therefore being chased and ripped apart by a pack of hounds is preferable. Yes, nature can be very cruel but I fail to see how this condones humans (who should know better) indulging in blatant cruelty in the aim of having a jolly good time, often at the expense of others.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-mobs-driving-communities-apart-a7948516.html

My lovely local hunt, who have made no effort to disguise what they are doing, killed a pet cat last season and made off with the corpse, which they had to later return as they had been seen. This was reported in the local press so not heresay.  Nice.

The pro hunt brigade continue to defend the indefensible.


----------



## minesadouble (27 November 2020)

luckyoldme said:



			But what's the relevance ?
Why is it necessary to say they are from a council estate?
		
Click to expand...

 In response to this wording in the post directly above my own;-

"yep it seems crazy to allow it just because it's gentrified. if it was a group of teenagers on a housing estate with guns setting their dogs on chickens or the like, there would be uproar."


----------



## Tiddlypom (27 November 2020)

A reminder of what some of the delightful, country based, animal welfare at heart hunting lot get up to. 

Kimblewick Hunt, New Years Day 2019.

Kimblewick Hunt: Men sentenced for releasing fox 'into hunt path' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-50562260

Covert cctv filming, no antis present. Fox prodded out of a drain then pulled out by its tail just as hounds approach. The stooges who did the prodding got suspended prison sentences, but the brains who pulled their strings did not.

https://forums.horseandhound.co.uk/threads/kimblewick-hunt-pair-found-guilty.781967/


----------



## Michen (27 November 2020)

Tiddlypom said:



			A reminder of what some of the delightful, country based, animal welfare at heart hunting lot get up to. 

Kimblewick Hunt, New Years Day 2019.

Kimblewick Hunt: Men sentenced for releasing fox 'into hunt path' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-50562260

Covert cctv filming, no antis present. Fox prodded out of a drain then pulled out by its tail just as hounds approach. The stooges who did the prodding got suspended prison sentences, but the brains who pulled their strings did not.

https://forums.horseandhound.co.uk/threads/kimblewick-hunt-pair-found-guilty.781967/

Click to expand...

This is NOT what all hunts get up to. Stop trying to tar everyone with the same brush. Like in all walks of life, there are good and bad practices.


----------



## Tiddlypom (27 November 2020)

Did I say all hunts? No, I didn’t. I said SOME.

I have also said that my own local pack are now hunting legally.


----------



## Indy (27 November 2020)

Can I just say that not all sabs are brainless idiots. My nephew has been out monitoring and he swears to me that he is nothing but polite and professional and he takes it very seriously. He doesn't disrupt but  he videos for evidence of illegal hunting. He's also shut Gates, has caught a loose, wandering horse on one occasion and has kept left behind Hounds company while waiting for the hunt to realise they haven't taken them all home - apparently that was a long night and he missed out on a DJ'ing set he was supposed to do.

What changed him was seeing a report on the news of a hunt man throwing a live fox cub into hounds, before he saw that he was a people are entitled to their hobbies kind of lad.


----------



## Michen (27 November 2020)

Tiddlypom said:



			Did I say all hunts? No, I didn’t. I said SOME.

I have also said that my own local pack are now hunting legally.
		
Click to expand...

You are fully aware of the intentions behind your posting.


----------



## Tiddlypom (27 November 2020)

Which are?


----------



## paddy555 (27 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			Paddy555 - you have given up on the document because of the bias you perceive yet if you look at the references, those are unbiased and largely produced by organisations that have no direct interest in hunting.  I agree that the issue is not around hunting and foxes at this point BUT I am all too aware of some entirely prejudiced and ignorant statements and attitudes about the entire premise of hunting.

I can't comment on the quality of your vets -I have met and used good and bad vets myself but for a veterinary body to research and produce this document suggests that there was and continues to be a group of professionals involved in wildlife welfare and management that challenge the attitudes that you and others have.  It's great to debate and discuss but it really helps to be in possession of facts, information and as the current woke-spoke would have it 'the science'. If you don't like the science, research and data and you are unable to challenge it with an alternative set of facts then you are probably not winning the argument!!
		
Click to expand...


I am not sure why I have to win the argument. Isn't fox hunting illegal? if so full stop end of.


----------



## hollyandivy123 (27 November 2020)

high levels of cortisol  (stress hormone) and depleted glycogen (energy) levels in the muscles in fox and deer hunted with hounds, compared to the levels found in shot controlled fox/deer..................if this was really about pest control surely targeting the breeding female foxes and reducing the cub numbers is more cost effective way  (i am not suggesting this by the way).


----------



## paddy555 (27 November 2020)

Michen said:



			This is NOT what all hunts get up to. Stop trying to tar everyone with the same brush. Like in all walks of life, there are good and bad practices.
		
Click to expand...

but is it bad practice? surely it is illegal practice.


----------



## suebou (27 November 2020)

hollyandivy123 said:



			high levels of cortisol  (stress hormone) and depleted glycogen (energy) levels in the muscles in fox and deer hunted with hounds, compared to the levels found in shot controlled fox/deer..................if this was really about pest control surely targeting the breeding female foxes and reducing the cub numbers is more cost effective way  (i am not suggesting this by the way).
		
Click to expand...

This is exactly what people who are pest controlling for foxes do.


----------



## palo1 (27 November 2020)

hollyandivy123 said:



			high levels of cortisol  (stress hormone) and depleted glycogen (energy) levels in the muscles in fox and deer hunted with hounds, compared to the levels found in shot controlled fox/deer..................if this was really about pest control surely targeting the breeding female foxes and reducing the cub numbers is more cost effective way  (i am not suggesting this by the way).
		
Click to expand...

I understand and have seen this also but these are also entirely normal, natural physical responses to stress which the VAWM report identifies thus:  ''physiological stress involved in the terminal stages of a hunt is no more than the reversible physiological stress endured by the human athlete or racehorse. This compares more favourably with the protracted stress associated with snaring and trapping or the pain and suffering associated with wounding by shooting.''

Further ''There are not and never were any scientific grounds for banning hunting with hounds on the grounds of cruelty. Lord Burns, Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England and Wales said, “Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel but in true Sir Humphrey style we were not prepared to say so clearly. The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty” (ref 13). A view echoed by inquiry committee member and veterinary surgeon Lord Soulsby, “At no point did the committee conclude, or even attempt to conclude, an assessment of cruelty. Yet many bodies have erroneously - I repeat the word “erroneously” - quoted the Burns report, stating that it clearly demonstrated that the practice of hunting wild animals with dogs caused cruelty. The report did not state that” (ref. 14). 4.5 A Veterinary Opinion on Hunting with Hounds, supported by over 560 members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons states, “Hunting with hounds is the natural and most humane method of managing and controlling foxes, hares, deer and mink in the countryside” (ref. 15). This opinion is reached after careful consideration of all the various methods of control and their implications for the wild animal.''

I understand that the point is not whether fox hunting is legal or not - it isn't.    I am not addressing that here rather trying to demonstrate some of the research around hunting which is rarely if ever acknowledged by the anti-hunt lobby whose entire premise and raison d'etre is that hunting is cruel.  To me, the anti-hunt lobby are wrong, ill-informed and ignorant and many of them use dangerous bully boy tactics to intimidate those that believe and/or know they are engaged in a legal activity.  This will become a matter of civil liberty.


----------



## shortstuff99 (27 November 2020)

Most of the animal rights campaigners who campaign against hunting think ALL killing of animals is wrong, be it farm animals or wild animal hunting. They think it is all murder and seeing the (apparent) enjoyment of the said murder by a group of (to them) privileged people just adds insult to injury. Telling them that it is not cruel won't work as they don't think it is our place to decide to kill animals full stop. 

Seeing an animal being chased down and ripped apart alive is not going to sit well with members of the public no matter the science. 

Hunting really needs to improve its image with the general public, not just country folk, if they want to survive that's the crux of it really.


----------



## palo1 (27 November 2020)

shortstuff99 said:



			Most of the animal rights campaigners who campaign against hunting think ALL killing of animals is wrong, be it farm animals or wild animal hunting. They think it is all murder and seeing the (apparent) enjoyment of the said murder by a group of (to them) privileged people just adds insult to injury. Telling them that it is not cruel won't work as they don't think it is our place to decide to kill animals full stop.

Seeing an animal being chased down and ripped apart alive is not going to sit well with members of the public no matter the science.

Hunting really needs to improve its image with the general public, not just country folk, if they want to survive that's the crux of it really.
		
Click to expand...

I agree that hunting needs to improve it's image.  As for animal rights campaigners - they will also assert and move on to try to prevent all horse sports and keeping of animals in any form of controlled setting.


----------



## hollyandivy123 (27 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			I understand and have seen this also but these are also entirely normal, natural physical responses to stress which the VAWM report identifies thus:  ''physiological stress involved in the terminal stages of a hunt is no more than the reversible physiological stress endured by the human athlete or racehorse. This compares more favourably with the protracted stress associated with snaring and trapping or the pain and suffering associated with wounding by shooting.''

Further ''There are not and never were any scientific grounds for banning hunting with hounds on the grounds of cruelty. Lord Burns, Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England and Wales said, “Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel but in true Sir Humphrey style we were not prepared to say so clearly. The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty” (ref 13). A view echoed by inquiry committee member and veterinary surgeon Lord Soulsby, “At no point did the committee conclude, or even attempt to conclude, an assessment of cruelty. Yet many bodies have erroneously - I repeat the word “erroneously” - quoted the Burns report, stating that it clearly demonstrated that the practice of hunting wild animals with dogs caused cruelty. The report did not state that” (ref. 14). 4.5 A Veterinary Opinion on Hunting with Hounds, supported by over 560 members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons states, “Hunting with hounds is the natural and most humane method of managing and controlling foxes, hares, deer and mink in the countryside” (ref. 15). This opinion is reached after careful consideration of all the various methods of control and their implications for the wild animal.''

I understand that the point is not whether fox hunting is legal or not - it isn't.    I am not addressing that here rather trying to demonstrate some of the research around hunting which is rarely if ever acknowledged by the anti-hunt lobby whose entire premise and raison d'etre is that hunting is cruel.  To me, the anti-hunt lobby are wrong, ill-informed and ignorant and many of them use dangerous bully boy tactics to intimidate those that believe and/or know they are engaged in a legal activity.  This will become a matter of civil liberty.
		
Click to expand...

then to make it more natural...........there should be no followers on foot or on horse back..............i can't remember ever seeing a pack of hyenas in Africa being followed by men on horse back.


and if you really want to think about natural control in an environment maybe what was observed at yellow stone is something you might want to consider..................


----------



## Cob Life (27 November 2020)

rextherobber said:



			This. It's the huge number of injured birds which are just left to die a slow lingering death, which is so upsetting. When I was a child, there was always concerted efforts made to do as you, say, mop up the injured, but these days it seems more a case of just get off to the next drive and no thought given to any that aren't in the bag. A previous poster said they were worried if hunting was banned, "the antis" would move on to shooting, fishing etc. leading to basically the downfall of country estates. This need not be a bad thing, I think as with all things, change has happen, and the way estates and the countryside is used has to change with the times. (And it need not be used for housing, how about bike tracks and dog exercise fields and country trails... And surely hunts aren't the only people capable of organising a fun ride? Particularly as the land they are welcomed on seems to be ever shrinking...
		
Click to expand...

The shoots I go on we pick up every bird, I’ve spent ages looking and climbed trees to retrieve them before!


----------



## shortstuff99 (27 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			I agree that hunting needs to improve it's image.  As for animal rights campaigners - they will also assert and move on to try to prevent all horse sports and keeping of animals in any form of controlled setting.
		
Click to expand...

Yes they will, (the hardcore ones anyway) as their goal is the end of the 'commodity' of animals. Most pragmatic campaigners know that, that wouldn't go down well and instead campaign for more ethical treatment of animals and the reduction of meat consumption (and away from intensive farming).


----------



## palo1 (27 November 2020)

hollyandivy123 said:



			then to make it more natural...........there should be no followers on foot or on horse back..............i can't remember ever seeing a pack of hyenas in Africa being followed by men on horse back.


and if you really want to think about natural control in an environment maybe what was observed at yellow stone is something you might want to consider..................
		
Click to expand...

I quite agree with you on this. I would be sad to say goodbye to following hounds of course, though when David Attenborough and others present a hunt on TV to demonstrate the lives of wild animals there are many, many 'followers' (on TV).  A hunt is clearly something that is compelling for many people.  I think the chance of re-introducing wolves to the UK is non-existent.  A pack of hounds could provide the same impacts however...that is contentious but not non-sensical and conservation charities have experimented with the impact of 'mimic' top predators here in the UK already.


----------



## palo1 (27 November 2020)

shortstuff99 said:



			Yes they will, (the hardcore ones anyway) as their goal is the end of the 'commodity' of animals. Most pragmatic campaigners know that, that wouldn't go down well and instead campaign for more ethical treatment of animals and the reduction of meat consumption (and away from intensive farming).
		
Click to expand...

Yes, and the ethical treatment of animals should absolutely be a goal for a mature society.  I would support fox hunting on that ground though I know that will provoke howls of rage amongst some.  Where evidence, facts etc are suitably contested the law should make that a matter of personal conscience and on-going debate and research.


----------



## Clodagh (27 November 2020)

hollyandivy123 said:



			then to make it more natural...........there should be no followers on foot or on horse back..............i can't remember ever seeing a pack of hyenas in Africa being followed by men on horse back.


and if you really want to think about natural control in an environment maybe what was observed at yellow stone is something you might want to consider..................
		
Click to expand...

What difference to the fox do the followers make? Unless they’ve are in the wrong place and then they would get a rollicking.


----------



## Clodagh (27 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			Yes, and the ethical treatment of animals should absolutely be a goal for a mature society.  I would support fox hunting on that ground though I know that will provoke howls of rage amongst some.  Where evidence, facts etc are suitably contested the law should make that a matter of personal conscience and on-going debate and research.
		
Click to expand...

Certainly the ban has done the fox population no good overall.


----------



## hollyandivy123 (27 November 2020)

Clodagh said:



			Some people who have horses are cruel.


What difference to the fox do the followers make? Unless they’ve are in the wrong place and then they would get a rollicking.
		
Click to expand...

it goes against the argument that it is natural.........hound vs fox you could say is a natural response, add the humans then you start to loose that argument as they will influence the outcome...........


----------



## rextherobber (27 November 2020)

Cob Life said:



			The shoots I go on we pick up every bird, I’ve spent ages looking and climbed trees to retrieve them before!
		
Click to expand...

Yes, that's great in the shoots it does happen on, and is obviously the way it should be, but it doesn't happen on the one near me.


----------



## Tiddlypom (27 November 2020)

Clodagh said:



			Certainly the ban has done the fox population no good overall.
		
Click to expand...

Now I fully agree with you on that. 

Whilst I am clearly on the side that the law must be obeyed, when hunting was legal the general fox population was better managed and cared for than it is now, in order to provide sport.


----------



## Tiddlypom (27 November 2020)

Btw the antis are no longer hassling my local pack now they have gone legit. They do keep an eye on them, but do not interfere.

We’d had a nightmare time before that, with pros, antis and the police having standoffs all the time. I think the record was 8 or 9 police cars plus a helicopter one day.

It is so much nicer for us residents now that peace is restored, and as far as I can tell it is much more enjoyable for the hunt followers, too.


----------



## palo1 (27 November 2020)

Clodagh said:



			Certainly the ban has done the fox population no good overall.
		
Click to expand...

I think it is particularly saddening that an animal that is iconic to our culture and emblematic of our biodiversity has lost's it's rightful place and thus the welfare of the fox as a species has suffered   Those that campaigned for this should at least accept what damage the Hunting Act has caused in that respect.  

And this too: “The area of woodlands managed for foxhunng in England and Wales is 23,300 hectares. This is based on informaon submied by 93 hunts and is validated by on-site visits to a random selecon of 235 woodlands. This figure is roughly double the area of woodland within the boundaries of Naonal Nature Reserves in England and Wales”  (VAWM)  I guess that data was correct at the time of the first report - we have undoubtedly lost acres of this incredibly valuable woodland over the last 15 years.


----------



## ycbm (27 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			I think it is particularly saddening that an animal that is iconic to our culture and emblematic of our biodiversity has lost's it's rightful place and thus the welfare of the fox as a species has suffered   Those that campaigned for this should at least accept what damage the Hunting Act has caused in that respect.
		
Click to expand...


Palo, you write as if you don't know that vast areas of the country have never had fox hunting. My area has never had fox hunting.

The only real problem we have with fox here is that a couple of times a year the RSPCA think it's a good idea to release a load of absolutely huge and totally fearless urban foxes in hill country. They are usually 




			And this too: “The area of woodlands managed for foxhunng in England and Wales is 23,300 hectares. This is based on informaon submied by 93 hunts and is validated by on-site visits to a random selecon of 235 woodlands. This figure is roughly double the area of woodland within the boundaries of Naonal Nature Reserves in England and Wales”  (VAWM)  I guess that data was correct at the time of the first report - we have undoubtedly lost acres of this incredibly valuable woodland over the last 15 years. 


Click to expand...

Why are you assuming that not managing woodland for fox hunting means that woodland disappears?  Or even that it is detrimental to woodland to allow foxes to regulate themselves? 

To speak of my area again,  there is more woodland here now than there was when we moved here 30 years ago.  


I do respect your views,  Palo, but you do seem to have a dream of managing both nature and humankind that appears to me to be incompatible with managing 7 billion people on the planet, before we even look at mass migration due to climate change.  The glory days of living at one with nature,  if they ever existed in the last few hundred years,  are gone.


----------



## Clodagh (27 November 2020)

ycbm said:



			The only real problem we have with fox here is that a couple of times a year the RSPCA think it's a good idea to release a load of absolutely huge and totally fearless urban foxes in hill country.
		
Click to expand...

Do you not have shooting, either?


----------



## blitznbobs (27 November 2020)

ycbm said:



			The birds aren't all eaten on the big commercial shoots,  BB. It used to be fairly easy for antis to find heaps of dumped birds but they are removed these days.  Not  many restaurants will serve a bird that might land it with compensation for remedial dentistry and  most modern diners wouldn't order it with a disclaimer for pellets being in it. 

And none of the commercial chicken farms would be allowed to breed for the meat market if the method of death was to pepper them with shot,  fetch the ones still alive with a dog and wring their necks.

I respect the activity is legal and makes a big contribution to the rural economy.  I'm not calling for a ban any time soon,  but it must eventually go,  it's completely unethical judged by modern animal welfare law.

FWIW fishing for sport is no better.  I think the two will go at the same time. I
This isn't a class thing.
		
Click to expand...

Well on every shoot (and I don’t shoot cos I’m the worlds worst shot) I’ve been on we eat the birds ... i don’t know any shoot that doesn’t use the pheasant tbh


----------



## palo1 (27 November 2020)

The point I was making @ycbm was that where there fox hunting existed there was an added factor in creating a better environment and more biodiversity.  Fox hunting was just part of the glue that made it more desirable to have woodland.  Supporting an apex predator (which fox hunting did) is well documented for it's beneficial effect on the whole ecosystem. I cannot speak for your area though you have slightly contradicted yourself here as previously you have referenced a local hunt.  No matter I get your drift I think.


----------



## ycbm (27 November 2020)

I haven't contradicted myself Palo.  Local hunt doesn't mean around my house it meant hunts within an hour's travel with a lorry.  
.


----------



## HashRouge (27 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			The point I was making @ycbm was that where there fox hunting existed there was an added factor in creating a better environment and more biodiversity.  Fox hunting was just part of the glue that made it more desirable to have woodland.  Supporting an apex predator (which fox hunting did) is well documented for it's beneficial effect on the whole ecosystem. I cannot speak for your area though you have slightly contradicted yourself here as previously you have referenced a local hunt.  No matter I get your drift I think.
		
Click to expand...

I'm so confused. I thought fox hunting was designed to control fox numbers, but this makes it sound like its aim was to increase them?! Have I just lost the ability to read?!


----------



## ycbm (27 November 2020)

Clodagh said:



			Do you not have shooting, either?
		
Click to expand...

Hundreds of hectares.  The gamekeeper asked my permission to shoot magpies on my land. They also shoot the buzzards.

The people who support shooting say they are conserving the moor. What I see is endless acre upon acre of ugly rectangles cut in the heather  on the hillsides to feed the birds they are going to shoot for the fun of it.  


ETA I know the 'heather burning is part of the heather life cycle' argument.  Burning or cutting it in ugly man-made rectangles is not.  And the only time heather would have burnt before man is with a lightening strike,  so let that happen.,


----------



## Sandstone1 (27 November 2020)

HashRouge said:



			I'm so confused. I thought fox hunting was designed to control fox numbers, but this makes it sound like its aim was to increase them?! Have I just lost the ability to read?!
		
Click to expand...

The hunt likes to have something to chase so its in their interest to increase numbers, makes the pest control element somewhat redundant!  Pro hunters will say Oh you do not understand the ways of the countryside.  I understand they just enjoy the sport of chasing and killing a fox.  It would be far more honest of them just to admit that.


----------



## Rowreach (27 November 2020)

ycbm said:



			I haven't contradicted myself Palo.  Local hunt doesn't mean around my house it meant hunts within an hour's travel with a lorry. 
.
		
Click to expand...

You're near Hebden Bridge iirc?  You've got beagles and harriers near you.


----------



## Rowreach (27 November 2020)

Sandstone1 said:



			The hunt likes to have something to chase so its in their interest to increase numbers, makes the pest control element somewhat redundant!  Pro hunters will say Oh you do not understand the ways of the countryside.  I understand they just enjoy the sport of chasing and killing a fox.  It would be far more honest of them just to admit that.
		
Click to expand...

I hunted for decades and I can honestly say that while I enjoyed watching hounds work, and I was very lucky to hunt with a couple of extremely talented and professional huntsmen who really knew their stuff, I never ever enjoyed foxes being killed (and was far happier when they weren't).

However, I have witnessed people who certainly did enjoy the killing part, and that absolutely sickened me.

I haven't hunted for years, and I believe strongly that GB packs should stick to the law or not hunt at all - this attitude of carrying on regardless is singularly distasteful.  Where I live, hunting live prey is still legal, at the moment.  I can see that changing in NI, but it will be a while before it is banned in the Republic I think.

As to the antis moving on to other sports, well I reckon they'll find the anglers to be a bit more of a challenge than the hunters.


----------



## SatansLittleHelper (27 November 2020)

Clodagh said:



			So does the falconer not enjoy himself? Surely if he wanted a hawk just as a pet he would just sit it on a perch and feed it frozen chicks? I do object to something being cruel if it is enjoyable and not cruel if it isn't.
		
Click to expand...




palo1 said:



			Sorry but you are using one animal to hunt and kill another - that is no different to pre-ban hunting with hounds. Fox hunting (the killing of the fox) was NOT the fun bit - the FUN is watching hounds work - as you enjoyed your hawk working and for the horse riders to cross the country as best they could.
		
Click to expand...

I do not find hunting anything "fun". I have kept birds of prey without using them for hunting but have been part of a rabbit cull situation where the landowners wanted the population controlling in a more "natural " way. Hawking, to me, is done as a means of quick and effective pest control as well as a way to feed the birds themselves. Plus this is a one on one natural situation unlike fox hunting or big organised shoots. I have no problem with pest control..I have an issue with animals being chased of miles by an unnecessary amount of dogs/riders in the name of "sport" and supposed pest control. In one breath the hunts tell us it's controlling the fox population and in the next they say they hardly ever catch one so how can it be cruel 🙄🙄


----------



## palo1 (27 November 2020)

Sandstone1 said:



			The hunt likes to have something to chase so its in their interest to increase numbers, makes the pest control element somewhat redundant!  Pro hunters will say Oh you do not understand the ways of the countryside.  I understand they just enjoy the sport of chasing and killing a fox.  It would be far more honest of them just to admit that.
		
Click to expand...

Sigh..From the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management (2018) ...2.3.1 Many people and organisaons opposed to hunting with dogs appear to have accepted the need for pest control, while condemning what they perceive to be the “sport” of hunting. For example, the 4 former MP, Ann Widdecombe, said in the House of Commons, “If hunting is not an efficient pesticide, it has no purpose (ref 2). Such a view fails to understand the crucial difference between “pest control” and “wildlife management”. The former seeks to reduce or even eradicate populations, while the latter aims to maintain healthy populations at sustainable levels that are in balance with other wildlife populations and human interests. 2.3.2 When the reason for killing a wild animal is cited as being “pest control”, then frequently welfare issues appear to be ignored, as biologist Dr Nick Fox stated in a report in 2003: “In pest control, welfare is treated as a secondary priority over efficiency in many cases…it appears, across the board, that 'pest control' has been the jusfication for some of the worst excesses in animal welfare” (ref. 3). 2.4 The health and fitness of populations 2.4.1 All methods of control and management need to be evaluated on their effects on the health and fitness of entire populations. Hunting with hounds offers three advantages to the health and fitness of populations: · A closed season complementary to the breeding period; · Selectivity; hunting uniquely reproduces the natural selection process via the chase whereby weak and sick animals are culled in direct relation to their debility, thereby promoting the health and vigour of the species; · Dispersal; it disperses high concentrations of quarry species thus reducing the impact of local damage. 2.4.2 In the case of the fox, it has its place in the overall balance of the UK's wildlife as an indigenous species. As a “hunted” species it has a status, without which it might be classified merely as a pest and, as such, may face eradication in certain parts of the UK. The British Trust for Ornithology mammal survey indicated a 39% reduction in the fox population by 2016. (ref.4) A zero population of any indigenous species cannot be acceptable. 5..

I can't quite grasp why folk who are so impassioned about an issue haven't actually read all of the research and studies done on that. This study was considered important at the time of the Hunting Act, has been updated by actual real vets using peer reviewed data and studies carried out by impartial agencies and clearly, vets who specialise in Wildlife Management still consider that hunting with hounds is relevant.  2018 is some time after the Act was passed so there was no real imperative for this group of well respected vets to put their names to this other than to update and re-publish this study because they felt it remains a significant piece of research and information.  I guess it is easier just to spout emotive, angry stuff than actually think, learn and consider...


----------



## scruffyponies (27 November 2020)

Tiddlypom said:



			when hunting was legal the general fox population was better managed and cared for than it is now
		
Click to expand...

I think there is much confusion over the meaning of 'control' regarding the fox population.  Pest species are controlled by killing; poison, snares, shooting, with the aim of having none left.  This is what happens in the countryside post-ban, and the reason foxes are not having a good time of it now.

Quarry species are controlled by catching the slow ones; the aim is to keep the numbers stable by killing the excess population (old, ill, slow), whilst still having a reasonable number of healthy ones to chase next week.  In this context 'control' does not mean 'kill'.


----------



## Rowreach (27 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			Sigh..From the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management (2018) ...2.3.1 Many people and organisaons opposed to hunting with dogs appear to have accepted the need for pest control, while condemning what they perceive to be the “sport” of hunting. For example, the 4 former MP, Ann Widdecombe, said in the House of Commons, “If hunting is not an efficient pesticide, it has no purpose (ref 2). Such a view fails to understand the crucial difference between “pest control” and “wildlife management”. The former seeks to reduce or even eradicate populations, while the latter aims to maintain healthy populations at sustainable levels that are in balance with other wildlife populations and human interests. 2.3.2 When the reason for killing a wild animal is cited as being “pest control”, then frequently welfare issues appear to be ignored, as biologist Dr Nick Fox stated in a report in 2003: “In pest control, welfare is treated as a secondary priority over efficiency in many cases…it appears, across the board, that 'pest control' has been the jusfication for some of the worst excesses in animal welfare” (ref. 3). 2.4 The health and fitness of populations 2.4.1 All methods of control and management need to be evaluated on their effects on the health and fitness of entire populations. Hunting with hounds offers three advantages to the health and fitness of populations: · A closed season complementary to the breeding period; · Selectivity; hunting uniquely reproduces the natural selection process via the chase whereby weak and sick animals are culled in direct relation to their debility, thereby promoting the health and vigour of the species; · Dispersal; it disperses high concentrations of quarry species thus reducing the impact of local damage. 2.4.2 In the case of the fox, it has its place in the overall balance of the UK's wildlife as an indigenous species. As a “hunted” species it has a status, without which it might be classified merely as a pest and, as such, may face eradication in certain parts of the UK. The British Trust for Ornithology mammal survey indicated a 39% reduction in the fox population by 2016. (ref.4) A zero population of any indigenous species cannot be acceptable. 5..

I can't quite grasp why folk who are so impassioned about an issue haven't actually read all of the research and studies done on that. This study was considered important at the time of the Hunting Act, has been updated by actual real vets using peer reviewed data and studies carried out by impartial agencies and clearly, vets who specialise in Wildlife Management still consider that hunting with hounds is relevant.  2018 is some time after the Act was passed so there was no real imperative for this group of well respected vets to put their names to this other than to update and re-publish this study because they felt it remains a significant piece of research and information.  I guess it is easier just to spout emotive, angry stuff than actually think, learn and consider...
		
Click to expand...

But it's largely irrelevant isn't it?  We're nearly two decades past the ban, and the issue here is that hunts are still acting as if they are the law and not bound by the law, and what they are doing, because it is clandestine, has nothing to do with promoting the species/enriching the environment/removing the sick and elderly.


----------



## palo1 (27 November 2020)

SatansLittleHelper said:



			I do not find hunting anything "fun". I have kept birds of prey without using them for hunting but have been part of a rabbit cull situation where the landowners wanted the population controlling in a more "natural " way. Hawking, to me, is done as a means of quick and effective pest control as well as a way to feed the birds themselves. Plus this is a one on one natural situation unlike fox hunting or big organised shoots. I have no problem with pest control..I have an issue with animals being chased of miles by an unnecessary amount of dogs/riders in the name of "sport" and supposed pest control. In one breath the hunts tell us it's controlling the fox population and in the next they say they hardly ever catch one so how can it be cruel 🙄🙄
		
Click to expand...

Well my reply to Sandstone1 might be relevant here and the report that that information comes from might also be interesting to you. https://vawm.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Hunting-Wildlife-Moral-Issue-March-2018.pdf


----------



## Rowreach (27 November 2020)

scruffyponies said:



			I think there is much confusion over the meaning of 'control' regarding the fox population.  Pest species are controlled by killing; poison, snares, shooting, with the aim of having none left.  This is what happens in the countryside post-ban, and the reason foxes are not having a good time of it now.

Quarry species are controlled by catching the slow ones; the aim is to keep the numbers stable by killing the excess population (old, ill, slow), whilst still having a reasonable number of healthy ones to chase next week.  In this context 'control' does not mean 'kill'.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed, but the unwritten and unpalatable part of that is that the healthy ones are kept to provide "sport" - so the maintenance of the healthy fox population is less about protecting and promoting the species and more about giving people something to chase on horseback.


----------



## ycbm (27 November 2020)

Rowreach said:



			You're near Hebden Bridge iirc?  You've got beagles and harriers near you.
		
Click to expand...

I'm nowhere near Hebden Bridge but we did have beagles here and a  harrier pack in the High Peak not far away  pre ban.  I'm glad to see them gone,  I couldn't square having brown hare considered at risk and then chasing them with dogs.


----------



## palo1 (27 November 2020)

Rowreach said:



			But it's largely irrelevant isn't it?  We're nearly two decades past the ban, and the issue here is that hunts are still acting as if they are the law and not bound by the law, and what they are doing, because it is clandestine, has nothing to do with promoting the species/enriching the environment/removing the sick and elderly.
		
Click to expand...

@Rowreach my point was that the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management updated this report in 2018 (2 years ago!).  It is not irrelevant Clearly that organisation of professional vets still thinks this information is relevant i*n spite of the ban.  The entire premise of the anti-hunt movement is based on the assertion that hunting is cruel and that is clearly well contested and in some cases disproved by actual real data and wildlife. welfare experts.*  That totally discredits both the agenda of the Antis as well as the Hunting Act.  I never said that hunting with hounds wasn't illegal - but that if the actions of a group and their agenda are based on false assumptions and claims then there is no merit in their actions. Hunting remains illegal.    There is a similar analogy with Andrew Wakefield's claims about MMR and Autism which led to quite astonishing changes to public opinion about vaccination...the effects of which we are still feeling.  Can you imagine if his claims and the following of many people who did not interrogate those claims had led to legislation on vaccination?


----------



## scruffyponies (27 November 2020)

Rowreach said:



			Agreed, but the unwritten and unpalatable part of that is that the healthy ones are kept to provide "sport" - so the maintenance of the healthy fox population is less about protecting and promoting the species and more about giving people something to chase on horseback.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed.  That is why we still have foxes, but there are no wolves or bears.
Things have moved on a bit since, and maybe there's another way of persuading farmers to tolerate their chickens and lambs being predated, but I'm not convinced.  Vulpicide was only ever frowned upon because it spoiled someone's sport.

We're in shooting country here so any fox which wanders into this area gets shot/poisoned/snared... if it doesn't get run over first, obviously.


----------



## Rowreach (27 November 2020)

ycbm said:



			I'm nowhere near Hebden Bridge but we did have beagles here and a  harrier pack in the High Peak not far away  pre ban.  I'm glad to see them gone,  I couldn't square having brown hare considered at risk and then chasing them with dogs.
		
Click to expand...

Ah, got my bridges muddled up.

I agree about the hare, although numbers went up here when they went on the at risk list, even though they are still hunted (I do hare surveys each year) because conservation methods improved.


----------



## Rowreach (27 November 2020)

palo1 said:



@Rowreach my point was that the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management updated this report in 2018 (2 years ago!).  It is not irrelevant Clearly that organisation of professional vets still thinks this information is relevant i*n spite of the ban.  The entire premise of the anti-hunt movement is based on the assertion that hunting is cruel and that is clearly well contested and in some cases disproved by actual real data and wildlife. welfare experts.*  That totally discredits both the agenda of the Antis as well as the Hunting Act.  I never said that hunting with hounds wasn't illegal - but that if the actions of a group and their agenda are based on false assumptions and claims then there is no merit in their actions. Hunting remains illegal.    There is a similar analogy with Andrew Wakefield's claims about MMR and Autism which led to quite astonishing changes to public opinion about vaccination...the effects of which we are still feeling.  Can you imagine if his claims and the following of many people who did not interrogate those claims had led to legislation on vaccination?
		
Click to expand...

But that's not what is under discussion - it's the fact that hunts are blatantly flouting the law, as it stands.


----------



## paddy555 (27 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			Sigh..From the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management (2018) ...2.3.1 Many people and organisaons opposed to hunting with dogs appear to have accepted the need for pest control, while condemning what they perceive to be the “sport” of hunting. For example, the 4 former MP, Ann Widdecombe, said in the House of Commons, “If hunting is not an efficient pesticide, it has no purpose (ref 2). Such a view fails to understand the crucial difference between “pest control” and “wildlife management”. The former seeks to reduce or even eradicate populations, while the latter aims to maintain healthy populations at sustainable levels that are in balance with other wildlife populations and human interests. 2.3.2 When the reason for killing a wild animal is cited as being “pest control”, then frequently welfare issues appear to be ignored, as biologist Dr Nick Fox stated in a report in 2003: “In pest control, welfare is treated as a secondary priority over efficiency in many cases…it appears, across the board, that 'pest control' has been the jusfication for some of the worst excesses in animal welfare” (ref. 3). 2.4 The health and fitness of populations 2.4.1 All methods of control and management need to be evaluated on their effects on the health and fitness of entire populations. Hunting with hounds offers three advantages to the health and fitness of populations: · A closed season complementary to the breeding period; · Selectivity; hunting uniquely reproduces the natural selection process via the chase whereby weak and sick animals are culled in direct relation to their debility, thereby promoting the health and vigour of the species; · Dispersal; it disperses high concentrations of quarry species thus reducing the impact of local damage. 2.4.2 In the case of the fox, it has its place in the overall balance of the UK's wildlife as an indigenous species. As a “hunted” species it has a status, without which it might be classified merely as a pest and, as such, may face eradication in certain parts of the UK. The British Trust for Ornithology mammal survey indicated a 39% reduction in the fox population by 2016. (ref.4) A zero population of any indigenous species cannot be acceptable. 5..

I can't quite grasp why folk who are so impassioned about an issue haven't actually read all of the research and studies done on that. This study was considered important at the time of the Hunting Act, has been updated by actual real vets using peer reviewed data and studies carried out by impartial agencies and clearly, vets who specialise in Wildlife Management still consider that hunting with hounds is relevant.  2018 is some time after the Act was passed so there was no real imperative for this group of well respected vets to put their names to this other than to update and re-publish this study because they felt it remains a significant piece of research and information.  I guess it is easier just to spout emotive, angry stuff than actually think, learn and consider...
		
Click to expand...

I'm at a loss to see where you are coming from. Are you proposing bringing back fox hunting? I can't see that happening. Otherwise how is this relevant for something that has been banned. Are you trying to say the above is justification for those hunts who are currently hunting fox? If not I cannot see the relevance.


----------



## ycbm (27 November 2020)

Palo I am gobsmacked that you can even think to compare the Wakefield generated health disaster which is causing death and life changing  damage to children and adults around the world with fox hunting.
.


----------



## ycbm (27 November 2020)

Palo, I did some reading at the time and I believe the Burns report which was used to support the hunting ban said that shooting and hunting with hounds were of an equal level of welfare. 

If so,  there is simply no argument whatsoever for repealing the hunting ban,  which is fairly clearly what you want to happen.


----------



## palo1 (27 November 2020)

Rowreach said:



			But that's not what is under discussion - it's the fact that hunts are blatantly flouting the law, as it stands.
		
Click to expand...

Yes I know that this thread is about the seminars.  I was just engaging in that particular discussion because so many posters were saying stuff that is either just emotive or simply not evidenced/credible about hunting and I wanted to bring some actual reality to a discussion about hunting matters.  To me, that is important in an adult discussion.


----------



## Amirah (27 November 2020)

I'm gobsmacked that you keep trying to convince me (or maybe yourself) that chasing an animal for miles before ripping it apart isn't cruel. Where is the empathy for the sentient being at the head of the chase?

Do I sense a certain amount of dissonance in your posts?  

What would I know though, according to your previous post anyone who disagrees with you is 'misinformed and ignorant' apparently.


----------



## Tiddlypom (27 November 2020)

Cubbing was always the more unpalatable  side of fox hunting. It was definitely cruel, its sole purpose was to blood the new entry of young hounds with easy kills. Though the pro hunt pretended that it was to ‘disperse’ the young foxes.

Field surrounds covert where young foxes are known to live. Send hounds in. Field make a lot of noise to frighten the foxes and stop them escaping - so they are easy prey for hounds.

So how did that help them ‘disperse’?


----------



## paddy555 (27 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			Yes I know that this thread is about the seminars.  I was just engaging in that particular discussion because so many posters were saying stuff that is either just emotive or simply not evidenced/credible about hunting and I wanted to bring some actual reality to a discussion about hunting matters.  To me, that is important in an adult discussion.
		
Click to expand...

I think that posters are saying what they personally feel about hunting.


----------



## ycbm (27 November 2020)

Tiddlypom said:



			Cubbing was always the more unpalatable  side of fox hunting. It was definitely cruel, its sole purpose was to blood the new entry of young hounds with easy kills. Though the pro hunt pretended that it was to ‘disperse’ the young foxes.

Field surrounds covert where young foxes are known to live. Send hounds in. Field make a lot of noise to frighten the foxes and stop them escaping - so they are easy prey for hounds.

So how did that help them ‘disperse’?
		
Click to expand...

Exactly right TP. I went with the Berkeley. Once.

Absolutely indefensible IMO.


----------



## rextherobber (27 November 2020)

I find it hard not to perceive the VAWM document as biased, and the 2018 update appears to neatly coincide with noises being made to repeal the ban - coincidence, no doubt...
5.4 "almost certainly lack the complex brain and mental abilities necessary to perceive the human concepts of fear
and death" - I struggle with the idea that theses words came from a vet, I personally cannot imagine any vet I know stating that any mammal cannot feel fear.


----------



## palo1 (27 November 2020)

ycbm said:



			Palo I am gobsmacked that you can even think to compare the Wakefield generated health disaster which is causing death and life changing  damage to children and adults around the world with fox hunting.
.
		
Click to expand...

It is comparable though @ycbm, if unpalatable to you; claims were made about something which were not evidenced and which became, understandably, hugely emotionally significant for many people.  The groundswell of opinion, based on dodgy science and lack of critique led to disastrous consequences which I am personally all too aware of.  Clearly the nature and scale of that is not incomparable to what happens or doesn't happen to foxes but the sequence of events, which in the case of hunting led to legislation is very very similar.  We can only be thankful that legislation never resulted from Andrew Wakefield's claims and those that were taken in by him.  Sadly Michael Foster (who I briefly worked with) was in a position to make legislation a possibility and then a reality in the case of hunting with hounds.


----------



## ycbm (27 November 2020)

rextherobber said:



			I find it hard not to perceive the VAWM document as biased, and the 2018 update appears to neatly coincide with noises being made to repeal the ban - coincidence, no doubt...
5.4 "almost certainly lack the complex brain and mental abilities necessary to perceive the human concepts of fear
and death" - I struggle with the idea that theses words came from a vet, I personally cannot imagine any vet I know stating that any mammal cannot feel fear.
		
Click to expand...

Is that what it says!  The only fox I've ever seen when I was out fox hunting looked bloody terrified to me,  like it knew it was old and weak and the dogs were about to get it.  Which they did. 

I never fox hunted again after that.


----------



## ycbm (27 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			It is comparable though @ycbm, if unpalatable to you; claims were made about something which were not evidenced and which became, understandably, hugely emotionally significant for many people.  The groundswell of opinion, based on dodgy science and lack of critique led to disastrous consequences which I am personally all too aware of.  Clearly the nature and scale of that is not incomparable to what happens or doesn't happen to foxes but the sequence of events, which in the case of hunting led to legislation is very very similar.  We can only be thankful that legislation never resulted from Andrew Wakefield's claims and those that were taken in by him.  Sadly Michael Foster (who I briefly worked with) was in a position to make legislation a possibility and then a reality in the case of hunting with hounds.
		
Click to expand...


I don't find your comparison unpalatable,  I find it incomprehensible that you don't realise just how inappropriate it is and defend it. 

Have you ever been cubbing?
.


----------



## palo1 (27 November 2020)

paddy555 said:



			I'm at a loss to see where you are coming from. Are you proposing bringing back fox hunting? I can't see that happening. Otherwise how is this relevant for something that has been banned. Are you trying to say the above is justification for those hunts who are currently hunting fox? If not I cannot see the relevance.
		
Click to expand...

No, I wasn't making either of those propositions - but just bringing some relevant research to the discussion.  It's usually the way that debate works...


----------



## hollyandivy123 (27 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			Sigh..From the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management (2018) ...2.3.1 Many people and organisaons opposed to hunting with dogs appear to have accepted the need for pest control, while condemning what they perceive to be the “sport” of hunting. For example, the 4 former MP, Ann Widdecombe, said in the House of Commons, “If hunting is not an efficient pesticide, it has no purpose (ref 2). Such a view fails to understand the crucial difference between “pest control” and “wildlife management”. The former seeks to reduce or even eradicate populations, while the latter aims to maintain healthy populations at sustainable levels that are in balance with other wildlife populations and human interests. 2.3.2 When the reason for killing a wild animal is cited as being “pest control”, then frequently welfare issues appear to be ignored, as biologist Dr Nick Fox stated in a report in 2003: “In pest control, welfare is treated as a secondary priority over efficiency in many cases…it appears, across the board, that 'pest control' has been the jusfication for some of the worst excesses in animal welfare” (ref. 3). 2.4 The health and fitness of populations 2.4.1 All methods of control and management need to be evaluated on their effects on the health and fitness of entire populations. Hunting with hounds offers three advantages to the health and fitness of populations: · A closed season complementary to the breeding period; · Selectivity; hunting uniquely reproduces the natural selection process via the chase whereby weak and sick animals are culled in direct relation to their debility, thereby promoting the health and vigour of the species; · Dispersal; it disperses high concentrations of quarry species thus reducing the impact of local damage. 2.4.2 In the case of the fox, it has its place in the overall balance of the UK's wildlife as an indigenous species. As a “hunted” species it has a status, without which it might be classified merely as a pest and, as such, may face eradication in certain parts of the UK. The British Trust for Ornithology mammal survey indicated a 39% reduction in the fox population by 2016. (ref.4) A zero population of any indigenous species cannot be acceptable. 5..

I can't quite grasp why folk who are so impassioned about an issue haven't actually read all of the research and studies done on that. This study was considered important at the time of the Hunting Act, has been updated by actual real vets using peer reviewed data and studies carried out by impartial agencies and clearly, vets who specialise in Wildlife Management still consider that hunting with hounds is relevant.  2018 is some time after the Act was passed so there was no real imperative for this group of well respected vets to put their names to this other than to update and re-publish this study because they felt it remains a significant piece of research and information.  I guess it is easier just to spout emotive, angry stuff than actually think, learn and consider...
		
Click to expand...

I have but when your information cites an anonymous source it does question the robustness of the document and it's review....


----------



## rextherobber (27 November 2020)

The VAWM document basically says if you don't agree that hunting foxes with hounds is the most humane way of "managing" them, then you are  ignorant of the fact the art of countryside management can only be achieved by this method. If you disagree, it's because of your ignorance.  Apparently foxes are not capable of feeling fear, and do not find being pursued by a pack of hounds a traumatic experience, which seems extraordinary, without being anthropomorphic -  anyone who has ever watched a mammal, wild or domesticated, knows that they are capable of, and do experience fear. And hounds hunt selectively, so presumably occasionally deliberately select people's cats and dogs? It is an odd document to present in support of a view, it is flawed from the outset by it's immediate and very obvious bias, and it's contradictory statements.


----------



## planete (28 November 2020)

Coming from a country where hunting with hounds was never a popular activity I fail to see the necessity of fox hunting for effective and humane wildlife and habitat management.  Let us say many first world countries have found viable alternatives...As for any mammal being unable to feel pain and fear, words fail me.


----------



## palo1 (28 November 2020)

rextherobber said:



			I find it hard not to perceive the VAWM document as biased, and the 2018 update appears to neatly coincide with noises being made to repeal the ban - coincidence, no doubt...
5.4 "almost certainly lack the complex brain and mental abilities necessary to perceive the human concepts of fear
and death" - I struggle with the idea that theses words came from a vet, I personally cannot imagine any vet I know stating that any mammal cannot feel fear.
		
Click to expand...

Well, this was a committee of actual vets that wrote and published the report. Their real names are available of course so you could address your queries to those professionals...The report, if you read it addresses our human notions of fear  and the role that fear plays in a mammal's life more fully elsewhere; it was my mistake to take an excerpt but I had thought people might read the actual document.  You certainly don't have to agree though and I guess you will be able to produce scientific evidence that is peer reviewed to counter this and support your views ?


----------



## shortstuff99 (28 November 2020)

Humans and none human animals show the same patterns of fear so I am going to say if you would be scared being chased by hounds and killed, a fox would be too.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763401000562

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168159110002637

https://peerj.com/articles/9104/


----------



## palo1 (28 November 2020)

Yes, thank you for pulling these up.  The role that fear plays in a wild animal's life is also worth considering.  This is an interesting observation: ''These circuits also mediate the raw affective properties of FEAR since animals escape and avoid such brain stimulation and develop conditioned place aversions to locations where they have had such negative experiences.'' (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168159110002637)


----------



## palo1 (28 November 2020)

This is also interesting in wildlife/conservation terms : ''Predators induce stress in prey and can have beneficial effects in ecosystems, but can also have negative effects on biodiversity if they are overabundant or have been introduced. The growth of human populations is, at the same time, causing degradation of natural habitats and increasing interaction rates of humans with wildlife, such that conservation management routinely considers the effects of human disturbance as tantamount to or surpassing those of predators. The need to simultaneously manage both of these threats is particularly acute in urban areas that are, increasingly, being recognized as global hotspots of wildlife activity.'' (https://peerj.com/articles/9104/)  

Sadly though you have only been able to reference abstracts which are limited but still interesting to read and follow. I haven't read anything in the abstracts that contradicts what I have previously said though I am open minded and interested.


----------



## rabatsa (28 November 2020)

ycbm said:



			The people who support shooting say they are conserving the moor. What I see is endless acre upon acre of ugly rectangles cut in the heather  on the hillsides to feed the birds they are going to shoot for the fun of it. 


ETA I know the 'heather burning is part of the heather life cycle' argument.  Burning or cutting it in ugly man-made rectangles is not.  And the only time heather would have burnt before man is with a lightening strike,  so let that happen.,
		
Click to expand...

Forget the shooting side.  Controlled burning of the moors reduces the risk of out of control peat fires, many of which have been seen in recent years due to careless people using a portable bbq.


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			Sigh..From the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management (2018) ...2.3.1 Many people and organisaons opposed to hunting with dogs appear to have accepted the need for pest control, while condemning what they perceive to be the “sport” of hunting. For example, the 4 former MP, Ann Widdecombe, said in the House of Commons, “If hunting is not an efficient pesticide, it has no purpose (ref 2). Such a view fails to understand the crucial difference between “pest control” and “wildlife management”. The former seeks to reduce or even eradicate populations, while the latter aims to maintain healthy populations at sustainable levels that are in balance with other wildlife populations and human interests. 2.3.2 When the reason for killing a wild animal is cited as being “pest control”, then frequently welfare issues appear to be ignored, as biologist Dr Nick Fox stated in a report in 2003: “In pest control, welfare is treated as a secondary priority over efficiency in many cases…it appears, across the board, that 'pest control' has been the jusfication for some of the worst excesses in animal welfare” (ref. 3). 2.4 The health and fitness of populations 2.4.1 All methods of control and management need to be evaluated on their effects on the health and fitness of entire populations. Hunting with hounds offers three advantages to the health and fitness of populations: · A closed season complementary to the breeding period; · Selectivity; hunting uniquely reproduces the natural selection process via the chase whereby weak and sick animals are culled in direct relation to their debility, thereby promoting the health and vigour of the species; · Dispersal; it disperses high concentrations of quarry species thus reducing the impact of local damage. 2.4.2 In the case of the fox, it has its place in the overall balance of the UK's wildlife as an indigenous species. As a “hunted” species it has a status, without which it might be classified merely as a pest and, as such, may face eradication in certain parts of the UK. The British Trust for Ornithology mammal survey indicated a 39% reduction in the fox population by 2016. (ref.4) A zero population of any indigenous species cannot be acceptable. 5..

I can't quite grasp why folk who are so impassioned about an issue haven't actually read all of the research and studies done on that. This study was considered important at the time of the Hunting Act, has been updated by actual real vets using peer reviewed data and studies carried out by impartial agencies and clearly, vets who specialise in Wildlife Management still consider that hunting with hounds is relevant.  2018 is some time after the Act was passed so there was no real imperative for this group of well respected vets to put their names to this other than to update and re-publish this study because they felt it remains a significant piece of research and information.  I guess it is easier just to spout emotive, angry stuff than actually think, learn and consider...
		
Click to expand...

Sorry but I do not need to read a report to know that hunting with hounds is predominantly for the sport and fun of chasing a live animal.  Call it what you like, make as many reasons as as you like.  The majority of people are against hunting.   I do not need a study to tell me about the disruption and distress hunting causes.  I have seen the state of other animals after the hunt passes through, the damage they do to land, not to mention once again that it is illegal but continues to take place.


----------



## paddy555 (28 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			You certainly don't have to agree though and I guess you will be able to produce scientific evidence that is peer reviewed to counter this and support your views ?
		
Click to expand...

why would anyone want to though.  Most people don't need a report to tell them what to think, they are able to look at the situation, what they have actually seen etc, and come to their conclusion.

The activity is banned. Thing now is to get action to deal with the hunts still hunting foxes.  

this is from sandstones last post. An excellent summing up of the situation. 
*Sorry but I do not need to read a report to know that hunting with hounds is predominantly for the sport and fun of chasing a live animal. Call it what you like, make as many reasons as as you like. The majority of people are against hunting.*


----------



## ycbm (28 November 2020)

rabatsa said:



			Forget the shooting side.  Controlled burning of the moors reduces the risk of out of control peat fires, many of which have been seen in recent years due to careless people using a portable bbq.
		
Click to expand...

That isn't the same as destroying the visual impact of a moor by covering it with obviously man made mown rectangles, which is what happens over huge areas all around here.


----------



## ycbm (28 November 2020)

So the latest justification for hunting is wild animals don't feel fear,  it's just a stimulus they avoid? 

Isn't that the definition of fear in every animal, including man? To provide a call to action to take avoidance?   Doesn't make it any nicer for a fox than a cat or dog or human.


----------



## Clodagh (28 November 2020)

HashRouge said:



			I'm so confused. I thought fox hunting was designed to control fox numbers, but this makes it sound like its aim was to increase them?! Have I just lost the ability to read?!
		
Click to expand...

Hunting foxes was a bit of a downer for the individual, but benefitted the species as a whole. Most areas now hav ea zero fox policy, whereas before they would have been permitted to have a population for the hunt.
It is a similar, although less eye catching situation as trophy hunting in Africa. (although I can't personally see why anyone would want to shoot a giraffe, for example).


----------



## Clodagh (28 November 2020)

ycbm said:



			Hundreds of hectares.  The gamekeeper asked my permission to shoot magpies on my land. They also shoot the buzzards.

The people who support shooting say they are conserving the moor. What I see is endless acre upon acre of ugly rectangles cut in the heather  on the hillsides to feed the birds they are going to shoot for the fun of it.


ETA I know the 'heather burning is part of the heather life cycle' argument.  Burning or cutting it in ugly man-made rectangles is not.  And the only time heather would have burnt before man is with a lightening strike,  so let that happen.,
		
Click to expand...

The Peak District has had much worse fires with unmanaged heather moorland I think? Or maybe Yorkshire.
Anyway, I imagine you have no fox problem, as you say, because the keepers are controlling numbers.


----------



## Clodagh (28 November 2020)

SatansLittleHelper said:



			I do not find hunting anything "fun". I have kept birds of prey without using them for hunting but have been part of a rabbit cull situation where the landowners wanted the population controlling in a more "natural " way. Hawking, to me, is done as a means of quick and effective pest control as well as a way to feed the birds themselves. Plus this is a one on one natural situation unlike fox hunting or big organised shoots. I have no problem with pest control..I have an issue with animals being chased of miles by an unnecessary amount of dogs/riders in the name of "sport" and supposed pest control. In one breath the hunts tell us it's controlling the fox population and in the next they say they hardly ever catch one so how can it be cruel 🙄🙄
		
Click to expand...

So did you not fly your birds at all? Or on a lure? Does a hunted bird not feel stress? Are they always killed cleanly?

Hunting was of benefit to the fox population overall, at the expense of the individual.


----------



## ycbm (28 November 2020)

Clodagh said:



			The Peak District has had much worse fires with unmanaged heather moorland I think? Or maybe Yorkshire.
Anyway, I imagine you have no fox problem, as you say, because the keepers are controlling numbers.
		
Click to expand...

The farmers and the keepers control the fox numbers by shooting.


----------



## BeckyFlowers (28 November 2020)

Palo1, you are clearly passionate about land management and how hunting benefits the land.  However, you need to understand that people find it disgusting that foxes are chased by a pack of dogs and a whole load of horse riders with the intent of killing the fox.  For the "sport".  It's the enjoyment of it all that people find unpalatable.  I think it would be acceptable to most people if, for the purpose of controlling fox numbers, a few estate staff and qualified marksmen (on horseback, with dogs, on foot, on quads, however they find it necessary) went out and humanely dispatched the foxes.  The argument is lost when a whole bunch of paying horse riders join in for the fun of it.  That's the problem as far as I can see it.  I'm almost certain that it doesn't need 50 horse riders to track the fox and control the dogs.  And when you call those people ignorant for feeling that way, then that says more about you than it does about them.


----------



## meleeka (28 November 2020)

Clodagh said:



			Hunting foxes was a bit of a downer for the individual, but benefitted the species as a whole. Most areas now hav ea zero fox policy, whereas before they would have been permitted to have a population for the hunt.
It is a similar, although less eye catching situation as trophy hunting in Africa. (although I can't personally see why anyone would want to shoot a giraffe, for example).
		
Click to expand...

It’s wasn’t an effective method of control then if they allowed a population for the hunt.  How many of that thriving population were actually killed compared to how many there were?  I’m pretty sure a zero tolerance hasn’t meant that foxes will die out.  Those that stray into places where they are seen would be culled, but I expect plenty live quite happily and don’t cross paths with humans much at all. 

I really can’t see any difference in shooting a giraffe or hunting any other animal just for fun.


----------



## Wishfilly (28 November 2020)

In the UK, the laws around research on animals absolutely accept that animals and especially mammals can feel fear and distress. There are strict rules around how long social species can be kept in isolation, for example, and for what purposes this can be done. Causing fear can be allowed if it is justified, but it is acknowledged this is negative for the animal. 

I think it would be a huge step backwards for animal welfare in general if we stopped acknowledging that mammals can feel fear and distress. 

I would also add that actually, for many people, the issue is not fox hunting in and of itself anymore but:

a) People blatantly breaking the law, and the police appearing to not take this seriously for a long time. Some people believed this to be due to the perception of hunting as an upper class activity. 

b) People who object to the often irresponsible way that many hunts behave (e.g. allowing hounds to run onto A roads or trainlines) which causes disruption and danger to the local population. Locally, it tends to be the "trail" packs who are not fully legit who are more likely to have badly controlled hounds.

A lot of hunters try to persuade us that antis will come for other horse sports next, but IME most people who are anti hunting are not anti other horse sports, except for, in some cases, racing. A lot of them do view hunting animals with hounds as specifically and uniquely cruel.


----------



## Clodagh (28 November 2020)

meleeka said:



			It’s wasn’t an effective method of control then if they allowed a population for the hunt.  How many of that thriving population were actually killed compared to how many there were?  I’m pretty sure a zero tolerance hasn’t meant that foxes will die out.  Those that stray into places where they are seen would be culled, but I expect plenty live quite happily and don’t cross paths with humans much at all.

I really can’t see any difference in shooting a giraffe or hunting any other animal just for fun.
		
Click to expand...

It wasn’t foolproof but generally less fit ones were killed.
It also depends on the area, in remote areas like the Lakes and Exmoor hounds would go specifically after lamb killing foxes. That would be counted as targeted pest control? 
There are far fewer foxes around generally (Essex) the cubs have also had a hard time with the dry springs and the collapse of the rabbit population.


----------



## Tiddlypom (28 November 2020)

Clodagh said:



			It wasn’t foolproof but generally less fit ones were killed.
It also depends on the area, in remote areas like the Lakes and Exmoor hounds would go specifically after lamb killing foxes. That would be counted as targeted pest control?
		
Click to expand...

This is all true.

Pre ban, following small non fashionable packs as I did, we would get asked by farmers to target a particular ‘rogue’ fox when we were out.


----------



## Rowreach (28 November 2020)

meleeka said:



			It’s wasn’t an effective method of control then if they allowed a population for the hunt.
		
Click to expand...

Well yes in many cases it was, because controlling a population of any species is not about annihilating it, it's about keeping a sustainable number for the relevant environment.

Every year one of our local NT properties has to carry out a secret cull of their deer population to control numbers and remove the old and weak - but of course the general public just sees a lovely herd of deer, because imagine the outrage if they knew that Bambis were being shot.

The problem with shooting, snaring and poisoning any animal is that it is very hard to discriminate and manage.  Shooting is ok provided the shot is clean and the animal is dispatched immediately, but not all foxes are that lucky.  One thing about being caught by hounds is that the death is very quick, it's the chase that may not be.

But as I said before, this thread is about hunts breaking the law, not about arguing for a return to legal foxhunting - times really have moved on, and I wouldn't support it nowadays.


----------



## Tiddlypom (28 November 2020)

It’s finally been mentioned by Horse and Hound mag.

https://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/leaked-webinars-were-promoting-legal-trail-hunting-731577


----------



## palo1 (28 November 2020)

ycbm said:



			So the latest justification for hunting is wild animals don't feel fear,  it's just a stimulus they avoid?

Isn't that the definition of fear in every animal, including man? To provide a call to action to take avoidance?   Doesn't make it any nicer for a fox than a cat or dog or human.
		
Click to expand...

I certainly didn't say that @ycbm.  I was just presenting the views and ideas of those vets that produced the report.  

@paddy555 
*Sorry but I do not need to read a report to know that hunting with hounds is predominantly for the sport and fun of chasing a live animal. Call it what you like, make as many reasons as as you like. The majority of people are against hunting.*

I agree that most people are against hunting and I would also say that most people have no clue what hunting (legal and pre-ban) actually involves/involved. (Some posters on here do understand pre-ban hunting and have informed views but far from all posters).  Unfortunately if you decide to make up your mind about things without being informed that significantly lessens the strength of your argument.  I don't want to chase a live animal - I do want to go trail hunting within the existing law. I don't like being told what exactly that activity is, by people who clearly don't know and who just want to exert their own, uninformed opinion.   I thought it might be interesting and useful to explore some of the hackneyed expressions and opinions about hunting generally with some of the research around that, produced by professional vets.  Of course you don't have to listen to what they say - I assume you pick and choose to listen what your vet says on other occasions so that your opinions are always right.  
Echo chambers don't ever provide answers...


----------



## palo1 (28 November 2020)

BeckyFlowers said:



			Palo1, you are clearly passionate about land management and how hunting benefits the land.  However, you need to understand that people find it disgusting that foxes are chased by a pack of dogs and a whole load of horse riders with the intent of killing the fox.  For the "sport".  It's the enjoyment of it all that people find unpalatable.  I think it would be acceptable to most people if, for the purpose of controlling fox numbers, a few estate staff and qualified marksmen (on horseback, with dogs, on foot, on quads, however they find it necessary) went out and humanely dispatched the foxes.  The argument is lost when a whole bunch of paying horse riders join in for the fun of it.  That's the problem as far as I can see it.  I'm almost certain that it doesn't need 50 horse riders to track the fox and control the dogs.  And when you call those people ignorant for feeling that way, then that says more about you than it does about them.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you for your reply - I only suggest that people are ignorant because they express views and ideas that demonstrate they do not understand hunting.  Your post clearly demonstrates that the anti-hunt brigade are NOT interested in foxes or animal welfare but certainly offended by those that go hunting.  That is totally irrelevant to any discussion of cruelty or costs and benefits of hunting.  As I have said many times before the riders following a hunt are there to watch hounds work and to cross the country as best they can and certainly it does not need 50 horse riders to track the fox and control the dogs - the huntsman and whippers in control the dogs (hounds) and the field of riders are usually at a discreet distance so that hounds can do their thing.


----------



## palo1 (28 November 2020)

Wishfilly said:



			In the UK, the laws around research on animals absolutely accept that animals and especially mammals can feel fear and distress. There are strict rules around how long social species can be kept in isolation, for example, and for what purposes this can be done. Causing fear can be allowed if it is justified, but it is acknowledged this is negative for the animal.

I think it would be a huge step backwards for animal welfare in general if we stopped acknowledging that mammals can feel fear and distress.

I would also add that actually, for many people, the issue is not fox hunting in and of itself anymore but:

a) People blatantly breaking the law, and the police appearing to not take this seriously for a long time. Some people believed this to be due to the perception of hunting as an upper class activity.

b) People who object to the often irresponsible way that many hunts behave (e.g. allowing hounds to run onto A roads or trainlines) which causes disruption and danger to the local population. Locally, it tends to be the "trail" packs who are not fully legit who are more likely to have badly controlled hounds.

A lot of hunters try to persuade us that antis will come for other horse sports next, but IME most people who are anti hunting are not anti other horse sports, except for, in some cases, racing. A lot of them do view hunting animals with hounds as specifically and uniquely cruel.
		
Click to expand...

No-one has argued that animals don't feel fear or distress though - just that animals don't have the same notions of fear as humans, that fear is essential for a wild animal's health and survival and that fear is beneficial within an ecosystem - just read the report to see where these things are said and what they actually mean.  

You may feel that people are breaking the law/ hunting outside the law - there are convictions for that for sure, though there are more for sab/anti-hunt violence.  However 2 wrongs don't make a right.  I hope that the current situation does not result in all hunting folk being tarred with the 'illegal' brush, I really do as the mechanism of hunting (within the law) remains uniquely valuable to the countryside in a number of ways.  

I think it is extremely likely that if hunting is completely banned then other horse sports, fishing, shooting and eventually pet ownership and land access will be contested and then removed from our culture and society.  That may be seen as progress but I don't have to agree with that or facilitate it.


----------



## BeckyFlowers (28 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			Thank you for your reply - I only suggest that people are ignorant because they express views and ideas that demonstrate they do not understand hunting.  Your post clearly demonstrates that the anti-hunt brigade are NOT interested in foxes or animal welfare but certainly offended by those that go hunting.  That is totally irrelevant to any discussion of cruelty or costs and benefits of hunting.  As I have said many times before the riders following a hunt are there to watch hounds work and to cross the country as best they cam and certainly it does not need 50 horse riders to track the fox and control the dogs - the huntsman and whippers in control the dogs (hounds) and the field of riders are usually at a discreet distance so that hounds can do their thing.
		
Click to expand...

I don't know if you are wilfully not taking the point, or if you generally don't understand what myself and other posters have said, but I'm not going to go through it again - except to say that my earlier post literally started out with the animal welfare angle.


----------



## ycbm (28 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			No-one has argued that animals don't feel fear or distress though - just that animals don't have the same notions of fear as humans
		
Click to expand...

It's impossible to prove that,  it's just an assertion.   I see no reason at all why the chemistry which creates fear in a human, the same chemistry as creates it in all mammals,   shouldn't feel exactly the same to any other mammal.


----------



## ycbm (28 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			Of course you don't have to listen to what they say - I assume you pick and choose to listen what your vet says on other occasions so that your opinions are always right.
		
Click to expand...


You are failing by quite a margin to meet the standard of adult debate you requested here Palo.
.


----------



## Amymay (28 November 2020)

I was someone who loved hunting, attended the protest rallies and was as gutted as the next when the ban came in to affect.

But my view is now completely changed. It’s not based on any science- it doesn’t need to be.  Just plain old common sense and morality.

It really isn’t complicated 🙄


----------



## Tiddlypom (28 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			I thought it might be interesting and useful to explore some of the hackneyed expressions and opinions about hunting generally with some of the research around that, produced by professional vets. Of course you don't have to listen to what they say - I assume you pick and choose to listen what your vet says on other occasions so that your opinions are always right.
		
Click to expand...

Just because they are qualified vets doesn’t mean that they aren’t barking mad and are over promoting their own personal interests.

I do not buy the premise that the hunted fox does not experience fear, certainly in the latter stages of the chase.

I have a large number of doctors in the family. I’d like to assure everyone that all doctors are in it for the benefits of their patients, but that would be a lie. Most of them are, of course (including all my rellies), but not all.


----------



## Rowreach (28 November 2020)

ycbm said:



			It's impossible to prove that,  it's just an assertion.   I see no reason at all why the chemistry which creates fear in a human, the same chemistry as creates it in all mammals,   shouldn't feel exactly the same to any other mammal.
		
Click to expand...

That's an interesting point for debate - I've no doubt there are some physiological similarities present, but really and truly a hunted animal, or a dog being frightened of fireworks for example, bears absolutely no relationship to a hunted human or a person living through the Blitz, because cognisance of a quantifiable threat exists for a person in a way it can't possibly exist for a fox.


----------



## Rowreach (28 November 2020)

Amymay said:



			I was someone who loved hunting, attended the protest rallies and was as gutted as the next when the ban came in to affect.

But my view is now completely changed. It’s not based on any science- it doesn’t need to be.  Just plain old common sense and morality.

It really isn’t complicated 🙄
		
Click to expand...

Ditto.


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			I certainly didn't say that @ycbm.  I was just presenting the views and ideas of those vets that produced the report. 

@paddy555
*Sorry but I do not need to read a report to know that hunting with hounds is predominantly for the sport and fun of chasing a live animal. Call it what you like, make as many reasons as as you like. The majority of people are against hunting.*

I agree that most people are against hunting and I would also say that most people have no clue what hunting (legal and pre-ban) actually involves/involved. (Some posters on here do understand pre-ban hunting and have informed views but far from all posters).  Unfortunately if you decide to make up your mind about things without being informed that significantly lessens the strength of your argument.  I don't want to chase a live animal - I do want to go trail hunting within the existing law. I don't like being told what exactly that activity is, by people who clearly don't know and who just want to exert their own, uninformed opinion.   I thought it might be interesting and useful to explore some of the hackneyed expressions and opinions about hunting generally with some of the research around that, produced by professional vets.  Of course you don't have to listen to what they say - I assume you pick and choose to listen what your vet says on other occasions so that your opinions are always right. 
Echo chambers don't ever provide answers...
		
Click to expand...

Sorry but I do understand and I have been hunting but Im afraid I still dont agree.  One of the common excuses used by the hunting fraternity is Oh but you do not understand.... Well yes I do but I still do not agree


----------



## HashRouge (28 November 2020)

Rowreach said:



			That's an interesting point for debate - I've no doubt there are some physiological similarities present, but really and truly a hunted animal, or a dog being frightened of fireworks for example, bears absolutely no relationship to a hunted human or a person living through the Blitz, because cognisance of a quantifiable threat exists for a person in a way it can't possibly exist for a fox.
		
Click to expand...

Does it really make that much difference? The animals in the scenarios you give are still frightened. Does full understanding of the threat make the fear more significant? I'd say that's utterly unprovable. Ultimately we have no idea what fear feels like to an animal, we simply know that they experience it.


----------



## paddy555 (28 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			I hope that the current situation does not result in all hunting folk being tarred with the 'illegal' brush, I really do as the mechanism of hunting (within the law) remains uniquely valuable to the countryside in a number of ways.
		
Click to expand...

I don't get this. Hunting within the law as I understand it is following a trail, no animals get hunted. 
I live in a hunting area. Leaving aside now due to Covid, a lot of lorries and trailers drive into the area from afar which cannot help climate change. They park and cause damage to grass car parks or the side of the road on the common.  If they meet at a pub then it will generate some trade. Most often it is at a private house/farm so no benefit for the local traders. Then they go off for the day. The car followers then block the narrow lanes and seem either incapable of reversing or unwilling to do so. Heaven help any fire engine or ambulance that wants to get through. Then the car followers drive round in endless circles trying to find the hunt, more emissions. Poor old climate change. 

They then ride around the countryside for several hours. We know exactly where they have been from the mud and grass they have cut up and damaged with their horses hooves.  

Then everyone goes home and more emissions for climate change. 
Then later that night/the following morning the hunt staff travel out again to collect the odd hound that went astray. More emissions.
On a bad day hounds may have gone through someone's garden, upset or eaten their cat or just run through non hunter's fields upsetting their animals. 

For us that has been an average day's hunting. 

So, which part of that is valuable to the countryside?


----------



## Wishfilly (28 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			No-one has argued that animals don't feel fear or distress though - just that animals don't have the same notions of fear as humans, that fear is essential for a wild animal's health and survival and that fear is beneficial within an ecosystem - just read the report to see where these things are said and what they actually mean. 

You may feel that people are breaking the law/ hunting outside the law - there are convictions for that for sure, though there are more for sab/anti-hunt violence.  However 2 wrongs don't make a right.  I hope that the current situation does not result in all hunting folk being tarred with the 'illegal' brush, I really do as the mechanism of hunting (within the law) remains uniquely valuable to the countryside in a number of ways. 

I think it is extremely likely that if hunting is completely banned then other horse sports, fishing, shooting and eventually pet ownership and land access will be contested and then removed from our culture and society.  That may be seen as progress but I don't have to agree with that or facilitate it.
		
Click to expand...

But the point about there being more convictions for anti-hunt violence sort of makes the point I was making- people feel the law is being unequally applied. And when you have ex- police officers and a lord discussing breaking the law, I can completely understand why they feel that way. I am sure not all people who hunt break the law, and many packs hunt both safely and legally. But some do, and they seem to get away with it. Especially just post ban, there seemed to be little apetite to enforce the law.

FWIW, I KNOW one of my local hunts is breaking the law re lockdown- which makes me believe the people who say they also illegally hunt foxes on purpose. 

I agree that there are some people who are anti-hunting who are also anti ridden horses in general. I think there are a lot who are anti shooting too. However, I also think there are a lot of people who find hunting with hounds uniquely archaic and abhorent, and don't actually care about other horse sports. I think it's a mistake to think all the people who are anti hunting hold such extreme views. 

My personal opinion is that a well run program of shooting would probably be more humane and better for the foxes, but I have no issue with genuine trail hunting/drag hunting/bloodhounds etc. 

I think this seminar specifically comes close to undermining the rule of law, and I think that is a major problem. That has nothing to do with whether hunting is cruel or not, it is illegal, and the law should be equally applied to everyone- when a sitting member of the house of lords appears to endorse law breaking, that is a problem.

I also have an issue with hunts who let their hounds run out of control endangering pets, livestock and human life.


----------



## Rowreach (28 November 2020)

HashRouge said:



			Does it really make that much difference? The animals in the scenarios you give are still frightened. Does full understanding of the threat make the fear more significant? I'd say that's utterly unprovable. Ultimately we have no idea what fear feels like to an animal, we simply know that they experience it.
		
Click to expand...

I don't know why you are getting stroppy with me, it was just, I thought, an interesting point of discussion.  If you read all my other comments you'd know chasing foxes isn't something I condone.


----------



## Tiddlypom (28 November 2020)

Days when the hunt are here are a complete PITA, and it is vital that I am notified (doing ok in that respect now, though much more notice would help a lot).

Horses done and brought in for the day, dog walked, then stay in and wait.

The car followers are actually much more hassle than the hunt proper. Hunt vehicles parking blocking people’s drives and gateways, on blind bends etc etc. At least we don’t have all the antis and the police as well, now.

*coughs* one of the packs that I followed pre ban may well have been the one that comes past Paddy555’s place. I hope we were not a nuisance in those days, we were always polite to everyone we met.


----------



## Wishfilly (28 November 2020)

paddy555 said:



			I don't get this. Hunting within the law as I understand it is following a trail, no animals get hunted.
I live in a hunting area. Leaving aside now due to Covid, a lot of lorries and trailers drive into the area from afar which cannot help climate change. They park and cause damage to grass car parks or the side of the road on the common.  If they meet at a pub then it will generate some trade. Most often it is at a private house/farm so no benefit for the local traders. Then they go off for the day. The car followers then block the narrow lanes and seem either incapable of reversing or unwilling to do so. Heaven help any fire engine or ambulance that wants to get through. Then the car followers drive round in endless circles trying to find the hunt, more emissions. Poor old climate change.

They then ride around the countryside for several hours. We know exactly where they have been from the mud and grass they have cut up and damaged with their horses hooves. 

Then everyone goes home and more emissions for climate change.
Then later that night/the following morning the hunt staff travel out again to collect the odd hound that went astray. More emissions.
On a bad day hounds may have gone through someone's garden, upset or eaten their cat or just run through non hunter's fields upsetting their animals.

For us that has been an average day's hunting.

So, which part of that is valuable to the countryside?
		
Click to expand...

TBF, one of the hunts in this county does a lot for the rural community in terms of organising things like point to points, hunter trials, shows etc which I think do benefit the local economy. The others seem to do a lot less. 

I suppose also, there are people who wouldn't own horses if they couldn't hunt, and they create business for farriers, tack shops, feed merchants etc, the same as the rest of us who own horses. 

But a drag hunt or bloodhound pack could fulfil the same functions. There's nothing about illegal hunting that specifically benefits the rural economy.


----------



## hollyandivy123 (28 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			No-one has argued that animals don't feel fear or distress though - just that animals don't have the same notions of fear as humans, that fear is essential for a wild animal's health and survival and that fear is beneficial within an ecosystem - just read the report to see where these things are said and what they actually mean.

You may feel that people are breaking the law/ hunting outside the law - there are convictions for that for sure, though there are more for sab/anti-hunt violence.  However 2 wrongs don't make a right.  I hope that the current situation does not result in all hunting folk being tarred with the 'illegal' brush, I really do as the mechanism of hunting (within the law) remains uniquely valuable to the countryside in a number of ways.

I think it is extremely likely that if hunting is completely banned then other horse sports, fishing, shooting and eventually pet ownership and land access will be contested and then removed from our culture and society.  That may be seen as progress but I don't have to agree with that or facilitate it.
		
Click to expand...

would you not say training fox hounds to follow a scent trail of fox is going to lead to "accidental" incidences of fox hunting..............?


----------



## Tiddlypom (28 November 2020)

hollyandivy123 said:



			would you not say training fox hounds to follow a scent trail of fox is going to lead to "accidental" incidences of fox hunting..............?
		
Click to expand...

That was a crazy concession, allowing fox scent to be used post ban.


----------



## ycbm (28 November 2020)

Point to point qualifying by hunting is a complete joke.  Does it still happen? 

In my experience,  people who want to do amateur racing will organise amateur racing whether there is a hunt or not. What they won't,  ime, generally do is risk their very valuable racers doing any genuine hunting. The point to point qualifiers could usually be found tootling along quietly a long way behind the hounds, for the minimum time possible to get the required signature on their hunt qualification card.  

So you can strike that one off as a benefit to the local community from hunting.


----------



## Tiddlypom (28 November 2020)

I don’t think that pointers actually have to go hunting any more to qualify?

Point to pointing is way removed from its origins.


----------



## paddy555 (28 November 2020)

Tiddlypom said:



			*coughs* one of the packs that I followed pre ban may well have been the one that comes past Paddy555’s place. I hope we were not a nuisance in those days, we were always polite to everyone we met.
		
Click to expand...

*coughs back*  hmmm! a lot of my dislike came from the activities of the SD. I don't expect that was your hunt tho'.


----------



## paddy555 (28 November 2020)

ycbm said:



			So you can strike that one off as a benefit to the local community from hunting.
		
Click to expand...

not to worry, I expect we will hear about the rest soon.


----------



## ycbm (28 November 2020)

Rowreach said:



			That's an interesting point for debate - I've no doubt there are some physiological similarities present, but really and truly a hunted animal, or a dog being frightened of fireworks for example, bears absolutely no relationship to a hunted human or a person living through the Blitz, because cognisance of a quantifiable threat exists for a person in a way it can't possibly exist for a fox.
		
Click to expand...

I would argue the other way,  I think,  RR. That inability to quantify the threat would make an animal more fearful more of the time, not less.  There is  wasted energy from running when it doesn't need to,  but I would have thought that the system would err on the side that the downside to running is less than the potential downside of staying put,  and cause sufficient fear to make the animal run.  

In the case of foxes,  of course,  we are also talking about a predator animal at the top of the pyramid which wouldn't be expected to feel fear much at all.  And the deliberate creation of that fear by hunters. So even if the fear was less than if the hunted animal is a human,  it still seems pretty indefensible.  

I know you are against hunting;  like you I found this an interesting thing to analyse.  
.


----------



## Rowreach (28 November 2020)

ycbm said:



			Point to point qualifying by hunting is a complete joke.  Does it still happen?

In my experience,  people who want to do amateur racing will organise amateur racing whether there is a hunt or not. What they won't,  ime, generally do is risk their very valuable racers doing any genuine hunting. The point to point qualifiers could usually be found tootling along quietly a long way behind the hounds, for the minimum time possible to get the required signature on their hunt qualification card. 

So you can strike that one off as a benefit to the local community from hunting.
		
Click to expand...

It was usually myself and a friend boinging along causing chaos, and the masters were only too happy to sign our cards shortly after leaving the meet (if we stopped bouncing long enough) and get rid of us.


----------



## Tiddlypom (28 November 2020)

paddy555 said:



			*coughs back*  hmmm! a lot of my dislike came from the activities of the SD. I don't expect that was your hunt tho'. 

Click to expand...

Whoops .

Though it was only one of seven packs that I have hunted with. They were well behaved in my day...

There certainly were many fewer car followers back in the day, hardly any, in fact.


----------



## GoldenWillow (28 November 2020)

I've just read that in our county the National Trust, National Park Authority and United Utilities has suspended hunting over their land because of this.


----------



## Michen (28 November 2020)

ycbm said:



			Point to point qualifying by hunting is a complete joke.  Does it still happen? 

In my experience,  people who want to do amateur racing will organise amateur racing whether there is a hunt or not. What they won't,  ime, generally do is risk their very valuable racers doing any genuine hunting. The point to point qualifiers could usually be found tootling along quietly a long way behind the hounds, for the minimum time possible to get the required signature on their hunt qualification card.  

So you can strike that one off as a benefit to the local community from hunting.
		
Click to expand...

Well, if you know of Grands Crus, who at the time my Godfather (his owner) had been offered a life changing amount of money for, he regularly went hunting even when racing.


----------



## oldie48 (28 November 2020)

I have no time for hunts that are breaking the law but I feel very sorry for those responsible hunts that are trail laying and operating legally who will be affected by this. For many riders the opportunity to ride off road, enjoy a sociable time with friends and have a good blast are limited. It's not my cup of tea, too old and too windy, but I have no desire to stop others provided they do it legally. I have lots of friends who hunt and I have never thought they did it because they enjoyed the "kill" and pre ban, to my somewhat untutored eyes, when I saw the field they were generally miles away from the huntsman and hounds having a separate jolly. The question of whether hunting is the best way to manage the fox population is totally immaterial, the ban will never be reversed but foxes do need to be controlled as do rats and other vermin. My terrier will happily dispatch a rat, stable cats will dispense with mice often after playing with them for some time, foxes leave corpses in my garden and certainly don't just hunt to eat. It is certainly a natural thing for animals to hunt and some do it in packs without human interaction so I am struggling a little bit to understand the cruelty aspect. When I lived in the city we saw more foxes than we do here in the country, they killed local cats and one got into a neighbour's rabbits and killed the lot leaving mutilated bodies for the children to find. Nature can be pretty cruel.


----------



## Stressymummy (28 November 2020)

Tiddlypom said:



			A reminder of what some of the delightful, country based, animal welfare at heart hunting lot get up to.

Kimblewick Hunt, New Years Day 2019.

Kimblewick Hunt: Men sentenced for releasing fox 'into hunt path' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-50562260

Covert cctv filming, no antis present. Fox prodded out of a drain then pulled out by its tail just as hounds approach. The stooges who did the prodding got suspended prison sentences, but the brains who pulled their strings did not.

https://forums.horseandhound.co.uk/threads/kimblewick-hunt-pair-found-guilty.781967/

Click to expand...


----------



## Stressymummy (28 November 2020)

Sandstone1 said:



			The hunt likes to have something to chase so its in their interest to increase numbers, makes the pest control element somewhat redundant!  Pro hunters will say Oh you do not understand the ways of the countryside.  I understand they just enjoy the sport of chasing and killing a fox.  It would be far more honest of them just to admit that.
		
Click to expand...

This forum is called HORSE AND HOUND !!!
If you don't like hunting why are you here ?


----------



## Fred66 (28 November 2020)

This is a subject that polarises views. 
It starts with why was hunting banned ? Was it because the independent evidence based report that was commissioned indicated that hunting foxes with hounds was cruel ? To which the answer is no, the report indicated that in the main it was one of the least cruel methods. It was the most naturally selective method of population control and that with licensing would potentially be the best method of population control. Cruelty doesn’t come from whether the act is enjoyed or not by others, it is the act itself.
Many MPs have since admitted that they saw it as a class war where they could score a win.
Laws brought in based on spite and against the evidence are bound to be resented.

Having said that the law was brought in and most hunts have adapted and are doing their best to follow the law regarding laying and following trails. 
Despite this many have started to get more and more anti hunt groups follow them with the aim of provoking, intimidating, threatening people (including children) whilst disrupting the hunting of laid trails. Their actions directly contribute to the reduction in control of hounds by the hunt staff and quite often result in the very result they purport to be trying to stop. Some of these people are law abiding and polite and are there to watch to gather evidence if the hunts do break the law, but more and more are  not interested in whether hunts are following the law they are just wanting to spoil people’s days in anyway they can. In what other area would this be acceptable?


----------



## ester (28 November 2020)

yes sandstone why have you been here for 10 years lol 

I love it when new users SHOUT


----------



## rextherobber (28 November 2020)

Fred66 said:



			This is a subject that polarises views. 
It starts with why was hunting banned ? Was it because the independent evidence based report that was commissioned indicated that hunting foxes with hounds was cruel ? To which the answer is no, the report indicated that in the main it was one of the least cruel methods. It was the most naturally selective method of population control and that with licensing would potentially be the best method of population control. Cruelty doesn’t come from whether the act is enjoyed or not by others, it is the act itself.
Many MPs have since admitted that they saw it as a class war where they could score a win.
Laws brought in based on spite and against the evidence are bound to be resented.

Having said that the law was brought in and most hunts have adapted and are doing their best to follow the law regarding laying and following trails. 
Despite this many have started to get more and more anti hunt groups follow them with the aim of provoking, intimidating, threatening people (including children) whilst disrupting the hunting of laid trails. Their actions directly contribute to the reduction in control of hounds by the hunt staff and quite often result in the very result they purport to be trying to stop. Some of these people are law abiding and polite and are there to watch to gather evidence if the hunts do break the law, but more and more are  not interested in whether hunts are following the law they are just wanting to spoil people’s days in anyway they can. In what other area would this be acceptable?
		
Click to expand...

Hunting is banned because the majority of people in the country want it to be, why should this activity be allowed to continue when it is both illegal, and disruptive to people trying to live and work in the countryside? I have been prevented from driving down a lane, when I was on my way to work, by hunt supporters who presumably thought I was an Anti, I have had to return home from work to ensure my livestock is safe when I have discovered the hunt is in the area....The report is undeniably biased...And on the flip side, the less well reported cases of Hunt employed  "heavies"  activities towards anyone they perceive to be an Anti, blocking roads, dangerous driving, beating up, harrassing, a young lad actually died after being hit by a hunt supporters vehicle
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-driver-rams-hunt-saboteurs-pickup-truck.html
I know, it's The Daily Mail, but the video is terrifying. Clearly there is unacceptable behaviour on both sides, this has to stop.


----------



## ycbm (28 November 2020)

Stressymummy said:



			This forum is called HORSE AND HOUND !!!
If you don't like hunting why are you here ?
		
Click to expand...

It isn't a requirement of belonging to the forum that you approve of activities which are illegal, afaik.


----------



## ycbm (28 November 2020)

Michen said:



			Well, if you know of Grands Crus, who at the time my Godfather (his owner) had been offered a life changing amount of money for, he regularly went hunting even when racing.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't say there were none Michen.

The point was that point to pointing is not a benefit to the local community which is dependant on hunting, and can't be counted in hunting's favour,  ime,  because  it will happen whether there is hunting or not because people want the racing opportunities.  
.


----------



## ycbm (28 November 2020)

Fred66 said:



			Having said that the law was brought in and most hunts have adapted and are doing their best to follow the law regarding laying and following trails.
		
Click to expand...

Most hunts in my travelling distance have continued to hunt fox in defiance of the law.  That's why they and legitimate trail hunts continue to be sabbed,  because nobody is sure who is obeying the law and who is not. 

There is no real history of drag hunts being sabbed. If trail hunters laid heavier and non fox scents and controlled their hounds like drag packs do,  sabbing would disappear.

There is,  of course,  no excuse for illegal activity by sabs.  




			Laws brought in based on spite and against the evidence are bound to be resented.
		
Click to expand...

It is a very small subset of the population that resents this law.  A lot more people probably resent speeding laws.


----------



## Fred66 (29 November 2020)

rextherobber said:



			Hunting is banned because the majority of people in the country want it to be,
		
Click to expand...

There is no evidence to support this statement it might be true it might not. Even if it is true it does not automatically make it right.


rextherobber said:



			why should this activity be allowed to continue when it is both illegal, and disruptive to people trying to live and work in the countryside?
		
Click to expand...

 If you have evidence that it is illegal then give it to the police if not then it might just be that the hunt are acting legally. Also pure drag hunts would also generate the same level of disruption and the hunts have as much right to be on the road as anyone else. In my experience the hunt followers do their best to ensure clear passage for through traffic and try not to block the roads, the shout “car please” is used to indicate if a car not following is spotted in areas where the road might narrow to make passage difficult.


----------



## GoldenWillow (29 November 2020)

Fred66 said:



			If you have evidence that it is illegal then give it to the police if not then it might just be that the hunt are acting legally. Also pure drag hunts would also generate the same level of disruption and the hunts have as much right to be on the road as anyone else. In my experience the hunt followers do their best to ensure clear passage for through traffic and try not to block the roads, the shout “car please” is used to indicate if a car not following is spotted in areas where the road might narrow to make passage difficult.
		
Click to expand...

I think people's views are understandably very dependant on how their individual hunts act and behave.

My experience of our local hunt is that there were serious concerns by the community that they were acting illegally (no anti's involved, just locals and landowners). The police were called to monitor hunts, within minutes of the police arrived the hunt loaded the hounds and left.

I have also been on the receiving end of rude, nasty and bullying behaviour of hunt followers, jeering, very rude remarks and driving pushing me off the road onto land with deep hidden ditches. This was out on a hack on our local roads, hunt was a foot pack on this occasion because our land is not suitable for mounted hunt. The driving, and parking, of the followers is generally dangerous. Because of the hunts dreadful behaviour they have lost the landowners permission to hunt around here which they had previously had for all my lifetime.


----------



## Tiddlypom (29 November 2020)

Fred66 said:



			In my experience the hunt followers do their best to ensure clear passage for through traffic and try not to block the roads, the shout “car please” is used to indicate if a car not following is spotted in areas where the road might narrow to make passage difficult.
		
Click to expand...

Lucky you.

I had a conversation one day with a master pointing out how much disruption the hunt causes by blocking roads etc., and how much ill feeling that causes to hunting by people who would otherwise be quite ambivalent towards it.

No, he was having none of it. He insisted that everyone wants to stop and watch the hunt when they come across it. He just couldn’t comprehend that actually people get pretty cross when held up by gormless road blocking.

My poor mobile hairdresser, a rural lass through and through, had just arrived very late as the hunt were blocking the road.

Same master had also opined that he couldn’t possibly let everyone with ‘an acre and a pony’ know that the hunt would be coming to their area in advance. So there you go, if you’ve got an acre and a pony, you’re not worth bothering about.

New mastership is working better for pre hunt notifications atm.


----------



## Tiddlypom (29 November 2020)

Thank you, Stressymummy,  for bring the Kimblewick court case post back up .

As a reminder, the Countryside Alliance‘s Head of Hunting follows that pack. So you’d have thought that it would be a model of good practice, wouldn’t you?


----------



## shortstuff99 (29 November 2020)

Last poll that I saw had support for the ban at 85% which is quite a lot I would say. 

If you could show that packs were hunting completely legally I imagine support for an all out ban would drop considerably.


----------



## Equine_Dream (29 November 2020)

ycbm said:



			Most hunts in my travelling distance have continued to hunt fox in defiance of the law.  That's why they and legitimate trail hunts continue to be sabbed,  because nobody is sure who is obeying the law and who is not.

There is no real history of drag hunts being sabbed. If trail hunters laid heavier and non fox scents and controlled their hounds like drag packs do,  sabbing would disappear.

There is,  of course,  no excuse for illegal activity by sabs. 



It is a very small subset of the population that resents this law.  A lot more people probably resent speeding laws.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry but I must disagree with you there. Time after time we have been subject to harassment by sabs. We are open about laying our trails and haven't killed a fox for many many years. No "accidents" whatsoever. Our masters and whips have superb control of their hounds. Its a pleasure to watch them work. Yet despite our openness and best efforts sabs are simply not interested in listening. They just want to post pictures of children all over Facebook and make false accusations. Then even if they do acknowledge that we are hunting legally within the law, they claim its only due to their presence and if it wasn't for them we'd be tearing through local foxes left right and centre. 
I firmly believe that sabs don't care about animal welfare for a second and it is purely a "class war". They simply want to harrass hunts ime.


----------



## Sandstone1 (29 November 2020)

Stressymummy said:



			This forum is called HORSE AND HOUND !!!
If you don't like hunting why are you here ?
		
Click to expand...

I am here because I like horses and in fact dogs,  I think you will find that a lot of people here do not agree with ILLEGAL hunting.    I have nothing against drag hunting or trail hunting but sadly that is not all that goes on is it??


----------



## ycbm (29 November 2020)

Equine_Dream said:



			Sorry but I must disagree with you there. Time after time we have been subject to harassment by sabs. We are open about laying our trails and haven't killed a fox for many many years. No "accidents" whatsoever. Our masters and whips have superb control of their hounds. Its a pleasure to watch them work. Yet despite our openness and best efforts sabs are simply not interested in listening. They just want to post pictures of children all over Facebook and make false accusations. Then even if they do acknowledge that we are hunting legally within the law, they claim its only due to their presence and if it wasn't for them we'd be tearing through local foxes left right and centre. 
I firmly believe that sabs don't care about animal welfare for a second and it is purely a "class war". They simply want to harrass hunts ime.
		
Click to expand...


Trail hunts are sabbed because some/many trail hunts still hunt fox.  Yours doesn't,  but nobody knows that because so many others still do, hopefully now 'did'.  Their suspicions that you might hunt illegally if they weren't there,  in the light of that,  are perfectly justified. 

If they just wanted to disrupt they would also sab drags,  and they never have except by rare mistake. 

The mistake legal trail hunts have made is in turning a blind eye to what they full knew has extensively been happening with other hunts.  I haven't read the full transcripts of the podcasts but I'd be surprised if there was any criticism at all,  never mind howls of protest, when the advice was given how to evade the law.


----------



## Sandstone1 (29 November 2020)

Stressymummy said:



			This forum is called HORSE AND HOUND !!!
If you don't like hunting why are you here ?
		
Click to expand...

That attitude is one reason that the pro hunting gang has such a reputation for rudeness.  I dont care if you are for or against hunting but if you want to put your point across try doing it in a polite manner.  The fact is hunting live animals with hounds is ILLEGAL and what ever you think about it if you take part you are breaking the law.


----------



## rabatsa (29 November 2020)

Going by the vitriol poured out on facebook everytime the local blood hounds meet for drag hunting I suspect that it is any following of hounds by people on horses that the "public" are against.


----------



## Sandstone1 (29 November 2020)

rabatsa said:



			Going by the vitriol poured out on facebook everytime the local blood hounds meet for drag hunting I suspect that it is any following of hounds by people on horses that the "public" are against.
		
Click to expand...

Probably because people dont trust them not to be hunting foxes,  Yes I know Blood hounds do not but not everyone will know that.


----------



## ycbm (29 November 2020)

rabatsa said:



			Going by the vitriol poured out on facebook everytime the local blood hounds meet for drag hunting I suspect that it is any following of hounds by people on horses that the "public" are against.
		
Click to expand...

One of the reasons I was happy to give up drag hunting was because I was becoming increasingly embarrassed at the level of  unavoidable and/or thoughtless antisocial impact on the neighbourhoods where we met and the road users where we went.  This doesn't surprise me, there is simply not enough room for everyone any more. 
.


----------



## Equine_Dream (29 November 2020)

ycbm said:



			Trail hunts are sabbed because some/many trail hunts still hunt fox.  Yours doesn't,  but nobody knows that because so many others still do, hopefully now 'did'.  Their suspicions that you might hunt illegally if they weren't there,  in the light of that,  are perfectly justified.

If they just wanted to disrupt they would also sab drags,  and they never have except by rare mistake.

The mistake legal trail hunts have made is in turning a blind eye to what they full knew has extensively been happening with other hunts.  I haven't read the full transcripts of the podcasts but I'd be surprised if there was any criticism at all,  never mind howls of protest, when the advice was given how to evade the law.
		
Click to expand...

Their suspicion may have been justified initially but when they continue to harass and intimidate a hunt without any shred of evidence of illegal hunting whatsoever, that is not in any way justified. They know perfectly well that we are a legal hunt. In all the years of harassment we have suffered at their hands,  they have never ever had a shred of evidence to justify their behaviour towards us. 
I'm sorry but I hold nothing but utter contempt for these "people". They are no better than thugs and would imo continue to harass hunts just because they can, legal or not.


----------



## Bernster (29 November 2020)

The debate goes nowhere when people are at the far end of the range, but that’s true of many things.  It’s a lot more grey and complex and I accept that - there are pros and cons, and decent and not so decent people on both sides.

What I can say from experience is trail hunts that I went out with didn’t always follow the law and didn’t make much pretence either but the drag hunt I’ve been out with have never shown any signs of that and were courteous and considerate.  There was one mistake when hounds accidentally picked up the scent of a deer and the staff were right on it, got them back and were really bothered/annoyed that it had happened.


----------



## oldie48 (29 November 2020)

Stressymummy said:



			This forum is called HORSE AND HOUND !!!
If you don't like hunting why are you here ?
		
Click to expand...

I think it would be a great pity if anyone is made to feel unwelcome on this site because some members don't approve of their views. I've been a subscriber to H&H for over 20 years, I have never hunted and have never wanted to and that goes for most of my friends who subscribe. I also subscribe to Good Housekeeping although anyone who knows me would know most of is read but not practiced!
edit to say that I also do not support Anti's who behave illegally but think they have a right to their opinion provided they don't "interfere" with others and behave illegally.


----------



## HashRouge (29 November 2020)

Rowreach said:



			I don't know why you are getting stroppy with me, it was just, I thought, an interesting point of discussion.  If you read all my other comments you'd know chasing foxes isn't something I condone.
		
Click to expand...

I don't know why you thought I was being stroppy? I was trying to engage with the point you raised as I also thought it was interesting though (clearly) disagreed with it.


----------



## palo1 (29 November 2020)

Sabbing is vigilante action, pure and simple.  Many sabs are paid by the day and are, as others have said, equally happy to be paid for fieldsport related actitivites if given the chance.  It is probably the *only *situation in the UK where vigilanti-ism occurs on an organised basis but the current government did indicate that this should not be tolerated, that animal rights activists are considered a real threat (and are included within the extremist groups covered by PREVENT training; which I have undertaken and I have to say not especially felt comfortable with but that is a professional requirement for me).  Following the Coronavirus crisis and Brekit related issues any government action on this may be delayed of course. 

However, UK culture doesn't support vigilante action or extremism and those posters supporting sabbing should consider how their support contributes to or encourages illegal, extremist and anti-social action, ideas and attitudes.  Those huntsmen and hunt staff that are hunting illegally should be dealt with by the law through the legal framework that exists and where people feel illegal hunting is/has taken place that should be a police matter not a matter for HSA organised thuggery and intimidation.  Even where illegal hunting is proven, this is not identifed as a dangerous form of extremism or a threat to UK society.  2 wrongs never make a right of course,  but the actions of animal rights groups simply are considered more serious in law and government policy than Hunting Act offences so, all the posters making accusations about encouraging illegality (through supporting legal trail hunting) should perhaps consider exactly what level of support they give to a more significant threat.

I hear those people who say that sabbing wouldn't be necessary if there wasn't a suspicion of illegal hunting but we don't tolerate that kind of action, ever, around other 'suspicious' activities in this country; we don't have temperance vigilantes outside pubs to stop drunk drivers, we don't have immigration vigilantes intimidating businesses that may be exploiting asylum seekers and refugees; we don't have vigilantes attempting to track down and deal with drug dealers.  Those are all police matters because that is how the UK civil society works.

The BBC reported, in 2004):-
*The new UK strategy against animal extremists*
At the end of July 2004 the Home Office announced a new strategy for dealing with animal rights extremists.

This strategy proposed the following measures:


It would become an arrestable offence to protest outside homes in a way that causes harassment, alarm or distress to residents
Section 42 of the of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 would be amended to make it an offence for a person subject to a direction to return to the vicinity of the premises within 3 months
This means that if a police officer tells a person to leave the area outside someone's house, they should not return to protest or intimidate; if they do, they are likely to be arrested

An amendment to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 would cover harassment of two or more people who are connected (e.g. employees of the same company) even if each individual is harassed on only one occasion.
Further, subsequent Prevent Training guidance identifies:-

10 Apr 2019 — The Government has defined extremism in the _Prevent strategy_ as: “vocal or ... The white supremacist ideology of extreme right-wing _groups_ has also ... in relation to any form of extremism, be that faith based, _*animal rights*_, ...(https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...d-prevent-duty-guidance-for-england-and-wales.

Every single council in the UK has animal rights protesters identified as a threat.

Nowhere is trail-hunting or the possibility of illegality in trail hunting considered such a threat to UK society and civil liberty. 

The laws and training related to this have been in place over both Labour and Conservative governments.  Hunt monitors who do not trespass, harass or intimidate and who are not masked (ironic in these current circumstances I grant you!) are not included in this group of course because it is perfectly legal to access footpaths, take photos, write notes etc etc and so it should be.  That is entirely in line with the UK laws and the freedoms we enjoy.


----------



## Tiddlypom (29 November 2020)

I don’t think that that anyone on here actually supports hunt sabs as opposed to monitors - and the two groups are indeed very different in how they operate.

It was horrid round here when the sabs arrived. It had just been monitors out  previous to that. I was one of those trying to flag down passing traffic as confused hounds milled about on the roads when sabs made their own horn calls. Then the antis posted on FB about how useless the huntsman was because he couldn’t control hounds .

I never felt personally threatened by any of the antis, though, but being dressed in horsey clothing I was clearly viewed with great suspicion by both groups, who assumed that I must be a closet illegal hunter.


----------



## meleeka (29 November 2020)

I think hunt sabs are (as apprised to hunt monitors) is  wrong , but that doesn’t mean I’m on the side of those that hunt.  There’s been a lot of ....well they do worse things” on this thread, but two wrongs definitely do not make a right.


----------



## palo1 (29 November 2020)

I think what some posters put in here comes very close to support for sabbing   Both sabbing and illegal hunting are against the law but really are viewed and treated differently because of the status of 'threat' that both present.  Illegal hunting essentially presents no threat to civil society, sabbing - a form of animal rights extremism does. 

For those that say the majority of people want to see hunting completely banned, there is no evidence for that and like a great many 'minority' issues in the UK that doesn't hold much sway.  Thankfully the UK supports a hugely wide range of minority interests and activities, not all of which are widely understood or supported. I am really proud to live in a place that allows considerable freedom in civil society and I , as part of the majority in other areas of thought really don't want to dictate to minority groups how they live their life, even if I don't particularly 'approve' or understand elements of that.


----------



## paddy555 (29 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			I think what some posters put in here comes very close to support for sabbing   Both sabbing and illegal hunting are against the law but really are viewed and treated differently because of the status of 'threat' that both present.  Illegal hunting essentially presents no threat to civil society, sabbing - a form of animal rights extremism does.
		
Click to expand...

I haven't seen anyone on here supporting sabbing. I don't get the impression that they do. I totally hate violence of any sort. From some of the footage I have seen some members of hunts appear perfectly capable of giving back physically as good as they get but obviously that is not right on either side. 

You seen keener to impose the law on sabbing than on illegal hunting. 

I agree with TP's post 241. Hunts have brought so much of this on themselves with their attitudes. Road blocking, a total nightmare for us with narrow single track roads and very few passing places whilst they stand on the banks and watch the hunt. Not publicising where they are meeting so suddenly you find them there. Suddenly your horses start galloping around wrecking the field. If you had known they were in the area you could have prevented that damage. 

Why do hunts (possibly not all) not publicy announce their meets if they have nothing to hide? It used to be announced in the local press and H & H. Now it appears to be for members only yet it affects the public far more that the members. 

Their arrogance has sometimes been  unbelievable over the years.. I remember  before the ban taking my horse out for a ride on a hunting day and a hunt supporter deliberately shutting a gate right in front of my face. WTF. That didn't do much for goodwill towards them. 

The most worrying incident however came last year. They have no right over our fields or the fields above us. I live in an area of sheep farming and have a GSD. To prevent accidents I have fenced half an acre for him to run in which is GSD proof. I had no idea they were hunting in our area. Ran the GSD, brought him in and then saw hounds, a lot of them, charging over the bank, straight over the fence which they wrecked as they were jumping it from a height then getting stuck in his paddock. They finally wrecked another fence and they forced their way out. They were far more experienced at getting through fences than my dog is. They streamed over my fields and then into my neighbours fields of sheep. 
If my dog had been out 1 minute earlier there would have been no way I could have caught him with that lot and he would have followed them straight into the sheep. 

Whilst I was watching these hounds charging across my fields one of the hunt staff was walking down the road, reins on the buckle quite oblivious to it. He did politely say "good afternoon" 
The master came out  the following morning. He had no idea which fields the hunt were allowed in. I have owned those fields for 40 years. How could they not know by now. They simply didn't care. 

Palo,, still waiting for some of the benefits to the countryside of hunting you mentioned.


----------



## SatansLittleHelper (29 November 2020)

Those saying that foxes hunt other animals for fun...you do realise that foxes are opportunist hunters and cache food yes..?? So they kill more than they need so they can come back to take remaining food to store. I wouldn't mind betting that a large proportion of those who think foxes are vermin have cats..?? Cats really do just hunt for the hell of it. An unpopular opinion maybe but I absolutely detest cats, they kill MILLIONS of wild birds etc every year, should we start hunting these little b@#$%rds too..?? (Not to mention the amount that get targeted for abuse, run over etc etc)


----------



## Sandstone1 (29 November 2020)

I do not condone bad behaviour from either side.   I do not support " Sabbing"  but some of the behaviour from the hunt and their followers leaves a lot to be desired at times.  The truth is that if all hunts stuck to the rules and hunted within the law there would be no need for hunt monitors etc.   Sadly, as the footage and transcripts show most hunts only aim is to hunt fox.  How anyone can honestly say that its been taken out of context I really do not know!
Times change, hunting has had its day.  Yes its a tradition but so was bear baiting and Cock fighting but I really hope no one does that any more.  Anyway Ive had my say on the subject.  I will never agree with some. Just wonder how pro hunters can really justify what goes on.


----------



## CanteringCarrot (29 November 2020)

I added some text in blue.



palo1 said:



			I think what some posters put in here comes very close to support for sabbing   Both sabbing and illegal hunting are against the law but really are viewed and treated differently because of the status of 'threat' that both present.  Illegal hunting essentially presents no threat to civil society, sabbing - a form of animal rights extremism does.

I don't think any posters here support or come close to supporting sabbing.

And I'm sorry, what? "Illegal hunting essentially presents no threat to civil society..."
I would beg to differ as anything that clearly violates a law is technically a threat to civil society. Never mind the whole animal welfare (or lackthereof) aspect of it all.
Of course sabbing, or any extremism does, that's a given I would think.


For those that say the majority of people want to see hunting completely banned, there is no evidence for that and like a great many 'minority' issues in the UK that doesn't hold much sway.  Thankfully the UK supports a hugely wide range of minority interests and activities, not all of which are widely understood or supported. I am really proud to live in a place that allows considerable freedom in civil society and I , as part of the majority in other areas of thought really don't want to dictate to minority groups how they live their life, even if I don't particularly 'approve' or understand elements of that.
		
Click to expand...

I think there is evidence, perhaps even under your own nose, that a majority of people want to see hunting banned. Although I think many would settle for hunting being allowed in its legal form.

This isn't a minority issue. This is people on their sport pets out engaging in the sport of hunting. It is not as though that are minority group. Then, if there is "no proof" that there is a majority of people wanting to see hunting completely banned, how is their proof that those in favor of or those that participate in hunting are a "minority group" do you have substantial data to support that?

I think everyone is proud to live in a plae that allows considerable freedom in civil society, and civil society should allow considerable freedom. The thing is we can dictate, in a way, how "minority groups" live their life. Even if we don't approve or understand. There is a line there when it comes to things such as animal welfare, terrorism, human rights, and generally following the law of your country. Now, some minority groups are allowed certain acts of preservation to preserve a culture or way of life, but I am not sure that fox hunting qualifies here. It could according to some, and it could not according to some.

ETA: Riddled with typos. Is what it is.


----------



## CanteringCarrot (29 November 2020)

SatansLittleHelper said:



			Those saying that foxes hunt other animals for fun...you do realise that foxes are opportunist hunters and cache food yes..?? So they kill more than they need so they can come back to take remaining food to store. I wouldn't mind betting that a large proportion of those who think foxes are vermin have cats..?? Cats really do just hunt for the hell of it. An unpopular opinion maybe but I absolutely detest cats, they kill MILLIONS of wild birds etc every year, should we start hunting these little b@#$%rds too..?? (Not to mention the amount that get targeted for abuse, run over etc etc)
		
Click to expand...

That's why I keep my little terror (cat) indoors. Which apparently is also a welfare issue (house cats) according to some. Can't win. 

I watched a yard cat torture and play with a mouse yesterday. Thankfully she finally finished off and ate the dang thing. I hate watching cats with their prey. Little savages.

I am generally impartial to foxes. They're cute and interesting. If any population gets out of control, usually due to their being no natural predators, I think intervention is ok. Swift, humane, intervention. No show about it.


----------



## palo1 (29 November 2020)

paddy555 said:



			I haven't seen anyone on here supporting sabbing. I don't get the impression that they do. I totally hate violence of any sort. From some of the footage I have seen some members of hunts appear perfectly capable of giving back physically as good as they get but obviously that is not right on either side.

You seen keener to impose the law on sabbing than on illegal hunting.

I agree with TP's post 241. Hunts have brought so much of this on themselves with their attitudes. Road blocking, a total nightmare for us with narrow single track roads and very few passing places whilst they stand on the banks and watch the hunt. Not publicising where they are meeting so suddenly you find them there. Suddenly your horses start galloping around wrecking the field. If you had known they were in the area you could have prevented that damage.

Why do hunts (possibly not all) not publicy announce their meets if they have nothing to hide? It used to be announced in the local press and H & H. Now it appears to be for members only yet it affects the public far more that the members.

Their arrogance has sometimes been  unbelievable over the years.. I remember  before the ban taking my horse out for a ride on a hunting day and a hunt supporter deliberately shutting a gate right in front of my face. WTF. That didn't do much for goodwill towards them.

The most worrying incident however came last year. They have no right over our fields or the fields above us. I live in an area of sheep farming and have a GSD. To prevent accidents I have fenced half an acre for him to run in which is GSD proof. I had no idea they were hunting in our area. Ran the GSD, brought him in and then saw hounds, a lot of them, charging over the bank, straight over the fence which they wrecked as they were jumping it from a height then getting stuck in his paddock. They finally wrecked another fence and they forced their way out. They were far more experienced at getting through fences than my dog is. They streamed over my fields and then into my neighbours fields of sheep.
If my dog had been out 1 minute earlier there would have been no way I could have caught him with that lot and he would have followed them straight into the sheep.

Whilst I was watching these hounds charging across my fields one of the hunt staff was walking down the road, reins on the buckle quite oblivious to it. He did politely say "good afternoon"
The master came out  the following morning. He had no idea which fields the hunt were allowed in. I have owned those fields for 40 years. How could they not know by now. They simply didn't care.

Palo,, still waiting for some of the benefits to the countryside of hunting you mentioned.
		
Click to expand...

In brief, paddy555 the benefits of hunting (legal trail hunting) for the countryside include:-

Environment

Conservation related activities such as the preserve of traditional wooded areas without requests for grants or state funding. In the current climate crisis these areas are considered a priority.
The 'effect' of controlled predator movement (via hounds movement) on other animals - such as happens as part of a trophic cascade and is recognised as pretty vital for ecosystems.
The continued observation and understanding of landscape level and micro-landscape level by skilled and experienced observers, including observation of wildlife, water, pasture, moorland and other effects (such as growth of bracken, heather, reeds etc) on a wider and more regular level than environmental charities and organisations can afford themselves. Whilst this information may be 'informal' hunting supporters are often knowledgeable about wildlife and take considerable interest and can observe change well.  There are precedents for conservation and environmental charities using exactly this kind of observation and information finding to add to valuable research. (EG the Great British Garden Bird count etc)  There are existing ways in which this information can be disseminated to specialist bodies and agencies without cost.
Community

Maintenance of community activity (even if you don't participate or remotely agree with hunting) the hunting community within the countryside is real and engages with all age groups and professions/trades.  It is one of the few rural activities that is, by it's nature and actuality, inclusive and not prejudiced against elements such as age, race, religion, culture or poverty.  There is an existing structure for this which requires no state funding. In most rural areas in Britain community activity is only supported elsewhere by the Church, schools and small, increasingly reduced state funded projects.
Fund-raising and provision of events that span beyond hunting (eg fun rides, dog shows, point to points - most of which are supported and funded by local hunts), including vital rural services for Air Ambulance, Mountain Rescue and local hospices. These bring people together and engage with vital voluntary services and charities on an on-going and established basis.
Employment

Employment - both of hunt staff and related trades; without hunting a great deal of winter equestrian activity would significantly slow down or become non-existant.  Hunting provides direct employment for farriers, saddle fitters, tack shops, grooms, clothing etc. It may be a small contribution but it is none-the-less an established and successful one. Indirect employment is provided by the way that the contribution hunting can enable small businesses to remain viable during the winter months. 
Culture

Hunting provides connection to a historical culture that embraces song, ritual, clothing, art and narrative.  You may not like it one bit but culture is developed through connection with those elements and is considered a public good.


----------



## Tiddlypom (29 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			Illegal hunting essentially presents no threat to civil society, sabbing - a form of animal rights extremism does.
		
Click to expand...

I’m going to pick this up.

Local pack gets caught out illegal hunting by monitors. Did they put their hands up and pack illegal hunting in, switching straight away to trail?

No. They fronted it out, and carried on. Then the sabs came in, and there was total chaos on hunting days for the rest of the season with the police having to intervene most days. Goodness knows how the rest of the county fared while the police were tied up in this.

Do I blame the sabs for this chaos? Partly, because of course they were in the thick of it. But I placed the greater part of the blame on the hunt for carrying on as long as they did, even though they had been completely rumbled.

All water under the bridge, now. I’m sure that there is still no love lost between the hunt and the monitors/sabs, but peace has been restored out here in the sticks.

Ignoring illegal activity is always a threat to society, you can’t pick and choose which laws you choose to obey.


----------



## palo1 (29 November 2020)

ycbm said:



			It isn't a requirement of belonging to the forum that you approve of activities which are illegal, afaik.
		
Click to expand...

I think this is a really unfair post @ycbm; nowhere has this poster said or suggested that they approve of illegal activities.  The illegal activities which you are referring to are either past, proven convicted offences or assumed future wrong-doing.  In this country the law exerts an 'innocent until proven guilty' process.  You can go on saying and saying that people approve of illegal trail hunting but I haven't seen anyone, anyone on here say anything like that.  You are making a leap from those that support hunting to be those that support illegal hunting/hunting offences.  That just isn't fair or even accurate!  Again, if I support my local pub does that automatically mean that I am supporting drunk drivers?  If I provide support to asylum seekers does that mean I am supporting illegal people traffickers? It is a form of bullying by association that is pretty unpleasant actually.


----------



## stormox (29 November 2020)

When I was young (albeit 50 years ago) everyone with horses hunted. Some hunted to ride, others rode to hunt. We thought nothing  of hacking 10 miles to a meet, hunting and hacking home.
As a teenager I never thought if it was good, bad , cruel or kind - it was something everyone did. The whole village turned out for the meet, meets were advertised in 'Horse and Hound' and I loved to read descriptions of good runs  written by Loriner Dalesman and co..
Showjumping was for rich people, no ordinary person had an arena or jumps. Dressage wasn't even heard of.
But anyone could hack to the meet and hunt and we all did. Pony Club branches were associated with hunts.
I was so proud when I got blooded and given the brush - my mum was horrified but I didnt wash it off for a week!

I find it really sad that enjoying hunting is something to be ashamed of now. I dont think many foxes are saved, theres more people shooting and trapping them, the farmers still want them controlled.


----------



## palo1 (29 November 2020)

Sandstone1 said:



			I do not condone bad behaviour from either side.   I do not support " Sabbing"  but some of the behaviour from the hunt and their followers leaves a lot to be desired at times.  The truth is that if all hunts stuck to the rules and hunted within the law there would be no need for hunt monitors etc.   Sadly, as the footage and transcripts show most hunts only aim is to hunt fox.  How anyone can honestly say that its been taken out of context I really do not know!
Times change, hunting has had its day.  Yes its a tradition but so was bear baiting and Cock fighting but I really hope no one does that any more.  Anyway Ive had my say on the subject.  I will never agree with some. Just wonder how pro hunters can really justify what goes on.
		
Click to expand...

Are you asking how 'pro-hunters' can justify an activity which is legal Sandstone1 or are you making a blanket assumption that all pro-hunting people and everyone that goes trail, drag or blood-hound hunting are engaged in illegal activities?  That is neither certain nor actually possible.


----------



## palo1 (29 November 2020)

Tiddlypom said:



			I’m going to pick this up.

Local pack gets caught out illegal hunting by monitors. Did they put their hands up and pack illegal hunting in, switching straight away to trail?

No. They fronted it out, and carried on. Then the sabs came in, and there was total chaos on hunting days for the rest of the season with the police having to intervene most days. Goodness knows how the rest of the county fared while the police were tied up in this.

Do I blame the sabs for this chaos? Partly, because of course they were in the thick of it. But I placed the greater part of the blame on the hunt for carrying on as long as they did, even though they had been completely rumbled.

All water under the bridge, now. I’m sure that there is still no love lost between the hunt and the monitors/sabs, but peace has been restored out here in the sticks.

Ignoring illegal activity is always a threat to society, you can’t pick and choose which laws you choose to obey.
		
Click to expand...

Ignoring illegal activity is always a threat to society - I certainly agree BUT the threat of one activity is identified as far more serious than the other.  2 wrongs don't make a right however when one wrong is more serious and injurious in legal and civil terms then that one needs addressing with greater weight and force. It doesn't mean the lesser illegality shouldn't be dealt with.


----------



## palo1 (29 November 2020)

shortstuff99 said:



			Last poll that I saw had support for the ban at 85% which is quite a lot I would say.

If you could show that packs were hunting completely legally I imagine support for an all out ban would drop considerably.
		
Click to expand...

Mmm, and who commissioned that poll and which populations did it cover?...I could as easily carry out a 'poll' which would demonstrate that 85% of the people polled approved of hunting.


----------



## palo1 (29 November 2020)

rextherobber said:



			The VAWM document basically says if you don't agree that hunting foxes with hounds is the most humane way of "managing" them, then you are  ignorant of the fact the art of countryside management can only be achieved by this method. If you disagree, it's because of your ignorance.  Apparently foxes are not capable of feeling fear, and do not find being pursued by a pack of hounds a traumatic experience, which seems extraordinary, without being anthropomorphic -  anyone who has ever watched a mammal, wild or domesticated, knows that they are capable of, and do experience fear. And hounds hunt selectively, so presumably occasionally deliberately select people's cats and dogs? It is an odd document to present in support of a view, it is flawed from the outset by it's immediate and very obvious bias, and it's contradictory statements.
		
Click to expand...

But the document doesn't say that foxes are not capable of feeling fear at all...the document says that foxes don't experience human notions of fear. The two are different.


----------



## Wishfilly (29 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			Illegal hunting essentially presents no threat to civil society, sabbing - a form of animal rights extremism does.
		
Click to expand...

Do you understand what rule of law is and how important it is to liberal democracy? People who are involved in making the law then condoning breaking it undermine the rule of law and thus undermines our democracy. That is far more of a threat than sabbing.

That's not about illegal hunting as such, but it is about a member of the House of Lords being involved in the seminar. 

That is far more of a threat to our society than sabs.


----------



## Tiddlypom (29 November 2020)

The BBC have finally reported on the issue, though it is tucked away in the local Cumbria news section wrt the Lake District National Park Authority suspending trail hunting for now.

Lake District National Park suspends trail hunting amid investigation https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-55115897

A markedly different approach from the BBC compared to ITV, then 🤔.


----------



## palo1 (29 November 2020)

Wishfilly said:



			Do you understand what rule of law is and how important it is to liberal democracy? People who are involved in making the law then condoning breaking it undermine the rule of law and thus undermines our democracy. That is far more of a threat than sabbing.

That's not about illegal hunting as such, but it is about a member of the House of Lords being involved in the seminar.

That is far more of a threat to our society than sabs.
		
Click to expand...

This is a good point and I do understand about the rule of law.  The fact that a member of the H of L was involved in the seminars is relevant but as yet the police and the investigation have not identified whether that person was condoning breaking the law or if a crime has been committed. As @ycbm has identified previously, there may be an issue around intent to commit a crime.  If that is the case then yes that certainly should be addressed, and by all the relevant bodies.  It still doesn't mean that everyone involved in hunting is breaking the law though...nor does it remove the threat of extremism which still needs to be dealt with.  I can't agree that an individual committing a crime is necessarily more of a threat than organised groups intending to break the law but I guess that is open to debate!


----------



## Wishfilly (29 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			This is a good point and I do understand about the rule of law.  The fact that a member of the H of L was involved in the seminars is relevant but as yet the police and the investigation have not identified whether that person was condoning breaking the law or if a crime has been committed. As @ycbm has identified previously, there may be an issue around intent to commit a crime.  If that is the case then yes that certainly should be addressed, and by all the relevant bodies.  It still doesn't mean that everyone involved in hunting is breaking the law though...nor does it remove the threat of extremism which still needs to be dealt with.  I can't agree that an individual committing a crime is necessarily more of a threat than organised groups intending to break the law but I guess that is open to debate!
		
Click to expand...

I know it is still under investigation, but in my opinion, his presence and not speaking up or leaving the seminar condoned it. That may not be enough from a legal point of view, but it is my opinion. I think regardless of whether a crime has actually been committed, some damage has been done.

Organised groups intending to break the law could equally apply to hunts, hunting illegally- as could individuals committing a crime apply to individual sabs. There is wrong on both sides.

However, I feel being a member of the house of lords, his position means he is more than just a private individual. The same would apply if an MP or lord was out sabbing and committed a crime (bearing in mind that sabotaging a hunt is not in itself a crime). 

I do think that if hunts had stuck to the rules immediately post ban, sabbing would have lost a lot of momentum. I also think that if the police had initially been more willing to get involved, then sabs would have been less likely to take the law into their own hands. I'm not saying sabs are in the right, but I think the current situation has come about because people are very aware of hunts breaking the law, and they percieve them to get away with it because of their class.


----------



## palo1 (29 November 2020)

Wishfilly said:



			I know it is still under investigation, but in my opinion, his presence and not speaking up or leaving the seminar condoned it. That may not be enough from a legal point of view, but it is my opinion. I think regardless of whether a crime has actually been committed, some damage has been done.

Organised groups intending to break the law could equally apply to hunts, hunting illegally- as could individuals committing a crime apply to individual sabs. There is wrong on both sides.

However, I feel being a member of the house of lords, his position means he is more than just a private individual. The same would apply if an MP or lord was out sabbing and committed a crime (bearing in mind that sabotaging a hunt is not in itself a crime).

I do think that if hunts had stuck to the rules immediately post ban, sabbing would have lost a lot of momentum. I also think that if the police had initially been more willing to get involved, then sabs would have been less likely to take the law into their own hands. I'm not saying sabs are in the right, but I think the current situation has come about because people are very aware of hunts breaking the law, and they percieve them to get away with it because of their class.
		
Click to expand...

'...because of their class' ???? Which class is that then?  What difference would that make?  As you say, it is just your opinion which whether right or wrong, will have no bearing on the process at all.  I hate hunting being brought into disrepute but I expect many sportsmen and women feel the same and have had to deal with similar issues without being assumed to being guilty of similar wrongdoing to those convicted.  Sadly there is an astonishing amount of prejudice evident in some posts on this thread.


----------



## ycbm (29 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			I think this is a really unfair post @ycbm; nowhere has this poster said or suggested that they approve of illegal activities.  The illegal activities which you are referring to are either past, proven convicted offences or assumed future wrong-doing.  In this country the law exerts an 'innocent until proven guilty' process.  You can go on saying and saying that people approve of illegal trail hunting but I haven't seen anyone, anyone on here say anything like that.  You are making a leap from those that support hunting to be those that support illegal hunting/hunting offences.  That just isn't fair or even accurate!  Again, if I support my local pub does that automatically mean that I am supporting drunk drivers?  If I provide support to asylum seekers does that mean I am supporting illegal people traffickers? It is a form of bullying by association that is pretty unpleasant actually. 

Click to expand...


Nobody up to that point was complaining about legal hunting, only about illegal hunting,  so how can my comment have been unfair?


----------



## ycbm (29 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			In brief, paddy555 the benefits of hunting (legal trail hunting) for the countryside include:-

Environment

[*]Conservation related activities such as the preserve of traditional wooded areas without requests for grants or state funding. In the current climate crisis these areas are considered a priority.
		
Click to expand...


Any contribution hunting makes to reducing climate change by preserving woodland is more than offset by the carbon footprint of keeping a pack of hounds, horses and followers vehicles. 




			[*]The 'effect' of controlled predator movement (via hounds movement) on other animals - such as happens as part of a trophic cascade and is recognised as pretty vital for ecosystems.

 [*]The continued observation and understanding of landscape level and micro-landscape level by skilled and experienced observers, including observation of wildlife, water, pasture, moorland and other effects (such as growth of bracken, heather, reeds etc) on a wider and more regular level than environmental charities and organisations can afford themselves. Whilst this information may be 'informal' hunting supporters are often knowledgeable about wildlife and take considerable interest and can observe change well.  There are precedents for conservation and environmental charities using exactly this kind of observation and information finding to add to valuable research. (EG the Great British Garden Bird count etc)  There are existing ways in which this information can be disseminated to specialist bodies and agencies without cost.
		
Click to expand...


That doesn't require fox hunting and areas of the country which have never had fox hunting seem to do ok.





			[*]Maintenance of community activity (even if you don't participate or remotely agree with hunting) the hunting community within the countryside is real and engages with all age groups and professions/trades.  It is one of the few rural activities that is, by it's nature and actuality, inclusive and not prejudiced against elements such as age, race, religion, culture or poverty.  There is an existing structure for this which requires no state funding. In most rural areas in Britain community activity is only supported elsewhere by the Church, schools and small, increasingly reduced state funded projects.
		
Click to expand...

That may be the case for your hunt but it's over egging the pudding by a long chalk in others, from my experience. 




			[*]Fund-raising and provision of events that span beyond hunting (eg fun rides, dog shows, point to points - most of which are supported and funded by local hunts), including vital rural services for Air Ambulance, Mountain Rescue and local hospices. These bring people together and engage with vital voluntary services and charities on an on-going and established basis.
		
Click to expand...

Dog shows,  fun rides and point to points don't depend on hunting and I'm sure they would continue to happen,  because of the demand for them,  without hunting,  as dog shows and fun rides do in the numerous areas of the country which are not hunted, and in hunted areas but unrelated to any hunt.  

I'm not aware of any hunt with which I have every hunted raising funds for anyone but themselves, except a bloodhounds pack for a very short time.  I'm glad to hear it happens,  though I would leave the Air Ambulance out of your list as I'd be pretty sure that hunting costs that service more than it receives as a whole across the country.


----------



## Sandstone1 (29 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			Are you asking how 'pro-hunters' can justify an activity which is legal Sandstone1 or are you making a blanket assumption that all pro-hunting people and everyone that goes trail, drag or blood-hound hunting are engaged in illegal activities?  That is neither certain nor actually possible.
		
Click to expand...

I think you know that I mean illegal fox hunting as I have already said ive no problem with drag or trail hunting.  Its hunting foxes we are talking about here.


----------



## paddi22 (29 November 2020)

Totally agree with YCBM's breakdown. 

1. There is no proof that hunts contribute to keeping wooded areas. Maybe on hunt people's own lands, but there is no proof of hunt's giving money to landowners to grow and maintain forestry on a wide scale basis.
2. There has to be some level of reality in accepting that in most hunts there are maybe one or two people with a true understanding of the natural landscape. In practical terms hunts are composed of 95% people who just want a good day out on their horses and a social experience. to pretend every hunt person is some 'in touch with nature' person is a complete lie. in fact, in a lot of areas the damaging of fencing, drainage systems, hedging etc is more detrimental than positive to the landscape. As others say, there is also the carbon footprint of vehicles. So far there has there been any actual evidence of the positive environmental effect of hunts apart from some weird argument that hunts are planting forestry? 
3. Areas with no hunts manage their fox populations.
4. The argument that (It is one of the few rural activities that is, by it's nature and actuality, inclusive and not prejudiced against elements such as age, race, religion, culture or poverty.) is nearly funny. can you show me the people receiving food from food banks or living in deprives areas that are rocking up with their jeep lorry and hunt horse? can you show me demographic proof of a good percentage of minorities in your hunt pack?
5. the charity angle is so weak too. most hunts run an odd fundraiser for causes close to their heart. so do elderly people, kids and knitting groups over the land.  The hunter trials our hunts run are a profit making exercise for the hunts. 

I think there are a lot of points palo1 have given that I would love to see more evidence for.


----------



## palo1 (29 November 2020)

ycbm said:



			Any contribution hunting makes to reducing climate change by preserving woodland is more than offset by the carbon footprint of keeping a pack of hounds, horses and followers vehicles.




That doesn't require fox hunting and areas of the country which have never had fox hunting seem to do ok.




That may be the case for your hunt but it's over egging the pudding by a long chalk in others, from my experience.



Dog shows,  fun rides and point to points don't depend on hunting and I'm sure they would continue to happen,  because of the demand for them,  without hunting,  as dog shows and fun rides do in the numerous areas of the country which are not hunted, and in hunted areas but unrelated to any hunt. 

I'm not aware of any hunt with which I have every hunted raising funds for anyone but themselves, except a bloodhounds pack for a very short time.  I'm glad to hear it happens,  though I would leave the Air Ambulance out of your list as I'd be pretty sure that hunting costs that service more than it receives as a whole across the country.
		
Click to expand...

My real lived experience does not match your opinions on any point ycbm. With regard to carbon footprint issues - the vast majority of hunt followers are local and get together to follow (ie sharing vehicles in non-Covid times).  Are you suggesting perhaps that no-one should travel by vehicle to any group sporting/community event due to the carbon footprint perhaps?  That is an interesting suggestion.    

With regard to environmental benefits - I don't think you have evidence of the impact of no hunting activities. 

This report from the RSPB details the impact of foxes on some of our rarest ground nesting birds : http://ww2.rspb.org.uk/our-work/con...impact-of-predation-on-ground-nesting-waders-  Where this report identifies the benefits of a working trophic cascade: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169534716301379 whilst this particularly famous example details how that can happen in practice: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320711004046.   This is of real and ongoing interest to conservation and wildlife charities and many of which informally will not dismiss the potential of legal trail hunting to provide some elements of this benefit.  UK charities are definately interested in the use of predator disruption in relation to the health of plant, bird and insect survival.  

I didn't say all rural events and community events depend on hunting but it is definately part of the picture and an established one.  There would be nothing to replace this element of community engagement without hunting organisations which are well placed geographically and administratively to support local communities.  

Hunts do raise money for charity and my local hunt have never had cause to call on the local air ambulance so you are simply wrong on that point in this instance.  

I understand that nothing I can say or any evidence I can provide will change your opinion.


----------



## paddi22 (29 November 2020)

palo1 you arguments are so tenuous. our local Ica raises money for charity by knitting tea cosies. they don't terrify an animal and break the law doing it. nearly every sector of society raises money for charity. hunting people aren't special snowflakes for doing it.  our local ICA have never had need to call the air ambulance either, so maybe they should get more credit for that? 

the point about the carbon footprint of vehicles was that you seemed to be arguing hunting had no environmental negative. it has and it's provable. and I don't know where you hunt, but our hunts always have lorries, boxes and cars. I have never seen a hunt where it's all local people hacking? 

as someone who has a hunt cross their land, I see the damage done to land. 

I don't say this as some anti-hunt person. I have nappy horses I will be hunting next year. But I really think hunt people need to be honest and upfront about the reality of it and stop pulling out arguments about foxes not feeling fear and the world benefiting because of hunting..  my hunt does nothing to support our local community, they do the odd fundraiser for themselves or to support a charity that's close to their hearts .  OK there is provable income from farriers, feeds, suppliers etc for hunt horses, but it's a small percentage compared to general leisure horses and realistically if all hunting stopped tomorrow most of those people would still keep horses (because it's in their blood) so that income would still be there.


----------



## paddy555 (29 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			In brief, paddy555 the benefits of hunting (legal trail hunting) for the countryside include:-

Environment

Conservation related activities such as the preserve of traditional wooded areas without requests for grants or state funding. In the current climate crisis these areas are considered a priority.
The 'effect' of controlled predator movement (via hounds movement) on other animals - such as happens as part of a trophic cascade and is recognised as pretty vital for ecosystems.
The continued observation and understanding of landscape level and micro-landscape level by skilled and experienced observers, including observation of wildlife, water, pasture, moorland and other effects (such as growth of bracken, heather, reeds etc) on a wider and more regular level than environmental charities and organisations can afford themselves. Whilst this information may be 'informal' hunting supporters are often knowledgeable about wildlife and take considerable interest and can observe change well.  There are precedents for conservation and environmental charities using exactly this kind of observation and information finding to add to valuable research. (EG the Great British Garden Bird count etc)  There are existing ways in which this information can be disseminated to specialist bodies and agencies without cost.
Community

Maintenance of community activity (even if you don't participate or remotely agree with hunting) the hunting community within the countryside is real and engages with all age groups and professions/trades.  It is one of the few rural activities that is, by it's nature and actuality, inclusive and not prejudiced against elements such as age, race, religion, culture or poverty.  There is an existing structure for this which requires no state funding. In most rural areas in Britain community activity is only supported elsewhere by the Church, schools and small, increasingly reduced state funded projects.
Fund-raising and provision of events that span beyond hunting (eg fun rides, dog shows, point to points - most of which are supported and funded by local hunts), including vital rural services for Air Ambulance, Mountain Rescue and local hospices. These bring people together and engage with vital voluntary services and charities on an on-going and established basis.
Employment

Employment - both of hunt staff and related trades; without hunting a great deal of winter equestrian activity would significantly slow down or become non-existant.  Hunting provides direct employment for farriers, saddle fitters, tack shops, grooms, clothing etc. It may be a small contribution but it is none-the-less an established and successful one. Indirect employment is provided by the way that the contribution hunting can enable small businesses to remain viable during the winter months.
Culture

Hunting provides connection to a historical culture that embraces song, ritual, clothing, art and narrative.  You may not like it one bit but culture is developed through connection with those elements and is considered a public good.


Click to expand...

thanks for such a detailed reply.

I can't see many of them but taking for example environment 1, you would need to offset that by all the travelling and vehicle omissions from the hunters getting to the meet and the car followers. There is also the damage that a lot of shod horses do to soft ground. In all honesty I have never seen riders being particularly careful. More a case of charge.  In our area there are a lot more visitors studying the environment, naturalists etc working on bogs, flora and fauna. I suspect they spend a lot more time studying it to produce change than hunt followers. 


environment 3 then I just don't see that. Many of the walkers, riders, locals and anyone else in the countryside can observe equally well. 

Community. To say it is one of the rural activities that is inclusive stretches the point. You either hunt and are a  member of the club or you don't. In fact I think it is a very divisive activity. It does nothing for rural community in our area. The hunt, who are basically a club just as any other group of people are, have their ball, social evenings etc. It doesn't engage people, at least not in our area. The only adhesion it creates is people constantly moaning about them! 
Equally there are plenty of fun shows etc and charity raising events that are nothing to do with the hunt. Life in that area goes on quite happily without them. 

historical culture, well that can be good or bad as we are finding out with slavery etc. Do we like it or not, there are mixed opinions. Current day hunting makes no difference to it. 

I cannot see anything that the hunt brings to the area, unless of course you are a follower. I don't want to ban legal hunting, riding your horse around the countryside is a great way to spend your day,  but would like some changes.


----------



## ycbm (29 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			My real lived experience does not match your opinions on any point ycbm. With regard to carbon footprint issues - the vast majority of hunt followers are local and get together to follow (ie sharing vehicles in non-Covid times).  Are you suggesting perhaps that no-one should travel by vehicle to any group sporting/community event due to the carbon footprint perhaps?  That is an interesting suggestion.
		
Click to expand...


YOU made the claim that hunting had a beneficial effect on climate change Palo. All I did was answer that. 

Are you aware of the carbon footprint of keeping 20+ large fit hounds? 




			With regard to environmental benefits - I don't think you have evidence of the impact of no hunting activities.
		
Click to expand...

The evidence is in the many areas which have no hunting,  and is all around me. Fox hunting is not a prerequisite of a healthy countryside.

 Why are you quoting stuff about reducing the impact of predation on ground nesting waders?   At no time has anyone suggested that fox numbers should not be actively controlled. Just not with a pack of hounds and a bunch of riders. 






			Hunts do raise money for charity and my local hunt have never had cause to call on the local air ambulance so you are simply wrong on that point in this instance.
		
Click to expand...

Some hunts raised money for charity.  Not all.  

Your hunt and none of the people exercising your hunters or hounds have ever called an Air Ambulance that you know of,  and your hunt has made a donation to the Air Ambulance,  so I am wrong in believing that hunting as a whole takes more from the Air Ambulance services than it provides in charitable donations? 

Your logic escapes me.   Do you have any idea how much it costs to put a helicopter in the air, never mind one with a fully qualified A&E doctor on board? 




			I understand that nothing I can say or any evidence I can provide will change your opinion.
		
Click to expand...

Ditto.

I don't know why you can't just admit that you do it because it's legal and great fun,  instead of trying to insist that the countryside somehow depends on it.  I know it doesn't,  I live surrounded by countryside that has been hunted once in 30 years, 29 years ago.


----------



## palo1 (29 November 2020)

paddi22 - I have to agree that hunting people are not 'special snowflakes'!!  I certainly haven't claimed that hunts or hunting people are the only ones able to contribute to charity but that contribution is part of the whole picture.  I believe the carbon footprint of, for example eventing and dressage (which I have experience of) is far, far greater than that of hunting which is a small group of people usually travelling a short distance.  The carbon footprint of equestrianism certainly is something that we should be considering.   I am not sure what the ICA you are referring to is, sorry.


----------



## ycbm (29 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			But the document doesn't say that foxes are not capable of feeling fear at all...the document says that foxes don't experience human notions of fear. The two are different.
		
Click to expand...

You used the document to support hunting fox with hounds.  

The chemicals used to generate fear in a fox and a human are the same.  The objective of the fear is the same,  to make the animal take evasive action to move away from the fear.   The human is capable of verbalising that fear. I see no reason why that would make fear less unpleasant for a fox than a human,  in fact I have argued above that it prevents the fox from rationalising its fear and that might actually make it worse for the fox than the human.   
.


----------



## paddi22 (29 November 2020)

yeah you are right about the carbon footprint of equestrian being terrible!
I think it boils down to is whether the argument of fox hunting on the whole is a positive or negative environmental thing? 

The 'whole picture' thing breaks down fairly quickly. If all hunting stopped tomorrow what would be the net loss to my community and local environment? If I'm honest, not a huge amount in my area. 

From my tiny little area if hunting stopped tomorrow I would see
- no terrified animal flying across my land
- I wouldn't see hedging, ditches,  nesting areas and fencing damaged
- I wouldn't see my horses going nuts when they hear them and damaging themselves 
- there wouldn't be dog faeces across land and the worry animals will get sick because of it.

On the negative side
- great day out
- great education for horses
- great craic
- social life

If Im honest with myself the only unifying factor with the pro's is that I benefit. It's everyone else suffers from the negatives.  there is a massive lack of honesty and realism in pro-hunt people.


----------



## hollyandivy123 (29 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			My real lived experience does not match your opinions on any point ycbm. With regard to carbon footprint issues - the vast majority of hunt followers are local and get together to follow (ie sharing vehicles in non-Covid times).  Are you suggesting perhaps that no-one should travel by vehicle to any group sporting/community event due to the carbon footprint perhaps?  That is an interesting suggestion.   

With regard to environmental benefits - I don't think you have evidence of the impact of no hunting activities.

how about we don't hunt for 10 years and see what happens.........then we can come back to this discussion with more information........

This report from the RSPB details the impact of foxes on some of our rarest ground nesting birds : http://ww2.rspb.org.uk/our-work/con...impact-of-predation-on-ground-nesting-waders- 

surely running a hunt through these areas which have ground nesting birds etc would be detrimental........controlling the top predator yes on horse back you tend to loose the argument


Where this report identifies the benefits of a working trophic cascade: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169534716301379 

whilst this particularly famous example details how that can happen in practice: 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320711004046.  
the yellow stone actually goes against your argument on using hunting as a control, if left to there own we would have a balance in the environment and maybe beavers in our rivers

unless you are trying to imply that humans are the top predators ........

 This is of real and ongoing interest to conservation and wildlife charities and many of which informally will not dismiss the potential of legal trail hunting to provide some elements of this benefit.  UK charities are definately interested in the use of predator disruption in relation to the health of plant, bird and insect survival. 

I didn't say all rural events and community events depend on hunting but it is definately part of the picture and an established one.  There would be nothing to replace this element of community engagement without hunting organisations which are well placed geographically and administratively to support local communities. 

Hunts do raise money for charity and my local hunt have never had cause to call on the local air ambulance so you are simply wrong on that point in this instance. 

I understand that nothing I can say or any evidence I can provide will change your opinion.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## ycbm (29 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			I believe the carbon footprint of, for example eventing and dressage (which I have experience of) is far, far greater than that of hunting which is a small group of people usually travelling a short distance.  The carbon footprint of equestrianism certainly is something that we should be considering.   I am not sure what the ICA you are referring to is, sorry.
		
Click to expand...

You really do need to educate yourself on the carbon footprint of running 20+  large and very active dogs for no other reason than to hunt with them,  Palo.


----------



## palo1 (29 November 2020)

ycbm said:



			YOU made the claim that hunting had a beneficial effect on climate change Palo. All I did was answer that.

Are you aware of the carbon footprint of keeping 20+ large fit hounds?

Yes I am.  Is that also an argument for discouraging people to keep large numbers of dogs in other settings?

The evidence is in the many areas which have no hunting,  and is all around me. Fox hunting is not a prerequisite of a healthy countryside.

The articles I attached to my last post detail why I suggested what I did.

Why are you quoting stuff about reducing the impact of predation on ground nesting waders?   At no time has anyone suggested that fox numbers should not be actively controlled. Just not with a pack of hounds and a bunch of riders.

Because it is increasingly believed that control of predators such as foxes may be best done through the use of trophic cascades.  In this country the fox's natural predator would be, in ecological terms, a pack of wolves.  A pack of hounds is probably a more manageable and acceptable alternative !!(with legal trail hunting key aspects of that predator impact would still work).  


Some hunts raised money for charity.  Not all. 

Your hunt and none of the people exercising your hunters or hounds have ever called an Air Ambulance that you know of,  and your hunt has made a donation to the Air Ambulance,  so I am wrong in believing that hunting as a whole takes more from the Air Ambulance services than it provides in charitable donations?

Your logic escapes me.   Do you have any idea how much it costs to put a helicopter in the air, never mind one with a fully qualified A&E doctor on board?

Yes I completely understand the costs involved - the air ambulance also attends many other sorts of incidents where the injured party/parties make no contribution to charity. 

Ditto.

I don't know why you can't just admit that you do it because it's legal and great fun,  instead of trying to insist that the countryside somehow depends on it.  I know it doesn't,  I live surrounded by countryside that has been hunted once in 30 years, 29 years ago.
		
Click to expand...

I do believe that hunting is good for the countryside which is not quite the same as believing that the countryside depends on it.  My personal experience is that hunting enables a connection, understanding and investment in the countryside that is quite profound and which naturally encourages people and landscapes to preserve non-commercial aspects of the rural landscape.  I consider that to be an exceptional and precious value.  I also believe that in an increasingly urbanised society it is vital that we maintain a real connection with wild areas without that become a sentimental pastiche of the natural ecosystem.  I think hunting has a genuine role in that. I also believe that if a traditional hunting 'tribe' with a unique and impactful rural culture was being destroyed in another part of the world there would be a liberal outcry.  I think it IS important to preserve that culture here.  

You say that you live somewhere that has only been hunted once in 30 years yet at the same time profess to understand hunting, hunting people and all the complexities that surround it.  How can you live somewhere that has not been hunted for 29 years and still say you understand how it works for people in places where hunting still functions?  You have visited other hunts which I guess is where you have had hunting experiences...


----------



## palo1 (29 November 2020)

ycbm said:



			You really do need to educate yourself on the carbon footprint of running 20+  large and very active dogs for no other reason than to hunt with them,  Palo.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## paddy555 (29 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			paddi22 - I have to agree that hunting people are not 'special snowflakes'!!  I certainly haven't claimed that hunts or hunting people are the only ones able to contribute to charity but that contribution is part of the whole picture.  I believe the carbon footprint of, for example eventing and dressage (which I have experience of) is far, far greater than that of hunting which is a small group of people usually travelling a short distance.  The carbon footprint of equestrianism certainly is something that we should be considering.   I am not sure what the ICA you are referring to is, sorry.
		
Click to expand...


I cannot see any difference between hunting, eventing, show jumping or any other horsey activity. Only difference is that most of them just  say yes, we like riding and we enjoy our activity and day out.  We are creating a carbon foot print but basically so what. We do it cos we like it. We get our horses fit, provide employment for the farrier, saddler etc and we may put  on a fun ride or do a sponsored ride for charity. 


You are trying to justify hunting as some great service to the country side. It would be more honest to say, we are creating a carbon foot print, we go hunting cos we like it. We love having a bliddy good blast around the countryside on our horses. Full stop, end of message. 

I cannot see one single benefit to the countryside or it's inhabitants in our area from hunting. I can see lots of downsides which are the same as any equestrian activity, damage to the turf, road obstruction, carbon foot print, disruption to locals etc. 

Trail hunting is not doing anyone in the countryside any favours. Why not just accept that? 

When that has been established then perhaps we could move on to what would make things better. For me that would be having hunt meets, dates and places posted well in advance (including cubbing) and making sure local communities know so they can keep their cats in or whatever. 

 keeping hounds off my fields, keeping the car followers under control ie giving them places where they could see lots of activity without blocking the roads. Also, in the areas where it applies sticking strictly to the law,  not hunting fox and making sure they are seen to be taking  action to clean it up. Hopefully then with sufficient independent hunt monitors in place the sabs  numbers would start to reduce.


----------



## paddi22 (29 November 2020)

palo1 said:



I do believe that hunting is good for the countryside which is not quite the same as believing that the countryside depends on it.  My personal experience is that hunting enables a connection, understanding and investment in the countryside that is quite profound and which naturally encourages people and landscapes to preserve non-commercial aspects of the rural landscape.  I consider that to be an exceptional and precious value.  I also believe that in an increasingly urbanised society it is vital that we maintain a real connection with wild areas without that become a sentimental pastiche of the natural ecosystem.  I think hunting has a genuine role in that.

Click to expand...

I'm just debating this because I think it's interesting and you obviously have a passionate argument on the hunting side. I would just ask why you would assume someone can only get a connection to nature with hunting. I am a hunter but if I couldn't hunt I would still get the same connection with hacking through forests, fun rides and hill walking with my dog?   what can a hunt offer that a fun ride can't? we have fun rides here with hounds for part of it, and I experience the same joy with that.


----------



## Nasicus (29 November 2020)

This report from the RSPB details the impact of foxes on some of our rarest ground nesting birds : http://ww2.rspb.org.uk/our-work/con...impact-of-predation-on-ground-nesting-waders-

Click to expand...

Just what ground nesting birds need, a pack of hounds followed by thundering hooves running through them!


----------



## Tiddlypom (29 November 2020)

Palo, how many cars do you get following your pack during a typical hunting day?

ETA Make that day a Saturday, so more people likely to be out.


----------



## paddy555 (29 November 2020)

palo1 said:



I do believe that hunting is good for the countryside which is not quite the same as believing that the countryside depends on it.  My personal experience is that hunting enables a connection, understanding and investment in the countryside that is quite profound and which naturally encourages people and landscapes to preserve non-commercial aspects of the rural landscape.  I consider that to be an exceptional and precious value.  I also believe that in an increasingly urbanised society it is vital that we maintain a real connection with wild areas without that become a sentimental pastiche of the natural ecosystem.  I think hunting has a genuine role in that. I also believe that if a traditional hunting 'tribe' with a unique and impactful rural culture was being destroyed in another part of the world there would be a liberal outcry.  I think it IS important to preserve that culture here.  

..

Click to expand...

yes but we haven't had one tangible example as to why it is good for the countryside. I can get the urban society and connection to the countryside bit. We are in a tourist area, we see the urban people coming out all the time in their efforts to connect to the countryside. In great numbers, they do not need the hunt to do that. They manage it perfectly well on their own. 

As for the hunting tribe and rural culture. In other parts of the world the hunting tribe genuinely hunts to live or they starve. Most  hunt supporters here either ride home or go back to their nice warm lorry, drive home, tuck Dobbin up in his stable and then enjoy a nice glass of something in the comfort of a hot bath.


----------



## palo1 (29 November 2020)

paddi22 said:



			I'm just debating this because I think it's interesting and you obviously have a passionate argument on the hunting side. I would just ask why you would assume someone can only get a connection to nature with hunting. I am a hunter but if I couldn't hunt I would still get the same connection with hacking through forests, fun rides and hill walking with my dog?   what can a hunt offer that a fun ride can't? we have fun rides here with hounds for part of it, and I experience the same joy with that.
		
Click to expand...

I get hear what you are saying though it doesn't work like that for me.


----------



## palo1 (29 November 2020)

paddy555 said:



			I cannot see any difference between hunting, eventing, show jumping or any other horsey activity. Only difference is that most of them just  say yes, we like riding and we enjoy our activity and day out.  We are creating a carbon foot print but basically so what. We do it cos we like it. We get our horses fit, provide employment for the farrier, saddler etc and we may put  on a fun ride or do a sponsored ride for charity.


You are trying to justify hunting as some great service to the country side. It would be more honest to say, we are creating a carbon foot print, we go hunting cos we like it. We love having a bliddy good blast around the countryside on our horses. Full stop, end of message.

I cannot see one single benefit to the countryside or it's inhabitants in our area from hunting. I can see lots of downsides which are the same as any equestrian activity, damage to the turf, road obstruction, carbon foot print, disruption to locals etc.

Trail hunting is not doing anyone in the countryside any favours. Why not just accept that?

When that has been established then perhaps we could move on to what would make things better. For me that would be having hunt meets, dates and places posted well in advance (including cubbing) and making sure local communities know so they can keep their cats in or whatever.

keeping hounds off my fields, keeping the car followers under control ie giving them places where they could see lots of activity without blocking the roads. Also, in the areas where it applies sticking strictly to the law,  not hunting fox and making sure they are seen to be taking  action to clean it up. Hopefully then with sufficient independent hunt monitors in place the sabs  numbers would start to reduce.
		
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying here and agree that work could be done to improve hunting's relationship with the general public by all of the things that you suggest but I don't agree that it is not a benefit to the countryside.  Glad to hear you have good time though  I think trail hunting does do the countryside a favour actually but I have been through this quite a bit already so won't repeat myself (you will be glad to hear!)


----------



## paddy555 (29 November 2020)

Tiddlypom said:



			ETA Make that day a Saturday, so more people likely to be out.
		
Click to expand...

preferably don't


----------



## paddi22 (29 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			I understand what you are saying here and agree that work could be done to improve hunting's relationship with the general public by all of the things that you suggest but I don't agree that it is not a benefit to the countryside.  Glad to hear you have good time though  I think trail hunting does do the countryside a favour actually but I have been through this quite a bit already so won't repeat myself (you will be glad to hear!) 

Click to expand...

But as someone who hunts I can't justify it doing the countryside any good? do you have tangible evidence of that. I often block from my mind the damage done to ground birds and animal habitats, fencing, hedging, nesting habitats, damage to ditching, polluting water and the faeces in fields. I nearly had a panic attack watching one of my pregant mares run herself into a frenzy when hounds ran through her field unexpectedly. I had 
one of my own horses jump out of it's box due to stress listening to them going past. I can only assume others have their things happen too? I have read back your posts and I am not understanding where it benefits the countryside?


----------



## ycbm (29 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			You say that you live somewhere that has only been hunted once in 30 years yet at the same time profess to understand hunting, hunting people and all the complexities that surround it.
		
Click to expand...

"All the complexities that surround it"? I have never claimed that.  I have also lived slap bang in Beaufort and Berkeley country and hunted with both those and the Curre.




			How can you live somewhere that has not been hunted for 29 years and still say you understand how it works for people in places where hunting still functions?
		
Click to expand...

It is possible to live close to and have many friends in and often visit places which are hunted and to go hunting,  while living somewhere which is not hunted.
.


----------



## paddy555 (29 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			I get hear what you are saying though it doesn't work like that for me.
		
Click to expand...

can you explain why not?


----------



## paddi22 (29 November 2020)

if you changed the context and it was a hundred cows (for some bizarre reason!) that decided to run across land and  jump ditches and fencing, we wouldn't be on claiming it has some magical benefit for the countryside.


----------



## paddy555 (29 November 2020)

paddi22 said:



			But as someone who hunts I can't justify it doing the countryside any good? do you have tangible evidence of that. I often block from my mind the damage done to ground birds and animal habitats, fencing, hedging, nesting habitats, damage to ditching, polluting water and the faeces in fields. I nearly had a panic attack watching one of my pregant mares run herself into a frenzy when hounds ran through her field unexpectedly. I had
one of my own horses jump out of it's box due to stress listening to them going past. I can only assume others have their things happen too? I have read back your posts and I am not understanding where it benefits the countryside?
		
Click to expand...

I am afraid we probably all have to accept that as horse riders we are not doing the countryside a great deal of good at all, hunting or not. 

I have done the horses' stress thing. One evening by 5.30 I thought they had gone home, it was nearly dark, I was tired and had left the horses out until they had gone. Brought them all in, fed them, everyone calm and happy. Then the hunt arrived and the huntsman sat on the road outside my stables blowing the horn. I flew out and asked him to move. Total chaos with my nags, only a stone wall separated them  from the huntsman. I thought that was so unreasonable. They could not have failed to have noticed that we had horses 

I remember an entire pack of hounds flying through the field past my dear old Jersey cow, same with an older horse with leg problems who did not have long for this world. Very depressing.


----------



## stormox (29 November 2020)

If people want a horse put down they can contact the hunt and they pick up fallen stock. So thats one point pro hunt anyway.


----------



## paddi22 (29 November 2020)

stormox said:



			If people want a horse put down they can contact the hunt and they pick up fallen stock. So thats one point pro hunt anyway.
		
Click to expand...

very very good point.


----------



## rabatsa (29 November 2020)

Nasicus said:



			Just what ground nesting birds need, a pack of hounds followed by thundering hooves running through them!
		
Click to expand...

I was not aware that hunting of any sort happened during the birds nesting season.  However I may be wrong and you know of ground nesting birds that breed over winter.


----------



## ycbm (29 November 2020)

stormox said:



			If people want a horse put down they can contact the hunt and they pick up fallen stock. So thats one point pro hunt anyway.
		
Click to expand...


It's only a benefit if there is no alternative.  I have a choice of knacker men to shoot and remove horses here, none from a hunt.


----------



## Rowreach (29 November 2020)

rabatsa said:



			I was not aware that hunting of any sort happened during the birds nesting season.  However I may be wrong and you know of ground nesting birds that breed over winter.
		
Click to expand...

Ground nesting birds can be disturbed at any time of year, not just when they are sitting.  Dogs being walked off lead in conservation areas cause huge damage, for example (this is something I dealt with on a daily basis in my old job).


----------



## Stressymummy (30 November 2020)

Tiddlypom said:



			Thank you, Stressymummy,  for bring the Kimblewick court case post back up .

As a reminder, the Countryside Alliance‘s Head of Hunting follows that pack. So you’d have thought that it would be a model of good practice, wouldn’t you?
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Stressymummy (30 November 2020)

I didn't bring up any court case !


----------



## Stressymummy (30 November 2020)

Tiddlypom said:



			Thank you, Stressymummy,  for bring the Kimblewick court case post back up .

As a reminder, the Countryside Alliance‘s Head of Hunting follows that pack. So you’d have thought that it would be a model of good practice, wouldn’t you?
		
Click to expand...

I didn't  bring any court case up ???


----------



## Tiddlypom (30 November 2020)

Stressymummy said:



			I didn't  bring any court case up ???
		
Click to expand...

See post # 231 .

You quoted my post about the Kimblewick court case, but didn’t go on to comment on it. So my post about the court case got bumped back up the thread by you.

I don’t think that you’ve quite got the hang of how the quote and reply functions work on here.


----------



## OldNag (30 November 2020)

I wonder what proportion of hunts do still flout the law. I know my local pack are up to various tricks but there seem to be plenty that are legal.


----------



## Errin Paddywack (30 November 2020)

stormox said:



			If people want a horse put down they can contact the hunt and they pick up fallen stock. So thats one point pro hunt anyway.
		
Click to expand...

We have used the hunt several times to put down horses and to remove horses the vet has put down.  Now we usually use a very good knacker but we still use the hunt for the sheep and totally depend on them.  They provide a fantastic service especially at lambing time.  Horrifying how many sheep they have to pick up then.


----------



## meleeka (30 November 2020)

Errin Paddywack said:



			We have used the hunt several times to put down horses and to remove horses the vet has put down.  Now we usually use a very good knacker but we still use the hunt for the sheep and totally depend on them.  They provide a fantastic service especially at lambing time.  Horrifying how many sheep they have to pick up then.
		
Click to expand...

Our local knacker man/fallen stockman also does farm animals (different lorry to horses)  I recently had to use them and the when he arrived the lorry had probably 20 fsrm animals on board, by 10am, so I think it’s a well used service.   There isn’t a local hunt to me, although one about 20 miles away, but it wouldn’t occur to me to use them as we get such a good service from the professional.


----------



## Leah3horses (30 November 2020)

It's quite refreshing to see how most posters on here have evolved and moved with the times, and have a balanced view of hunting related topics, and a desire for the law to be upheld. There was a time on here when to express anti hunting views was considered heresy!  Thank goodness things have changed for the better on here and in the wider equestrian community. No, we are far from completely ethical treatment of other species , but things have progressed rapidly from the time the ban was brought in, people are looking objectively at the whole picture in the most part.  "Tradition" had it's day for hundreds of years , unfortunately, in both human and animal welfare/ rights. 
A few die hard ,stubborn traditionalists who still refuse to evolve and hunt within the law are solely responsible for any visits from the more reactionary sabs.. Cause and effect. Any other type of citizen still visibly  and routinely making a mockery of a law for 16 years now, would have been prosecuted and banned from that illegal activity 15 years ago.  
When you think about it, all extremists have more in common with each other than they do rational, moderate thinkers. Isis/ Fundamental 'Christian' / White supremist terrorists , and blood thirsty , unethical law breakers who continue killing foxes illegally, and the more extreme hunt sabs all have more in common with each other than they realise. 
I feel much safer on here now more rational, law abiding views regarding hunting are welcome. Progress in action. The 2004 law needs a much needed progressive update, because they've had 16 years to breed and train less fox focussed hounds , improve their standards of behaviour etc etc...one hunt on live  quarry is one too many, has been for years but now enough is enough. Outright ban on any hunts flouting the law now...legal packs have nothing to worry about, after all.


----------



## mariew (30 November 2020)

Regardless of argument pro or anti, if you start talking emissions then surely travelling to all equestrian competition and fun rides should be considered a bad thing and not something that should be part of a pro/anti hunt argument surely?

 In fact on an environmental argument level horses are not great, mounds of plastic, fabric, feeds to be grown tractors to harvest etc etc. How good is it for the environment to have 20 rugs and 20 saddlepads for one horse for example...

As far as the actual argument goes I am staying well out!


----------



## paddy555 (30 November 2020)

mariew said:



			Regardless of argument pro or anti, if you start talking emissions then surely travelling to all equestrian competition and fun rides should be considered a bad thing and not something that should be part of a pro/anti hunt argument surely?
		
Click to expand...

yes all equestrian activities are bad from an emissions POV. It was only brought up about hunting as the argument was that hunting benefited the countryside. It doesn't, neither do most horse activities.


----------



## palo1 (30 November 2020)

paddy555 said:



			yes all equestrian activities are bad from an emissions POV. It was only brought up about hunting as the argument was that hunting benefited the countryside. It doesn't, neither do most horse activities.
		
Click to expand...

I think this is part of what you were referring to paddy555: The point I was making @ycbm was that where there fox hunting existed there was an added factor in creating a better environment and more biodiversity. Fox hunting was just part of the glue that made it more desirable to have woodland. Supporting an apex predator (which fox hunting did) is well documented for it's beneficial effect on the whole ecosystem. I cannot speak for your area though you have slightly contradicted yourself here as previously you have referenced a local hunt. No matter I get your drift I think.


----------



## ycbm (30 November 2020)

The point I was making   @ycbm  was that where there fox hunting existed there was an added factor in creating a better environment and more biodiversity. Fox hunting was just part of the glue that made it more desirable to have woodland. Supporting an apex predator (which fox hunting did) is well documented for it's beneficial effect on the whole ecosystem. I cannot speak for your area though you have slightly contradicted yourself here as previously you have referenced a local hunt. No matter I get your drift I think.
		
Click to expand...

I have not contradicted myself and I have already explained that to you,  but you have ignored it.   Local doesn't mean hunting the direct area in which my house sits. My local town is five miles away.  My local hunt hunts up to that town,  in fact on one occasion a couple of years back,  well into the town, with a dead fox in a suburban garden,  video here. 

https://www.google.com/url?q=https:...FjAAegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw23pl5MfzpwOKvmU1Ml_C5D


I don't know if you've noticed,  Palo, but even the other hunters on this thread are saying they don't agree with you that hunting benefits the countryside? 
.


----------



## ycbm (30 November 2020)

Dupe


----------



## paddy555 (30 November 2020)

I think, Palo, that we are just going to have to agree to differ. Hunting gives or takes nothing more or less to the countryside than any other activity, say an endurance ride, sponsored ride, fun ride, pony club rally. Hunting is simply a group of people, horses and dogs out for a country ride/run. It has the same impact as other events and if it was completely banned the countryside would suffer no loss.
One could say there was a benefit of proper hunting before the ban in that it  acted as pest control and I thought that was an argument always put forward for fox hunting. Now I think many can see absolutely no benefit for trail riding.

If people want to legally hunt then great. Please get out and enjoy the countryside. Just don't think your activities are bestowing any great benefit on it.


----------



## Tiddlypom (30 November 2020)

OldNag said:



			I wonder what proportion of hunts do still flout the law. I know my local pack are up to various tricks but there seem to be plenty that are legal.
		
Click to expand...

But how will anyone know which is which? 

*All* hunts insist that they hunt legally.

Before the leak of the webinars, I had presumed that whilst there were undoubtedly some illegal hunts, the majority were probably hunting legally.

After the webinar leak, with the 155 attendees, that is no longer a credible view. I was naïve.


----------



## paddy555 (30 November 2020)

Tiddlypom said:



*All* hunts insist that they hunt legally.

.
		
Click to expand...


well they are hardly going to tell you otherwise!!!


----------



## palo1 (30 November 2020)

ycbm said:



			I have not contradicted myself and I have already explained that to you,  but you have ignored it.   Local doesn't mean hunting the direct area in which my house sits. My local town is five miles away.  My local hunt hunts up to that town,  in fact on one occasion a couple of years back,  well into the town, with a dead fox in a suburban garden,  video here.

https://www.google.com/url?q=https:...FjAAegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw23pl5MfzpwOKvmU1Ml_C5D


I don't know if you've noticed,  Palo, but even the other hunters on this thread are saying they don't agree with you that hunting benefits the countryside?
.
		
Click to expand...

Apologies @ycbm - I did not intend this post to be directed at you; I was responding to paddy555's comment. I had read your earlier comment about where you live.  I am aware of all the different viewpoints from people who enjoy hunting for the fun of it to those that wish it were entirely banned.  There are also people, who may not have posted here, that certainly agree with me that hunting benefits the countryside; I am very well aware of the variety of opinions on the subject.  To be honest I wish I hadn't responded to this thread at all - it is a complete waste of energy and words.  Debate on social media makes no difference at all but divides people who may otherwise have things in common.  That is a great shame.  Whatever the outcome of the police investigation I hope that next year is easier for all and less divisive than 2020 appears to have been.


----------



## paddy555 (30 November 2020)

palo1 said:



			I cannot speak for your area though you have slightly contradicted yourself here as previously you have referenced a local hunt. No matter I get your drift I think.
		
Click to expand...

I thought this was aimed at ycbm but if at me I have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## OldNag (30 November 2020)

Tiddlypom said:



			But how will anyone know which is which? 

*All* hunts insist that they hunt legally.

Before the leak of the webinars, I had presumed that whilst there were undoubtedly some illegal hunts, the majority were probably hunting legally.

After the webinar leak, with the 155 attendees, that is no longer a credible view. I was naïve.
		
Click to expand...

 Me too. I knew my local was not following the law but hadn't realised it was so widespread..


----------



## luluphoto63 (2 December 2020)

scruffyponies said:



			I have had the privilege to go out as a guest a couple of times pre-ban, a few times since, and more recently with a bloodhound pack.  Not being a 'regular', I know there's much I don't see or understand, but from a rider's perspective:

There is something wonderful about the unpredictability of the chase - mostly you're lost, trying to keep up, and occasionally terrified.  A fox doesn't stick to headlands; it takes a direct line sometimes, and gives you the gallop of your life.  Every day is totally different, and the foxes for the most part seem to get away.  Lest ways the only dead one I ever saw was caught in a snare.
Drag hunting as done by the fox hound packs (and the ones I have been out with were following the law) is as close as they can mimic a real scent to make the hounds work, and I'm not sure if they even tell the huntsman the exact route.  It has the advantage of being planned to the extent that hazards can be avoided (e.g. road and rail), and you still see the hounds working, but loses a little of the adrenaline rush from being more predictable.  In both cases there is some standing around, but you are watching and listening to the hounds (and the countryside around), and it's very pleasant.
The bloodhounds follow a runner, and the route is known.  Whilst it's a lovely ride, you follow the headlands and it's more like a fun ride with no gaps between groups of riders.  I found we were often holding back the horses to keep off the hounds, since runners, and bloodhounds are much slower than foxes.   There seems to be more standing around, if anything, waiting for quarry to get a head start etc.
		
Click to expand...

SO sadly untrue that most Foxes get away. So many are killed, they run in terror and then hounds attack their stomachs and they die in terror and agony. In areas where e=Fox numbers are low they often use a bagged fox.


----------



## paddi22 (2 December 2020)

luluphoto63 said:



			SO sadly untrue that most Foxes get away. So many are killed, they run in terror and then hounds attack their stomachs and they die in terror and agony. In areas where e=Fox numbers are low they often use a bagged fox.
		
Click to expand...

I would have to disagree with you on that. it is once in a blue moon that foxes are caught here and bagged foxes are never used. Not catching them is mainly due to the fact that there isn't a straight trail across land here. hunts have to go out, in and around fields as they don't have permission or it's grazing land with stock on it. We are also surrounded by forestry that they only have access to part of. so there is realistically no way of catching the fox at least in this area.


----------



## luluphoto63 (2 December 2020)

Equine_Dream said:



			Therein lies the issue....what is a humane way of controlling the population? Shooting is probably thought more humane but then a bad shot can leave the animal suffering for days. Some farmers also resort to poisoning which is an excruciating death.
It's something I've asked myself to. I used to be dead against hunting. Then met my husband who was from a farming background and saw some of the other side. I'm still not sure where I sit exactly on hunting. I have seen the damage caused by foxes and the affect it can have on farmers livelihoods, so I suppose I would go as far as to say controlling fox populations is a necessary evil.... but what is the best way to do that? I'm not so sure.
		
Click to expand...

Foxes self regulate their numbers. I'm from a farming background, farmers who know a thing or 2 plus respect wildlife leave Foxes alone and work with the balance of nature. One farmer I know said in all her years of sheep farming only one lamb was taken by a Fox and she entirely blames herself because she made hay too early that year and Foxes went hungry without high enough field mice numbers. Foxes also keep rabbit populations down which some farmers like. Fox hunting is about the thrill of the chase and pleasure of seeing a terrified animal torn to bits in agony.


----------



## luluphoto63 (2 December 2020)

southerncomfort said:



			I once had a conversation with a huntsman who pointed out a copse that had been planted by them 'to encourage the foxes to breed'.

😒
		
Click to expand...

Most hunts encourage Foxes to breed, often in articial earths, AE's. Bagged Foxes are used on hunts also.


----------



## luluphoto63 (2 December 2020)

LEC said:



			There are thousands of examples of that in the countryside. Lots if farmers do this..... Whether its for shooting or hunting. Hedges that have been left, woods left, copses planted etc etc. Its also helpful when you get given EU grants under the guise of good management schemes.
		
Click to expand...

and a lot of these areas have hunt related names on maps


----------



## emilylou (2 December 2020)

luluphoto63 said:



			Foxes self regulate their numbers. I'm from a farming background, farmers who know a thing or 2 plus respect wildlife leave Foxes alone and work with the balance of nature. One farmer I know said in all her years of sheep farming only one lamb was taken by a Fox and she entirely blames herself because she made hay too early that year and Foxes went hungry without high enough field mice numbers. Foxes also keep rabbit populations down which some farmers like. Fox hunting is about the thrill of the chase and pleasure of seeing a terrified animal torn to bits in agony.
		
Click to expand...

Lambing and hay making happen at different times of year. 
Are you here to pick a fight?


----------



## luluphoto63 (2 December 2020)

palo1 said:



			In 2015 the BBC reported that the number of people registered with a hunt (trail, drag and blood hound) had increased from the point of the ban to a number around 45,000.  Most hunts would accord that the number of people they have is not decreasing; though their country may be becoming more difficult to maintain for a number of reasons.

Many, many ordinary people follow legal hunts and that includes vets, nurses, doctors, teachers, bin-men, plumbers, shop workers etc etc.  Top level eventers and other horse sport professionals who are held up as examples to aspire to within equestrianism  (including Carl Hester) participate in hunting activities yet still the same old tropes about hunting and hunting people are marched out and often by people who clearly have no clue what the actual reality is.    Hunting has adapted and will go on adapting.  I hope so anyway.  I am not bloodthirsty, desperate to kill foxes (at all), ignorant of the countryside, rude to my neighbours, liable to trespass, assault people, facilitate the killing of pets or upsetting of other people; I am fed up of hearing these untruths about hunting people.  This current scandal which revolves around less than probably 2% (I haven't calculated it actually but have read all of both transcripts) of the words spoken is just another attack by a bunch of well funded vigilantes who have taken those words and phrases out of context and served them up on a plate for those that want such delicacies.  Not widely reported are also the stress on the importance of hunts filing 'honest' reports and recording accidents/incidents etc, never getting involved in conflicts etc.

I totally get why people are easily stirred up by the news and I used to feel quite passionately anti-hunting BUT in this country we don't thankfully have a history of political and social change through vigilante action - which is widely and often violently deployed by the anti-hunt movement who are openly happy to admit to and plan for assualt, trespass and physical intimidation of both people and animals whilst never being prepared to show their faces or reveal their identity.  I can't honestly imagine contributing to any reasonable debate on this forum about the subject of hunting though...
		
Click to expand...

Anti's come from all sorts of backgrounds, nurses, vets, doctors, teachers, photographers to name some I have met. Those who are brave enough to try to defend our wildlife are threatened and intimidated by hunts and their hunt stewards (thugs of the highest order). Hunt trespass is out of control, time and time again my mother and neighbours have told the hunt they are not welcome but time again they trespass. There are so many examples of this on social media. The lid has been lifted on hunting, the police have stated they are reviewing their relationship to hunts, we have had enough of wildlife terrorism, hunting must end. Period.


----------



## Equine_Dream (2 December 2020)

luluphoto63 said:



			Anti's come from all sorts of backgrounds, nurses, vets, doctors, teachers, photographers to name some I have met. Those who are brave enough to try to defend our wildlife are threatened and intimidated by hunts and their hunt stewards (thugs of the highest order). Hunt trespass is out of control, time and time again my mother and neighbours have told the hunt they are not welcome but time again they trespass. There are so many examples of this on social media. The lid has been lifted on hunting, the police have stated they are reviewing their relationship to hunts, we have had enough of wildlife terrorism, hunting must end. Period.
		
Click to expand...

Yes such bravery to call a group of young 12yo girls murdering sl@gs and deliberately terrify horses on roads....
And sabs wrote the book on trespassing on private land so let's not go there 🙄


----------



## Equine_Dream (2 December 2020)

emilylou said:



			Lambing and hay making happen at different times of year.
Are you here to pick a fight?
		
Click to expand...

Very switched on farmer to be bailing hay in February. The rest of them are just missing a trick 🤷‍♀️😂


----------



## ycbm (2 December 2020)

Equine_Dream said:



			Very switched on farmer to be bailing hay in February. The rest of them are just missing a trick 🤷‍♀️😂
		
Click to expand...

To be fair to our slightly crazed sounding new poster,  hill farms lamb in April or May.


----------



## luluphoto63 (2 December 2020)

palo1 said:



			I am sure you are not personally a well-funded vigilante! I was referring to LACS who are happy to support individuals and groups who are most certainly vigilantes and with no genuine animal rights agenda. The police and home office have rightly identified them as extremists who pose a significant danger.
		
Click to expand...

to thwart the cruelty and criminality of fox hunters is a battle of light against darkness, to describe those who try to defend innocent creatures as extremists and vigilantes when they are up against hunting thugs of the highest order is simply disingenuous and fake.


----------



## ycbm (2 December 2020)

LP I am very anti fox hunting,  but I don't think you are doing anyone any favours with the way you are writing.


----------



## The Fuzzy Furry (2 December 2020)

luluphoto63 said:



			Most hunts encourage Foxes to breed, often in articial earths, AE's. Bagged Foxes are used on hunts also.
		
Click to expand...

Lies, bullshit and the inability to articulate as getting excited with ranting = troll 

off to find the spray................


----------



## The Fuzzy Furry (2 December 2020)

luluphoto63 said:



			to thwart the cruelty and criminality of fox hunters is a battle of light against darkness, to describe those who try to defend innocent creatures as extremists and vigilantes when they are up against hunting thugs of the highest order is simply disingenuous and fake.
		
Click to expand...

Evangelism isn't really applied here, whatever the subject matter


----------



## luluphoto63 (2 December 2020)

scruffyponies said:



			I'm not going to wade in to the debate, except to observe that my experience of hunting people, privately, and in private online spaces, is that they are amongst the most polite, inclusive, welcoming and kind I have ever met.  Left to their own devices they spend most of their time sharing soppy pictures of horses and doggies.

Those who think they are 'bloodthirsty toffs' should examine their own prejudices.
		
Click to expand...

have you watched the hunting office webinars? Lord Mancroft et al so politely discussing ways to create "smokescreens" for illegal bloodthirsty Fox hunting.


----------



## emilylou (2 December 2020)

luluphoto63 said:



			Anti's come from all sorts of backgrounds, nurses, vets, doctors, teachers, photographers to name some I have met.
		
Click to expand...

As do those who hunt. If you care to read this whole thread there is a lot of knowledge to be gained about hunting, with those arguing on both sides with knowledgeable and considered views. What you will gain from reading it is the understanding that hunting is a multifaceted issue that is not simple and involves a large number of people with a variety of lifestyles and interests outside of hunting that goes far beyond whether it is right or wrong to kill a fox (which by the way, happens regardless of hunting by other methods). 
It is ignorant to assume everyone who hunts is bloodthirsty just as it is ignorant to think that all sabs are terrorists. 
I'm not sure what you hope to gain by brandishing your opinions on an internet forum, people here are generally open to discussion but everything you are saying has been heard before and is highly biased.

True fox hunting is illegal. Trail hunting and drag hunting are legal. Everything else is opinion.


----------



## luluphoto63 (2 December 2020)

The Xmas Furry said:



			Lies, bullshit and the inability to articulate as getting excited with ranting = troll

off to find the spray................
		
Click to expand...

Saying it doesn't make it so. Ae's are a fact, bagged foxes are a fact, anyone can do a little research to find this out themselves.


----------



## BeckyFlowers (2 December 2020)

luluphoto63 said:



			have you watched the hunting office webinars? Lord Mancroft et al so politely discussing ways to create "smokescreens" for illegal bloodthirsty Fox hunting.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, there's twelve pages discussing it before you posted!  Have you read them all?


----------



## The Fuzzy Furry (2 December 2020)

luluphoto63 said:



			Saying it doesn't make it so. Ae's are a fact, bagged foxes are a fact, anyone can do a little research to find this out themselves.
		
Click to expand...

The facts are where? Please substantiate your claim


----------



## luluphoto63 (2 December 2020)

Cheeky Chestnut said:



			I’m more annoyed that the rabid hunt saboteurs have more to beat their ridiculous drum about animal cruelty ( despite the fact that they have caused deliberate harm to horse hound and man) to justify their abusive actions. I am neither pro nor anti hunt, no interest in it other than the galloping and jumping but I can do that in other ways, I just don’t like people who like who Use cruelty to justify more cruelty.

for the hunts that do hunt within the law with trail hunting and legal scents this may spell the end for them.
		
Click to expand...

Saying something doesn't make it so, even when repeated ad nausium..there is no evidence that Anti's harm animals indeed there is huge concern over hunts treatment of hounds which live such short brutal lives, the terrier men's treatment of their dogs, blocked badger setts, horses ridden too hard, live stock scares and on and on.


----------



## Michen (2 December 2020)

luluphoto63 said:



			Saying something doesn't make it so, even when repeated ad nausium..there is no evidence that Anti's harm animals indeed there is huge concern over hunts treatment of hounds which live such short brutal lives, the terrier men's treatment of their dogs, blocked badger setts, horses ridden too hard, live stock scares and on and on.
		
Click to expand...

I'd say when antis were ramming their car up my horses hocks that is evidence.


----------



## luluphoto63 (2 December 2020)

Equine_Dream said:



			The pack I hunt with are a legitimate trail hunt (I know I know they ALL say that). I wouldn't personally attend if I thought for a second that they were in fact hunting fox. While I hold mixed views it wouldn't sit well with me personally. I also know many of the landowners who allow the hunt on their land would not do so if they caught a wiff of illegal hunting.
Yet we have been subject to harassment by antis frequently. Despite the complete lack of evidence of illegal hunting and the openness which our hunt operates. The sabs are not interested. Yes those hunts who illegally hunt foxes are clearly wrong but so are the sabs who cause distress and harm to one animal under the pretence of protecting another are no better. Sabs have no right to take the moral high ground in this regard.
There is most definitely right and wrong on both sides but the smugness and righteousness of sabs does get up my nose I'll admit, especially when they are no better than the illegal hunts.
		
Click to expand...

What evidence do you have of Anti's harming animals? The hunt which you say is hunting legitimately, which one is it? Thanks.


----------



## luluphoto63 (2 December 2020)

Michen said:



			I'd say when antis were ramming their car up my horses hocks that is evidence.
		
Click to expand...

Hunts have been lying for years, this is simply another.


----------



## The Fuzzy Furry (2 December 2020)

*plonk*


----------



## ycbm (2 December 2020)

luluphoto63 said:



			Hunts have been lying for years, this is simply another.
		
Click to expand...

I'm sorry ,  you don't join as a new poster and accuse a long standing and trusted member of lying about something she posted about last year.  

Please apologise or take your ranting to another forum.


----------



## luluphoto63 (2 December 2020)

Indy said:



			Can I just say that not all sabs are brainless idiots. My nephew has been out monitoring and he swears to me that he is nothing but polite and professional and he takes it very seriously. He doesn't disrupt but  he videos for evidence of illegal hunting. He's also shut Gates, has caught a loose, wandering horse on one occasion and has kept left behind Hounds company while waiting for the hunt to realise they haven't taken them all home - apparently that was a long night and he missed out on a DJ'ing set he was supposed to do.

What changed him was seeing a report on the news of a hunt man throwing a live fox cub into hounds, before he saw that he was a people are entitled to their hobbies kind of lad.
		
Click to expand...

FYI  Monitors and Sabs are caring compassionate people. Pro's have been lying about Fox hunting for years while spreading fake news in order to caste themselves in a better light, committing acts of cruelty and dressing it up as tradition.


----------



## luluphoto63 (2 December 2020)

ycbm said:



			I'm sorry ,  you don't join as a new poster and accuse a long standing and trusted member of lying about something she posted about last year. 

Please apologise or take your ranting to another forum.
		
Click to expand...

Long standing or not, spreading fake information is lying and the leaked webinars prove hunts have been lying for years, or have you not seen them?


----------



## luluphoto63 (2 December 2020)

The Xmas Furry said:



			The facts are where? Please substantiate your claim
		
Click to expand...

just look!


----------



## Equine_Dream (2 December 2020)

luluphoto63 said:



			Long standing or not, spreading fake information is lying and the leaked webinars prove hunts have been lying for years, or have you not seen them?
		
Click to expand...

And how would you know Michen is lying? Were you there? What possible reason would Michen have to lie for?
As for my evidence of sabs harming animals I have seen it with my own two eyes sadly, but there are numerous videos online if you follow your own advice and "just look" 🙄


----------



## emilylou (2 December 2020)

luluphoto63 said:



			just look!
		
Click to expand...

references please.
At the moment the amount of evidence supplied to support your claims is the same as the amount Trump has to support his claim of winning the election


----------



## luluphoto63 (2 December 2020)

emilylou said:



			Lambing and hay making happen at different times of year.
Are you here to pick a fight?
		
Click to expand...

Not at all


----------



## luluphoto63 (2 December 2020)

emilylou said:



			references please.
At the moment the amount of evidence supplied to support your claims is the same as the amount Trump has to support his claim of winning the election
		
Click to expand...

You are on the internet. Google Artificial earths, fox hunts, bagged foxes etc. You know how.


----------



## luluphoto63 (2 December 2020)

HashRouge said:



			I'm so confused. I thought fox hunting was designed to control fox numbers, but this makes it sound like its aim was to increase them?! Have I just lost the ability to read?!
		
Click to expand...

How wrong you are.


----------



## ycbm (2 December 2020)

luluphoto63 said:



			Long standing or not, spreading fake information is lying and the leaked webinars prove hunts have been lying for years, or have you not seen them?
		
Click to expand...


That has nothing to do with you accusing Michen of lying. You have spoiled a good adult discussion about this topic with your ranting.  

You are a troll and not worth feeding.  And I'm anti fox hunting!


----------



## ycbm (2 December 2020)

..dupe


----------



## ester (2 December 2020)

Right so everyone else's stuff 'Saying it doesn't make it so'
Your stuff saying it makes it true cos internet & google.

What fabulous logic to live by.


----------



## luluphoto63 (2 December 2020)

ycbm said:



			That has nothing to do with you accusing Michen of lying. You have spoiled a good adult discussion about this topic with your ranting. 

You are a troll and not worth feeding.  And I'm anti fox hunting!
		
Click to expand...




ycbm said:



			That has nothing to do with you accusing Michen of lying. You have spoiled a good adult discussion about this topic with your ranting. 

You are a troll and not worth feeding.  And I'm anti fox hunting!
		
Click to expand...

An untruth is a lie and describing my posts as "ranting" is exaggerating.


----------



## ester (2 December 2020)

it wasn't an untruth either though you see, that's the issue.


----------



## ycbm (2 December 2020)

luluphoto63 said:



			An untruth is a lie and describing my posts as "ranting" is exaggerating.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry,  got no food for trolls on me at the moment.  
.


----------



## rabatsa (2 December 2020)

luluphoto63 said:



			SO sadly untrue that most Foxes get away. So many are killed, they run in terror and then hounds attack their stomachs and they die in terror and agony. In areas where e=Fox numbers are low they often use a bagged fox.
		
Click to expand...

Hounds do not attack the stomachs, that is wolves going for much larger prey.

Hounds go for breaking the neck like terriers do with rats.

Some people are easily fed misinformation and show their ignorance by not checking for real facts, not for a moment would I dare say that luluphoto63 falls into this category....


----------



## luluphoto63 (2 December 2020)

"Some people are easily fed misinformation and show their ignorance by not checking for real facts, not for a moment would I dare say that luluphoto63 falls into this category...."

I agree, get the facts right.. "Nip to the back of the neck" simply another untruth. This is from the RSPCA, there are many other sources, easily found on the internet which back this up.

*Fiction: Hunting is humane, foxhounds are trained to kill with a nip to the back of the neck*
Fact: You don't need to be a scientist to know that chasing a mammal, often to the point of exhaustionand allowing a pack of dogs to rip it apart, in the name of 'sport', is inhumane. 
A study of post-mortem examinations of foxes killed by hounds above ground undermined this claim, indicating that the animals died from profound trauma inflicted by multiple dog bites rather than a 'quick bite to the neck'.
The study showed that in many cases foxes are disemboweled first. The Burns report also concluded that hunting with dogs causes animal suffering both during the latter stages of the chase and at the kill.


----------



## luluphoto63 (2 December 2020)

ycbm said:



			Sorry,  got no food for trolls on me at the moment. 
.
		
Click to expand...

You said.


----------



## Rowreach (2 December 2020)

luluphoto63 said:



			Anti's come from all sorts of backgrounds, nurses, vets, doctors, teachers, photographers to name some I have met. Those who are brave enough to try to defend our wildlife are threatened and intimidated by hunts and their hunt stewards (thugs of the highest order). Hunt trespass is out of control, time and time again my mother and neighbours have told the hunt they are not welcome but time again they trespass. There are so many examples of this on social media. The lid has been lifted on hunting, the police have stated they are reviewing their relationship to hunts, we have had enough of wildlife terrorism, hunting must end. Period.
		
Click to expand...

Which LACS group are you a member of, out of interest?


----------



## luluphoto63 (2 December 2020)

Rowreach said:



			Which LACS group are you a member of, out of interest?
		
Click to expand...

I'm not a member of LACS.


----------



## Fred66 (2 December 2020)

luluphoto63 said:



			"Some people are easily fed misinformation and show their ignorance

I agree, get the facts right ........ The Burns report also concluded that hunting with dogs causes animal suffering both during the latter stages of the chase and at the kill.
		
Click to expand...

Right back at you 😆
You are mixing the sections up. The latter part you are quoting relates to the hunting of deer. The section relating to foxes in respect of welfare actually states that it is probable that the banning of hunting with hounds will be detrimental to their welfare.
The middle ground of licensing and making welfare the prime motivator was always what should have happened.


----------



## luluphoto63 (2 December 2020)

Fred66 said:



			Right back at you 😆
You are mixing the sections up. The part you are quoting relates to the hunting of deer. The section relating to foxes in respect of welfare actually states that it is probable that the banning of hunting with hounds will be detrimental to their welfare.
The middle ground of licensing and making welfare the prime motivator was always what should have happened.
		
Click to expand...

No it isn't, it's an extract from an RSPCA article about the Fox hunting.


----------



## Fred66 (2 December 2020)

luluphoto63 said:



			No it isn't, it's an extract from an RSPCA article about the Fox hunting.
		
Click to expand...

Well their article is therefore mixing sections from the Burns report. Section 51 which includes the part about latter stages of the hunt relates to deer. 
Sections 54-61 cover foxes with section 61 stating that banning of hunting with hounds may be to their detriment.
It’s a freely available document so maybe you should read it as your point of reference rather than resorting to Chinese Whispers which will inevitably lead you into mistaking opinions as facts.


----------



## luluphoto63 (2 December 2020)

The Xmas Furry said:



			Evangelism isn't really applied here, whatever the subject matter
		
Click to expand...

Call it what you will. 
We're all capable of empathy, there surely is a disconnect with humanity when we try to justify the act of hunting and killing for the purpose of pleasure. To name call me as an evangelist is the modern problem, to care is to be weak. Shame on everyone here desperately trying to defend unnecessary suffering


----------



## paddy555 (2 December 2020)

luluphoto63

I guess you are a member of a sab group. That is no problem. Everyone is entitled to their views. 
Our local sabs were pretty nice people when we spoke to them and they soon realised we were not part of the hunt. I am anti hunt for several reasons. I am however also anti sab violence to either people or animals although I do appreciate that it works from both sides. 

However, the discussion was previously going pretty well on here. Some people who supported hunting had clearly kept out of the  thread. Most of the rest were getting  on pretty well batting backwards and forwards. 

I am afraid with your arrival the atmosphere sees to have changed a fair bit. You will never get through to people by lecturing them and I am afraid that is how it is coming across. I think many on here agree that illegal hunting is wrong. It is against the law and we should work on that basis. There are many arguments for and against hunting from the foxes POV. However with a ban on fox hunting those are now irrelevant. Many would agree with you from a welfare POV. 

Monitors need to obtain evidence of illegal hunting and the police need to do something about it. 

In the meantime please don't spoil what was a pretty reasonable (for HHO) thread. I see you are pretty new here. Perhaps tone it down a little whilst people get to know you and your views?


----------



## Rumtytum (2 December 2020)

paddy555 said:



			luluphoto63

I guess you are a member of a sab group. That is no problem. Everyone is entitled to their views.
Our local sabs were pretty nice people when we spoke to them and they soon realised we were not part of the hunt. I am anti hunt for several reasons. I am however also anti sab violence to either people or animals although I do appreciate that it works from both sides.

However, the discussion was previously going pretty well on here. Some people who supported hunting had clearly kept out of the  thread. Most of the rest were getting  on pretty well batting backwards and forwards.

I am afraid with your arrival the atmosphere sees to have changed a fair bit. You will never get through to people by lecturing them and I am afraid that is how it is coming across. I think many on here agree that illegal hunting is wrong. It is against the law and we should work on that basis. There are many arguments for and against hunting from the foxes POV. However with a ban on fox hunting those are now irrelevant. Many would agree with you from a welfare POV.

Monitors need to obtain evidence of illegal hunting and the police need to do something about it.

In the meantime please don't spoil what was a pretty reasonable (for HHO) thread. I see you are pretty new here. Perhaps tone it down a little whilst people get to know you and your views?
		
Click to expand...

Very well put Paddy


----------



## Chinchilla (2 December 2020)

What Paddy said. ^


----------



## Rowreach (2 December 2020)

luluphoto63 said:



			Call it what you will.
We're all capable of empathy, there surely is a disconnect with humanity when we try to justify the act of hunting and killing for the purpose of pleasure. To name call me as an evangelist is the modern problem, to care is to be weak. Shame on everyone here desperately trying to defend unnecessary suffering
		
Click to expand...

Well it's instantly clear from this post that you didn't bother to read the thread, which is actually one of the most civil threads there has been on this forum (well, until it got derailed today).  If you had read it you would know that (a) nobody is defending the hunts that are breaking the law and (b) a lot of us who were former hunt followers have changed our views on the subject over the past couple of decades, so you can wind your neck in.


----------



## luluphoto63 (2 December 2020)

paddy555 said:



			luluphoto63

I guess you are a member of a sab group. That is no problem. Everyone is entitled to their views.
Our local sabs were pretty nice people when we spoke to them and they soon realised we were not part of the hunt. I am anti hunt for several reasons. I am however also anti sab violence to either people or animals although I do appreciate that it works from both sides.

However, the discussion was previously going pretty well on here. Some people who supported hunting had clearly kept out of the  thread. Most of the rest were getting  on pretty well batting backwards and forwards.

I am afraid with your arrival the atmosphere sees to have changed a fair bit. You will never get through to people by lecturing them and I am afraid that is how it is coming across. I think many on here agree that illegal hunting is wrong. It is against the law and we should work on that basis. There are many arguments for and against hunting from the foxes POV. However with a ban on fox hunting those are now irrelevant. Many would agree with you from a welfare POV.

Monitors need to obtain evidence of illegal hunting and the police need to do something about it.

In the meantime please don't spoil what was a pretty reasonable (for HHO) thread. I see you are pretty new here. Perhaps tone it down a little whilst people get to know you and your views?
		
Click to expand...

"I am also anti sab violence" very emotive comment, please back this up with evidence, can you?.. In light of the recent exposure of senior hunting officials teaching 150 hunt masters on ways of covering up illegal cruel fox hunting, how do you justify your comment that sabs, ie, those trying desperately to protect those animals from suffering and terror, are in any way guilty with NO evidence. Are you protecting illegal Fox hunting?


----------



## luluphoto63 (2 December 2020)

Rowreach said:



			Well it's instantly clear from this post that you didn't bother to read the thread, which is actually one of the most civil threads there has been on this forum (well, until it got derailed today).  If you had read it you would know that (a) nobody is defending the hunts that are breaking the law and (b) a lot of us who were former hunt followers have changed our views on the subject over the past couple of decades, so you can wind your neck in.
		
Click to expand...

Not all, read the thread of comments


----------



## Rowreach (2 December 2020)

luluphoto63 said:



			Not all, read the thread of comments
		
Click to expand...

Oh, I have


----------



## luluphoto63 (2 December 2020)

Rowreach said:



			Oh, I have [/QUOTEwithout bias?
		
Click to expand...


----------



## paddy555 (2 December 2020)

luluphoto63 said:



			"I am also anti sab violence" very emotive comment, please back this up with evidence, can you?.. In light of the recent exposure of senior hunting officials teaching 150 hunt masters on ways of covering up illegal cruel fox hunting, how do you justify your comment that sabs, ie, those trying desperately to protect those animals from suffering and terror, are in any way guilty with NO evidence. Are you protecting illegal Fox hunting?
		
Click to expand...

have you read the thread? have you read my earlier comments.? Many people have and I think that they will agree that I am not protecting illegal fox hunting and in fact I was anti before it was even banned. 

I think you have been given the chance to try and join in with the friendly discussion on this thread. It is a very emotive subject for a forum called horse  and hound but we were doing OK I think.  Obviously you don't want to keep it friendly. That is a shame.. We all learn from each other's comments. 

I appreciate you are new here. We have what is called UI that is user ignore. I think that for the most part this thread had run it's course however it may be something to consider. That means that your posts will not be seen by whoever choses to put you on UI so people can just carry on as they were without your input. That's what I'm going to do so please don't waste your time replying. I won't see it.


----------



## shortstuff99 (2 December 2020)

I'm against fox hunting but let's not pretend Sabs don't ever do anything wrong (even if they think they are on the side of good and the defenseless they can't break the law).

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/hunt-saboteur-sentenced-giving-police-4526498


----------



## Tiddlypom (2 December 2020)

For any antis on or reading this thread, hunt sabs are not looked on favourably on here but hunt monitors are (except, of course, for those who want to carry on illegal hunting and they want neither).

Intelligent monitoring will catch out the naughty hunts with valid evidence that can be used in court. Plus now, of course, the Hunting Office have shown everyone just what to look out for on a hunting day.


----------



## Rowreach (2 December 2020)

Tiddlypom said:



			For any antis on or reading this thread, hunt sabs are not looked on favourably on here but hunt monitors are (except, of course, for those who want to carry on illegal hunting and they want neither).

Intelligent monitoring will catch out the naughty hunts with valid evidence that can be used in court. Plus now, of course, the Hunt Office have shown everyone just what to look out for on a hunting day.
		
Click to expand...

And just to add, people with extreme views on either side never do their cause any favours. Good thing most of us are reasonably well balanced!


----------



## luluphoto63 (2 December 2020)

without bi


paddy555 said:



			have you read the thread? have you read my earlier comments.? Many people have and I think that they will agree that I am not protecting illegal fox hunting and in fact I was anti before it was even banned.

I think you have been given the chance to try and join in with the friendly discussion on this thread. It is a very emotive subject for a forum called horse  and hound but we were doing OK I think.  Obviously you don't want to keep it friendly. That is a shame.. We all learn from each other's comments.

I appreciate you are new here. We have what is called UI that is user ignore. I think that for the most part this thread had run it's course however it may be something to consider. That means that your posts will not be seen by whoever choses to put you on UI so people can just carry on as they were without your input. That's what I'm going to do so please don't waste your time replying. I won't see it. [/QUOTEHappy emoji. Ok. I'm not aware that anything I posted was unfriendly. Best wishes to all in finding the right path.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## luluphoto63 (2 December 2020)

shortstuff99 said:



			I'm against fox hunting but let's not pretend Sabs don't ever do anything wrong (even if they think they are on the side of good and the defenseless they can't break the law).

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/hunt-saboteur-sentenced-giving-police-4526498

Click to expand...

evidence please


----------



## shortstuff99 (2 December 2020)

luluphoto63 said:



			evidence please
		
Click to expand...

The guilty verdict by a jury of his peers is not evidence enough?


----------



## luluphoto63 (2 December 2020)

Rowreach said:



			And just to add, people with extreme views on either side never do their cause any favours. Good thing most of us are reasonably well balanced!
		
Click to expand...

Hunt sabs who care terribly about animals and want to protect them..you don't care about their cause..why?


----------



## luluphoto63 (2 December 2020)

shortstuff99 said:



			The guilty verdict by a jury of his peers is not evidence enough?
		
Click to expand...

we will all be judged


----------



## luluphoto63 (2 December 2020)

shortstuff99 said:



			The guilty verdict by a jury of his peers is not evidence enough?
		
Click to expand...

please explain?


----------



## shortstuff99 (2 December 2020)

luluphoto63 said:



			we will all be judged
		
Click to expand...

I hope you're not meaning that in the religious sense because I'm Agnostic 🤣


----------



## shortstuff99 (2 December 2020)

luluphoto63 said:



			please explain?
		
Click to expand...

You asked for evidence. He was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a jury of people selected from his local area. That means evidence was presented and was found to prove him guilty. Ergo evidence.


----------



## luluphoto63 (2 December 2020)

shortstuff99 said:



			You asked for evidence. He was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a jury of people selected from his local area. That means evidence was presented and was found to prove him guilty. Ergo evidence.
		
Click to expand...

ah, ok, I see


----------



## luluphoto63 (2 December 2020)

The illegal cruel hunting and killing of Foxes and other animals by hunts is ongoing. If you are Anti hunting, why are you defending hunts?


----------



## shortstuff99 (2 December 2020)

luluphoto63 said:



			The illegal cruel hunting and killing of Foxes and other animals by hunts is ongoing. If you are Anti hunting, why are you defending hunts?
		
Click to expand...

I'm not defending them but I want them to be monitored correctly and within the law. You lose the support if you break the law as much as they do.


----------



## Equine_Dream (3 December 2020)

Just to be clear I don't think anyone on this thread has defended illegal hunting. I certainly am not in favour of illegal hunting and as I've previously said, I am very divided on the subject of fox hunting. Do I agree with it? I'd go as far as to say no, I certainly wouldn't attend my hunt if I thought they were actually hunting foxes. That being said, I have seen the damage foxes can do, regardless of how "careful" farmers are. Foxes have no natural predators and numbers can and do escalate beyond what a single area can sustain. I can understand why numbers need to be controlled and why farmers feel the need to protect their livestock. What exactly is the best means of controlling numbers I'm not so sure.


----------



## Equine_Dream (3 December 2020)

Also speaking from our hunts perspective, we take no issue with hunt monitors, the ones who actually JUST monitor hunts. We have nothing to hide and would not care at all if monitors observed peacefully. What we take issue with, is the local sabs interfering, trespassing, and going out of their way to intimidate and upset riders and horses alike.


----------



## AdorableAlice (3 December 2020)

Equine_Dream said:



			Also speaking from our hunts perspective, we take no issue with hunt monitors, the ones who actually JUST monitor hunts. We have nothing to hide and would not care at all if monitors observed peacefully. What we take issue with, is the local sabs interfering, trespassing, and going out of their way to intimate and upset riders and horses alike.
		
Click to expand...

Well said. The last time I experienced sabs was beyond belief. They targeted the children’s meet and threw bags of ball bearings under the horses feet at the meet.  I had a two children on lead rein, one each side of my totally bombproof hunter who thankfully coped and was able to take us safely out of the carnage.

That incident took place in front of hundreds of people watching the meet in a high profile Warwickshire town.  Sabs are nothing more than rent a mob and were  very quickly dealt with by the police.


----------



## Nasicus (3 December 2020)

I'm impressed the thread lasted as long as it did before the LP types turned up!


----------



## Clodagh (3 December 2020)

luluphoto63 said:



			The illegal cruel hunting and killing of Foxes and other animals by hunts is ongoing. If you are Anti hunting, why are you defending hunts?
		
Click to expand...

This isn’t actually the post I want to reply to but to save me looking for the right one..
I am interested as to why you don’t support LACS? Surely they have the funding and political knowledge that all anti hunt people people should encourage?


----------



## Clodagh (3 December 2020)

I don’t suppose many people on here read Shooting Times but there is a very interesting article in this weeks about the Easton Harriers disbandment and the setting up of a new Hunt to hunt the clean boot.


----------



## Tiddlypom (3 December 2020)

To somewhat counterbalance the opinion that all Hunt sabs are violent thugs, that is not so in my very limited experience. I have witnessed sabs in action.

Displaying a hostile stance and verbal aggression to the hunt and hunt support, yes. But no fisticuffs and no deliberate hands on harming of horses or hounds.

I do not condone their active disruption of a day’s hunting by use of horn calls and gizmos which lead to hounds straying and getting onto roads or other places where they should not be. This can lead to hounds being hurt or killed by traffic. Apart from anything, this disruption gives the Hunt a cop out if a fox gets killed, as the sabs can be blamed for interfering with the huntsman’s control of hounds.

Local sabs are still out, but are now just observing (so effectively ‘monitoring’) the hunt. I imagine they would ramp up their response right back up if they saw illegal activity. So they have adjusted their behaviour after the Hunt adjusted theirs.


----------



## luluphoto63 (3 December 2020)

Equine_Dream said:



			Also speaking from our hunts perspective, we take no issue with hunt monitors, the ones who actually JUST monitor hunts. We have nothing to hide and would not care at all if monitors observed peacefully. What we take issue with, is the local sabs interfering, trespassing, and going out of their way to intimidate and upset riders and horses alike.
		
Click to expand...

I take issue with hunt killing, trespass, intimidation towards landowners, Badger Sett blocking, steward thuggery, etc. Hunt sabs do an amazing job of saving wildlife in the face of real violence.


----------



## Tiddlypom (3 December 2020)

luluphoto63 said:



			I take issue with hunt killing, trespass, intimidation towards landowners, Badger Sett blocking, steward thuggery, etc. Hunt sabs do an amazing job of saving wildlife in the face of real violence.
		
Click to expand...

You are just randomly replying to posts with your own agenda without reading the post you are replying to.

This has been an interesting and informative thread, but you are not making a positive contribution to it.


----------



## luluphoto63 (3 December 2020)

Tiddlypom said:



			To somewhat counterbalance the opinion that all Hunt sabs are violent thugs, that is not so in my very limited experience. I have witnessed sabs in action.

Displaying a hostile stance and verbal aggression to the hunt and hunt support, yes. But no fisticuffs and no deliberate hands on harming of horses or hounds.

I do not condone their active disruption of a day’s hunting by use of horn calls and gizmos which lead to hounds straying and getting onto roads or other places where they should not be. This can lead to hounds being hurt or killed by traffic. Apart from anything, this disruption gives the Hunt a cop out if a fox gets killed, as the sabs can be blamed for interfering with the huntsman’s control of hounds.

Local sabs are still out, but are now just observing (so effectively ‘monitoring’) the hunt. I imagine they would ramp up their response right back up if they saw illegal activity. So they have adjusted their behaviour after the Hunt adjusted theirs.
		
Click to expand...

Hunts are out today, no "trail laying" has been observed. Hunts taking their dogs on the highways and on railway tracks is hugely irresponsible and a very real danger.


----------



## RHM (3 December 2020)




----------



## Equine_Dream (3 December 2020)

luluphoto63 said:



			I take issue with hunt killing, trespass, intimidation towards landowners, Badger Sett blocking, steward thuggery, etc. Hunt sabs do an amazing job of saving wildlife in the face of real violence.
		
Click to expand...

Which I've stated clearly OUR hunt doesn't do. OUR hunt, as I can not speak for all hunts, would have no issue with monitors attending the day as we've nothing to hide. True monitors ime do really care about animal welfare. What a shame the majority of sabs let them down with their behaviour.


----------



## Tiddlypom (3 December 2020)

Interesting post today on the This is Hunting UK FB page. TIHUK is one of the more measured mainstream pro hunt FB pages.

It seems like they are getting very frustrated at the lack of leadership and guidance from those at the top at this time of crisis for hunting.

Indeed.


A _Clear and Simple Message from Hunting's Grass Roots.

"Whatever has happened or is happening in the Hunting World, the time has well and truly come, either through Social Media or in any other way you wish, to reverse the rot, drivel and the bile that is being spouted forth about us.

*If we are going to achieve any of this, we need a lead now more than ever! We cannot and should not be expected to just sit back and let those in charge argue amongst themselves about who did what, where and when. Carry on if you wish and that's us finished.* The lunatics and we all know who they are, will then well and truly have the keys to the asylum!_


----------



## paddy555 (5 December 2020)

any shooting people? is it permitted, accepted, OK or not for shot (pheasants/ducks) to land on neigbouring barns, houses, stables, people? is it something people  have to accept and am I being unreasonable objecting? 
shooting today, left 2 horses in as I thought they were safer, shot rained down onto the tin roof and horses went frantic. This has happened before. Got one horse out who was panicking and then shot rained down on both me and the horse as I was leading him out. 

Stables are not in the middle of nowhere, they are 10 ft from my back door so shot would also have come on the house roof. Haven't said anything till now but spoke to the shoot today. Not sure if this will happen again. Is it normal for it to happen? AIBU? The horse (a rescue pony with problems) that I left inside had been under the loft floor (ie not under the tin part) but he was still terrified when he heard the shot on the tin. 4 hours later he was still heavy breathing, scared and wouldn't eat. Fortunately he was not a nervous horse or he could have had colic.  any comments even if you think I am being silly.


----------



## SEL (5 December 2020)

Nope - don't think you are being silly at all. They need to manage the shoot so you and your property are not being peppered in shot. I'd ask nicely then hit the Very Cross button of it happened again.


----------



## Rowreach (5 December 2020)

paddy555 said:



			any shooting people? is it permitted, accepted, OK or not for shot (pheasants/ducks) to land on neigbouring barns, houses, stables, people? is it something people  have to accept and am I being unreasonable objecting?
shooting today, left 2 horses in as I thought they were safer, shot rained down onto the tin roof and horses went frantic. This has happened before. Got one horse out who was panicking and then shot rained down on both me and the horse as I was leading him out.

Stables are not in the middle of nowhere, they are 10 ft from my back door so shot would also have come on the house roof. Haven't said anything till now but spoke to the shoot today. Not sure if this will happen again. Is it normal for it to happen? AIBU? The horse (a rescue pony with problems) that I left inside had been under the loft floor (ie not under the tin part) but he was still terrified when he heard the shot on the tin. 4 hours later he was still heavy breathing, scared and wouldn't eat. Fortunately he was not a nervous horse or he could have had colic.  any comments even if you think I am being silly.
		
Click to expand...

Definitely not being unreasonable, there are strict guidelines they should be following regarding highways and residential areas.  What was their response?


----------



## shortstuff99 (5 December 2020)

paddy555 said:



			any shooting people? is it permitted, accepted, OK or not for shot (pheasants/ducks) to land on neigbouring barns, houses, stables, people? is it something people  have to accept and am I being unreasonable objecting? 
shooting today, left 2 horses in as I thought they were safer, shot rained down onto the tin roof and horses went frantic. This has happened before. Got one horse out who was panicking and then shot rained down on both me and the horse as I was leading him out. 

Stables are not in the middle of nowhere, they are 10 ft from my back door so shot would also have come on the house roof. Haven't said anything till now but spoke to the shoot today. Not sure if this will happen again. Is it normal for it to happen? AIBU? The horse (a rescue pony with problems) that I left inside had been under the loft floor (ie not under the tin part) but he was still terrified when he heard the shot on the tin. 4 hours later he was still heavy breathing, scared and wouldn't eat. Fortunately he was not a nervous horse or he could have had colic.  any comments even if you think I am being silly.
		
Click to expand...

Definitely not unreasonable! How awful for you and the horses! I had a shoot next to mine today and they terrified my new horse, didn't even know they were coming (my older ones are used to it now).


----------



## Tiddlypom (5 December 2020)

The Countryside Alliance has launched a charm offensive asking hunts to make videos of legal trail hunting for public consumption.

The first video is already up.

Now, you’d expect that they’d choose a respected pack with a squeaky clean reputation for always following legal practice. They chose:-

*drum roll*

The Kimblewick Hunt . 

https://www.countryside-alliance.org/news/2020/12/tim-bonner-on-the-trail-of-the-kimblewick-hunt

You couldn’t make it up.


----------



## Tiddlypom (5 December 2020)

Paddy555, that is terrible, and completely unacceptable .

A bit of info on here.

https://www.sportingshooter.co.uk/a...law-on-shooting-shotguns-near-roads-1-6777966


_Shooting a shotgun within 50 feet of a highway is not prohibited in England and Wales, but an offence is committed if, as the result of firing a shotgun, someone is injured or placed in danger. This could easily be the result of a shot charge over the head of a walker or cyclist, pellets dropping on a vehicle or striking it, a horse and rider alarmed by the sound of a shot or, in the worst scenario, a passer-by hit by pellets._


----------



## paddy555 (5 December 2020)

Rowreach said:



			Definitely not being unreasonable, there are strict guidelines they should be following regarding highways and residential areas.  What was their response?
		
Click to expand...

one told me it couldn't have come that far but it did. Not sure if he believed me but he said he would ask them to shoot differently. The other told me they were not shooting at me and I was in no danger. If I thought I was he would have been in police custody by now  that the shot was like hail coming down. 
They are my neighbours so it is difficult in a country area where we all have to get on. Have to see what happens. I have to put up with the shooting  which is basically in the next field separated by a single track road and it upsets the horses in the fields but they cope after charging around. It is the rescue pony I am worried about. This has been going on for 3 years and he is still no better. He is 14 (3 when he came) and I am beginning to think his terror is another thing that happened to him as a youngster. He is no better out than in. 
The problem is that these are not hundreds of acres of grouse moors miles from anywhere, they are small farms in an inhabited valley with too many shooters for the size of the area.


----------



## paddy555 (5 December 2020)

Tiddlypom said:



			Paddy555, that is terrible, and completely unacceptable .

A bit of info on here.

https://www.sportingshooter.co.uk/a...law-on-shooting-shotguns-near-roads-1-6777966


_Shooting a shotgun within 50 feet of a highway is not prohibited in England and Wales, but an offence is committed if, as the result of firing a shotgun, someone is injured or placed in danger. This could easily be the result of a shot charge over the head of a walker or cyclist, pellets dropping on a vehicle or striking it, a horse and rider alarmed by the sound of a shot or, in the worst scenario, a passer-by hit by pellets._

Click to expand...

we did have that but could do very little. You, from your hunting, have a good idea of the sort of area I live in. Last year OH took his horse out with strict instructions to get home by 10 when they started shooting. They started early. I knew he would be in trouble so went out to find him, He was less than 1/4 mile from home. They were all in a line shooting in the field next to the road but not over the road. He was stuck. I asked one of them to try and stop everyone shooting for 5 minutes to get the horse (who by now was frantic) home. I even asked him what we should do. He said he didn't know. They stopped for about 2 minutes, horse got to the bottom of the road, WW3 started again and horse charged off up the road. Fortunately OH is the sort who can ride anything and they did get home. 
I hate to say it TP but they make the hunt look like saints!!!


----------



## Wishfilly (5 December 2020)

paddy555 said:



			any shooting people? is it permitted, accepted, OK or not for shot (pheasants/ducks) to land on neigbouring barns, houses, stables, people? is it something people  have to accept and am I being unreasonable objecting?
shooting today, left 2 horses in as I thought they were safer, shot rained down onto the tin roof and horses went frantic. This has happened before. Got one horse out who was panicking and then shot rained down on both me and the horse as I was leading him out.

Stables are not in the middle of nowhere, they are 10 ft from my back door so shot would also have come on the house roof. Haven't said anything till now but spoke to the shoot today. Not sure if this will happen again. Is it normal for it to happen? AIBU? The horse (a rescue pony with problems) that I left inside had been under the loft floor (ie not under the tin part) but he was still terrified when he heard the shot on the tin. 4 hours later he was still heavy breathing, scared and wouldn't eat. Fortunately he was not a nervous horse or he could have had colic.  any comments even if you think I am being silly.
		
Click to expand...

I am not a shooting person, but that sounds incredibly dangerous! I am possibly making this up, but I thought shot was supposed to be contained on the shoot's own land, i.e. not raining down on you and the horse! 

I don't know if I am misunderstanding, but it honestly sounds like a stray shot could hit you or the horses?


----------



## paddy555 (5 December 2020)

Wishfilly said:



			I am not a shooting person, but that sounds incredibly dangerous! I am possibly making this up, but I thought shot was supposed to be contained on the shoot's own land, i.e. not raining down on you and the horse!

I don't know if I am misunderstanding, but it honestly sounds like a stray shot could hit you or the horses?
		
Click to expand...

 no the stray shot hit me, my horse, my stable  roofs and I would imagine my house roof as we were next to it. I'm not sure if it should be contained on the shoot's own land. I can't find out much about it on google or at least nothing that black and white.


----------



## Wishfilly (5 December 2020)

paddy555 said:



			no the stray shot hit me, my horse, my stable  roofs and I would imagine my house roof as we were next to it. I'm not sure if it should be contained on the shoot's own land. I can't find out much about it on google or at least nothing that black and white.
		
Click to expand...

I believe, and I'm not an expert, there is something called "airspace trespass", which means someone is not allowed to use the airspace above your land in a way that interferes with your reasonable enjoyment of the land- this would include shooting across your land. 

It may be worth talking to a solicitor about your rights?


----------



## Rowreach (5 December 2020)

https://www.gwct.org.uk/media/189390/code_of_good_shooting_practice2012.pdf

Have a look at this, there’s a bit about consideration for others and shot falling on neighbouring property.


----------



## SEL (5 December 2020)

paddy555 said:



			no the stray shot hit me, my horse, my stable  roofs and I would imagine my house roof as we were next to it. I'm not sure if it should be contained on the shoot's own land. I can't find out much about it on google or at least nothing that black and white.
		
Click to expand...

Until you said it hit you I would say it was a civil matter but actually you could involve the police.


----------



## paddy555 (5 December 2020)

Rowreach said:



https://www.gwct.org.uk/media/189390/code_of_good_shooting_practice2012.pdf

Have a look at this, there’s a bit about consideration for others and shot falling on neighbouring property.
		
Click to expand...

thanks


----------



## Amymay (5 December 2020)

SEL said:



			Until you said it hit you I would say it was a civil matter but actually you could involve the police.
		
Click to expand...

I would have.


----------



## scats (5 December 2020)

paddy555 said:



			any shooting people? is it permitted, accepted, OK or not for shot (pheasants/ducks) to land on neigbouring barns, houses, stables, people? is it something people  have to accept and am I being unreasonable objecting?
shooting today, left 2 horses in as I thought they were safer, shot rained down onto the tin roof and horses went frantic. This has happened before. Got one horse out who was panicking and then shot rained down on both me and the horse as I was leading him out.

Stables are not in the middle of nowhere, they are 10 ft from my back door so shot would also have come on the house roof. Haven't said anything till now but spoke to the shoot today. Not sure if this will happen again. Is it normal for it to happen? AIBU? The horse (a rescue pony with problems) that I left inside had been under the loft floor (ie not under the tin part) but he was still terrified when he heard the shot on the tin. 4 hours later he was still heavy breathing, scared and wouldn't eat. Fortunately he was not a nervous horse or he could have had colic.  any comments even if you think I am being silly.
		
Click to expand...

The same happened to me a couple of years ago. It rained down on the barn roof and my horses went crazy. The noise it made was unbelievable. If I’d have been in the stable with one of them I’d have been in serious danger.  Ten minutes before, the farrier had been, who does the horses just outside the barn.
We are on private land and it turned out to be someone who had permission to shoot years ago who had decided to bring his grandson for a shooting lesson. He got a major telling off and we never saw him again.


----------



## ILuvCowparsely (5 December 2020)

Not_so_brave_anymore said:



			Real numpty question: why is fox hunting more fun than trail hunting, from a riding point of view? Doesn't it tend to lead to more hanging around, and more trying to cross impassable country, and generally more frustration?
		
Click to expand...

Quite loose the fox , stand around, then maybe see a poor defenceless fox ripped to sheds, not to mention they jump anything in their way, ditches with dangerous things in,  in fact anything in their way making a poor horse risk his life.  Where as fox and mock hunting  much safer and kinder


----------



## Tiddlypom (6 December 2020)

paddy555 said:



			no the stray shot hit me, my horse, my stable roofs and I would imagine my house roof as we were next to it. I'm not sure if it should be contained on the shoot's own land. I can't find out much about it on google or at least nothing that black and white.
		
Click to expand...

The stray shot, apart from being terrifying for both you and the animals, could cause a serious eye injury if there was a direct hit. I speak as an eye surgeon’s daughter - he had to deal with the aftermath of such incidents, which were messy.

I too would involve the police. They will ‘have a word’ with the organisers of the shoot and put the frighteners on them, so that it doesn’t happen again. The shoot should never have allowed this to happen, it is bordering on criminal negligence.


----------



## OldNag (6 December 2020)

scats said:



			The same happened to me a couple of years ago. It rained down on the barn roof and my horses went crazy. The noise it made was unbelievable. If I’d have been in the stable with one of them I’d have been in serious danger.  Ten minutes before, the farrier had been, who does the horses just outside the barn.
We are on private land and it turned out to be someone who had permission to shoot years ago who had decided to bring his grandson for a shooting lesson. He got a major telling off and we never saw him again.
		
Click to expand...

I left a yard where that kept happening.  It used to make a heck of  a noise and really rattled the horses


----------



## paddy555 (6 December 2020)

Tiddlypom said:



			The stray shot, apart from being terrifying for both you and the animals, could cause a serious eye injury if there was a direct hit. I speak as an eye surgeon’s daughter - he had to deal with the aftermath of such incidents, which were messy.

I too would involve the police. They will ‘have a word’ with the organisers of the shoot and put the frighteners on them, so that it doesn’t happen again. The shoot should never have allowed this to happen, it is bordering on criminal negligence.
		
Click to expand...

you're right. I hadn't thought of the shot hitting the horse in the face, or me. thanks


----------



## Rowreach (6 December 2020)

paddy555 said:



			you're right. I hadn't thought of the shot hitting the horse in the face, or me. thanks
		
Click to expand...

I'm confused now.  Originally you said the shot fell on you, which would make sense if the guns were shooting at birds overhead, and that might be frightening for the horses but won't take your eye out.  Now you're saying you were actually hit by the pellets? So the guns were aimed at low level? I'd be surprised at that tbh, unless they were after rabbits, but if so then you should obviously involve the police.


----------



## Tiddlypom (6 December 2020)

Shot falling out of the sky can cause serious eye injuries. The eye is a delicate structure.


----------



## DirectorFury (6 December 2020)

Is was under the impression that any shot travelling over a boundary onto other land becomes armed trespass?
OH was pretty high up in the air rifle community (I know, somewhat different to shotguns!) a few years ago and his default stance is that any pellet crossing a land boundary is huge police trouble.
Edit: ignore this - law was changed so this is the case for air rifles but not shotguns.


----------



## paddy555 (6 December 2020)

Rowreach said:



			I'm confused now.  Originally you said the shot fell on you, which would make sense if the guns were shooting at birds overhead, and that might be frightening for the horses but won't take your eye out.  Now you're saying you were actually hit by the pellets? So the guns were aimed at low level? I'd be surprised at that tbh, unless they were after rabbits, but if so then you should obviously involve the police.
		
Click to expand...

yes the shot fell on both  me and the horse. It  is when they shoot (at an angle) at the bird the shot then comes down as a hail storm (so to speak) hitting whatever gets in it's path. That was us. They were simply shooting too close and we and our buildings etc were in the area the shot came down into. They were not shooting directly AT me, I  got covered by what came down. 
I hadn't thought of eye injuries and if I had been looking upward that was a possibility. It did land on the horse's rug with a lot of force so human eyes would have little hope. 
We will see what happens next Saturday and if they adjust their shooting.


----------



## DirectorFury (6 December 2020)

paddy555 said:



			yes the shot fell on both  me and the horse. It  is when they shoot (at an angle) at the bird the shot then comes down as a hail storm (so to speak) hitting whatever gets in it's path. That was us. They were simply shooting too close and we and our buildings etc were in the area the shot came down into. They were not shooting directly AT me, I  got covered by what came down.
I hadn't thought of eye injuries and if I had been looking upward that was a possibility. It did land on the horse's rug with a lot of force so human eyes would have little hope.
We will see what happens next Saturday and if they adjust their shooting.
		
Click to expand...

http://www.nwhsa.org.uk/Troubled by the shoot.pdf
Hopefully you have no other problems, but if you do that leaflet might be helpful.


----------



## paddy555 (6 December 2020)

DirectorFury said:



http://www.nwhsa.org.uk/Troubled by the shoot.pdf
Hopefully you have no other problems, but if you do that leaflet might be helpful.
		
Click to expand...

thank you, Will have a read.


----------



## Wishfilly (27 December 2020)

This (ITV news report on recent fox kill by the Kimblewick hunt) isn't a great look for hunting, given the recent press.


----------



## Sandstone1 (27 December 2020)

When are they ever going to get stopped?   It cant go on.   Rural tradition?   illegal and clearly filmed on camera!  what more do you need to prove illegal hunting!
Waiting for the pro hunters to defend this?    The huntsmen didnt even try to call the hounds off.


----------



## Tiddlypom (27 December 2020)

The Kimblewick Hunt again, the pack of choice of the Head of Hunting for the Countryside Alliance .

All caught caught on fixed cctv with audio, no antis to blame for this one. There is no attempt to call the hounds off, even though hounds are trespassing on private property, with the owners in situ. This was a deliberate kill by the Kimblewick, who are so up themselves that they will carry on the very end.

Trail hunting? What a joke.

A still from the video. It’s pretty darn clear what is happening - call them off! Nope.


----------



## Marigold4 (27 December 2020)

paddy555 said:



			any shooting people? is it permitted, accepted, OK or not for shot (pheasants/ducks) to land on neigbouring barns, houses, stables, people? is it something people  have to accept and am I being unreasonable objecting?
shooting today, left 2 horses in as I thought they were safer, shot rained down onto the tin roof and horses went frantic. This has happened before. Got one horse out who was panicking and then shot rained down on both me and the horse as I was leading him out.

Stables are not in the middle of nowhere, they are 10 ft from my back door so shot would also have come on the house roof. Haven't said anything till now but spoke to the shoot today. Not sure if this will happen again. Is it normal for it to happen? AIBU? The horse (a rescue pony with problems) that I left inside had been under the loft floor (ie not under the tin part) but he was still terrified when he heard the shot on the tin. 4 hours later he was still heavy breathing, scared and wouldn't eat. Fortunately he was not a nervous horse or he could have had colic.  any comments even if you think I am being silly.
		
Click to expand...

This happened to me. Shot raining down on to stables tin roof. Farrier was trying to shoe horses at the time. He was very angry and threatened to go and punch farmer's son who was doing this. Spoke to farmer about it and he refused to believe it had happened. My horses were terrified too. 

Another time farmer's son crossed over my field to go shooting in neighbouring woods. Dropped live cartridges where my horses were grazing. I picked them up and presented them to his dad who again refused to believe this. Thankfully they have now sold up and moved.


----------



## stormox (27 December 2020)

ILuvCowparsely said:



			Quite loose the fox , stand around, then maybe see a poor defenceless fox ripped to sheds, not to mention they jump anything in their way, ditches with dangerous things in,  in fact anything in their way making a poor horse risk his life.  Where as fox and mock hunting  much safer and kinder
		
Click to expand...

I think its the fact its not pre-planned, you dont know where you will end up, how long you will run for, what you will jump or how fast theyl go makes it exciting.
Otherwise its a glorified xc ride.
I used to enjoy hunting (when it was legal)... I didnt go to see a fox killed,I knew some did get killed of course, but if the hunt didnt kill them the farmer would shoot or trap them..... I went for the excitement of riding across unknown country.....usually at a fast pace.


----------



## Sandstone1 (27 December 2020)

Tiddlypom said:



			The Kimblewick Hunt again, the pack of choice of the Head of Hunting for the Countryside Alliance .

All caught caught on fixed cctv with audio, no antis to blame for this one. There is no attempt to call the hounds off, even though hounds are trespassing on private property, with the owners in situ. This was a deliberate kill by the Kimblewick, who are so up themselves that they will carry on the very end.

Trail hunting? What a joke.

A still from the video. It’s pretty darn clear what is happening - call them off! Nope.

View attachment 62069

Click to expand...

What excuse will they make for that..... Another nail in the coffin of "Trail hunting"


----------



## Crazy_cat_lady (27 December 2020)

Towards the end of the video did that man in the woods grab the fox and pull it out the hole?

Surely given there is video footage, action should be taken against them?

Why are they even out with COVID?


----------



## Wishfilly (27 December 2020)

I am amazed they are still allowed to hunt like this given they are in a tier 4 area I think?


----------



## Wishfilly (27 December 2020)

Crazy_cat_lady said:



			Towards the end of the video did that man in the woods grab the fox and pull it out the hole?

Why are they even out with COVID?
		
Click to expand...

Yes- I think it's from last year and two of the huntsmen involved were prosecuted for that incident.


----------



## Crazy_cat_lady (27 December 2020)

Wishfilly said:



			I am amazed they are still allowed to hunt like this given they are in a tier 4 area I think?
		
Click to expand...

Surely they should be cancelled? I know its outside but places like riding schools are mostly having individual lessons so how is this allowed to continue- there are way more than in a group rs lesson...

Yes it may be seen as outside but surely everyone should be doing what they can to prevent the spread- I believe in tier 4 you can only meet 1 person not in your household outside- so I could only meet 1 parent in a park, yet I could go off on a jolly to go hunting with way more people that I don't know....

I keep an eye on the local blood hounding pack's Facebook page so I can avoid hacking if they are nearby, and they have cancelled Xmas eve and boxing day meets due to tier 4.


----------



## Wishfilly (27 December 2020)

Crazy_cat_lady said:



			Surely they should be cancelled? I know its outside but places like riding schools are mostly having individual lessons so how is this allowed to continue- there are way more than in a group rs lesson...

Yes it may be seen as outside but surely everyone should be doing what they can to prevent the spread- I believe in tier 4 you can only meet 1 person not in your household outside- so I could only meet 1 parent in a park, yet I could go off on a jolly to go hunting with way more people that I don't know....

I keep an eye on the local blood hounding pack's Facebook page so I can avoid hacking if they are nearby, and they have cancelled Xmas eve and boxing day meets due to tier 4.
		
Click to expand...

Apparently, hunts are exempt from rules outside of tier 4. Not sure what makes them special compared to other horsey events which are not allowed, but there you go!

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/n...go-ahead-thanks-to-government-loophole/26/12/

But I am pretty sure the Kimblewick are in a tier 4 area? So the exemption should not apply?


----------



## Steerpike (27 December 2020)

My local hunt did not meet on boxing day, thank goodness as they always upset my horses, we are in tier 4, don't the regulations for tier 4 say you can only meet 1 other person outside?


----------



## Equine_Dream (27 December 2020)

Do you know what I'm sorry but this needs saying. As someone who hunts with a legal pack I for one have had a complete titful of this. Regardless of whether you think the ban should be lifted, the fact remains there IS a ban. I'm tired of hunts like this letting the side down for legal trail hunts. We are all tarred with the same brush because of these reckless actions. 
I'm sorry but I think fox hunting is very much a dying past time. Pressure from growing public opinion and lack of support from land owners mean it is becoming harder to hunt foxes. I think hunts like this accept times are changing and move with them. Or all hunts legal or not will be condemned to the history books. 
It makes me so angry when packs like ours have worked to hard to ensure we hunt within the law, yet it will all be for nothing when a total ban, which is becoming increasingly likely, will come into force.


----------



## Equine_Dream (27 December 2020)

Apologies if any of my ramblings make little to no sense. I've been working my way through a minuture gin selection box this afternoon..... the rhubarb and blackberry is a particular favourite I must say


----------



## Elf On A Shelf (27 December 2020)

Equine_Dream said:



			Do you know what I'm sorry but this needs saying. As someone who hunts with a legal pack I for one have had a complete titful of this. Regardless of whether you think the ban should be lifted, the fact remains there IS a ban. I'm tired of hunts like this letting the side down for legal trail hunts. We are all tarred with the same brush because of these reckless actions.
I'm sorry but I think fox hunting is very much a dying past time. Pressure from growing public opinion and lack of support from land owners mean it is becoming harder to hunt foxes. I think hunts like this accept times are changing and move with them. Or all hunts legal or not will be condemned to the history books.
It makes me so angry when packs like ours have worked to hard to ensure we hunt within the law, yet it will all be for nothing when a total ban, which is becoming increasingly likely, will come into force.
		
Click to expand...

Sadly I think you are right. The ones who play by the rules will always be let down and tarred with the same brush as those who don't. The public will not side with the good hunts, the papers won't either because the bigger story is the ones who don't behave. 

Aylesbury is indeed in Tier 4 and therefore should not have been out hunting today regardless of the shenanigans that went on. They are making themselves look incredibly stupid and selfish. 

The hunting up here in Scotland is awful. I'm not going to lie. It's very much a glorified farm ride with hounds for company. I think the last time the hounds even looked at a live fox up here was when they were actually allowed to maul them. They have no interest and do genuinely follow the Master like a normal pet dog would. 

I do feel for the hunts who do it properly but I can see a day at some point in the next decade where all forms of hunting with hounds will be banned. I am sure organised trail rides could go ahead with the same dress code but there would be no hounds present. And what would you do with all of them then? There would be uproar if they were all pts. They aren't designed to be pets.


----------



## Equine_Dream (27 December 2020)

The question of what would happen to all those hounds should a complete ban be enforced, is something that truly troubles me 😔


----------



## palo1 (27 December 2020)

Crazy_cat_lady said:



			Surely they should be cancelled? I know its outside but places like riding schools are mostly having individual lessons so how is this allowed to continue- there are way more than in a group rs lesson...

Yes it may be seen as outside but surely everyone should be doing what they can to prevent the spread- I believe in tier 4 you can only meet 1 person not in your household outside- so I could only meet 1 parent in a park, yet I could go off on a jolly to go hunting with way more people that I don't know....

I keep an eye on the local blood hounding pack's Facebook page so I can avoid hacking if they are nearby, and they have cancelled Xmas eve and boxing day meets due to tier 4.
		
Click to expand...

It's old footage and those committing the crimes were prosecuted.


----------



## Tiddlypom (27 December 2020)

palo1 said:



			It's old footage and those committing the crimes were prosecuted.
		
Click to expand...

The footage of the fox being rodded out of the drain by stooges who were given their orders by unidentified persons is old, IIRC New Year’s Day 2019. The hunt stooges were prosecuted and found guilty, but those who gave them their orders as to when to rod out the fox (as the Kimblewick hounds approached) were not. The stooges got lighter sentences as the judge recognised that they were acting under orders.

This latest footage of the Kimblewick as shown on ITV last night is not dated, I think? But it’s the first time I’ve seen it, it’s more recent. There was plenty of time to try and call hounds off the fox, but then the hunt were after the kill, weren’t they. This was no trail hunt gone wrong, this is fox hunting, on land where they were not welcome.

From The Independent. _The Kimblewick Hunt told ITV its riders stopped the hounds as soon as they realised they were not following the trail, and that they removed the hounds and carcass as quickly as possible._

Take it from someone who has fox hunted pre ban. Those hounds were not being called off that fox.


----------



## Wishfilly (27 December 2020)

Equine_Dream said:



			Do you know what I'm sorry but this needs saying. As someone who hunts with a legal pack I for one have had a complete titful of this. Regardless of whether you think the ban should be lifted, the fact remains there IS a ban. I'm tired of hunts like this letting the side down for legal trail hunts. We are all tarred with the same brush because of these reckless actions.
I'm sorry but I think fox hunting is very much a dying past time. Pressure from growing public opinion and lack of support from land owners mean it is becoming harder to hunt foxes. I think hunts like this accept times are changing and move with them. Or all hunts legal or not will be condemned to the history books.
It makes me so angry when packs like ours have worked to hard to ensure we hunt within the law, yet it will all be for nothing when a total ban, which is becoming increasingly likely, will come into force.
		
Click to expand...

It does seem like more and more big landowners and councils are not allowing hunts on their land due to the recent bad press- I'm not sure if this is being extended to drag hunts and bloodhounds too. Having nowhere to hunt will, in effect, ban hunting.

I do agree that it is not fair on those who hunt legally to lose out too.

I think, given the recent bad press, all hunts need to be making an effort to be whiter than white and comply with all laws (including coronavirus tier rules).


----------



## Tiddlypom (27 December 2020)

Equine_Dream said:



			The question of what would happen to all those hounds should a complete ban be enforced, is something that truly troubles me 😔
		
Click to expand...

But those who carry on fox hunting don’t care, do they? Even if every last hound is put down after hunting is finally banned they won’t care, apart from the shedding of crocodile tears, as long as they had their fun when they could.


----------



## Wishfilly (27 December 2020)

Tiddlypom said:



			The footage of the fox being rodded out of the drain by stooges who were given their orders by unidentified persons is old, IIRC New Year’s Day 2019. The hunt stooges were prosecuted and found guilty, but those who gave them their orders as to when to rod out the fox (as the Kimblewick hounds approached) were not. The stooges got lighter sentences as the judge recognised that they were acting under orders.

This latest footage of the Kimblewick as shown on ITV last night is not dated, I think? But it’s the first time I’ve seen it, it’s more recent. There was plenty of time to try and call hounds off the fox, but then the hunt were after the kill, weren’t they. This was no trail hunt gone wrong, this is fox hunting, on land where they were not welcome.

View attachment 62086

Click to expand...

Twitter seems to think the latest footage is from boxing day, although I am not sure if that is correct. 

As well as clearly hunting the fox, I thought the actions of the hunt staff seemed very reckless- it didn't really seem like a safe place to be riding horses or having lots of hounds running around and had someone been working on the site, it could have caused a nasty accident. 

I think it's very clear they weren't expecting to be filmed from so many angles!


----------



## Upthecreek (27 December 2020)

Why as a landowner would you allow hunting on your land? The damage caused by horses galloping across wet fields for no benefit makes me wonder why on earth some still allow it. I am not anti hunt and I used to hunt when it was legal to hunt foxes, but it baffles me why it is still happening.


----------



## Steerpike (27 December 2020)

I've seen a few videos of someone following the bloodhounds on my Facebook feed and the lack of respect some of the riders have whilst riding over sopping wet ground makes me cringe, if I was a land owner I would not be happy.


----------



## BeckyFlowers (27 December 2020)

Re the video clip in post 439 - the absolute arrogance and don't-give-a-shit attitude of these huntsman riding on (and allowing their pack of dogs to run on) private property where they have no permission to ride is astonishing.  

I'm sorry for the genuine legal hunts, although they need to start distancing themselves very very loudly from packs like these.  I have no idea how they run, but if I were in charge of a legal hunt I would not be affiliated with any hunting governing body that also has the Kimblewick (and other notorious illegal hunting packs) as their members.  I would want to sever all ties - IMO if they want to survive, they need the public on their side and they need to start with the PR whether they like it or not.


----------



## Kipper's Dick (27 December 2020)

Steerpike said:



			I've seen a few videos of someone following the bloodhounds on my Facebook feed and the lack of respect some of the riders have whilst riding over sopping wet ground makes me cringe, if I was a land owner I would not be happy.
		
Click to expand...

And some of them are certainly not happy. If you venture onto The Farmers Forum, as I do occasionally, a recent thread showed a photo, posted by an irate landowner, of a wide track of hoof prints across a planted field. He hadn't been too averse up until then. The hunt in question planned to try to rectify the damage. But it comes down to ineffective field-mastering. A lot of mounted hunt followers wouldn't know a field of crops from a sausage. And I think one of the reasons that hunts are still tolerated on land is that quite a few landowners might hunt themselves, either following on horseback, quad bike, etc.


----------



## Tiddlypom (27 December 2020)

Wishfilly said:



			Twitter seems to think the latest footage is from boxing day, although I am not sure if that is correct.
		
Click to expand...

Ah, just checked the report in the Independent, and this latest filmed kill was on 12 Dec.

_Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire Hunt Sabs called on Thames Valley Police to conduct “a robust and fair investigation into the killing of a fox by the Kimblewick” on 12 December._

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...alley-police-kimblewick-b1779307.html?r=94156


----------



## ycbm (27 December 2020)

Kipper's Dick said:



			And some of them are certainly not happy. If you venture onto The Farmers Forum, as I do occasionally, a recent thread showed a photo, posted by an irate landowner, of a wide track of hoof prints across a planted field. He hadn't been too averse up until then. The hunt in question planned to try to rectify the damage. But it comes down to ineffective field-mastering. A lot of mounted hunt followers wouldn't know a field of crops from a sausage. And I think one of the reasons that hunts are still tolerated on land is that quite a few landowners might hunt themselves, either following on horseback, quad bike, etc.
		
Click to expand...

I was out with a drag pack when I personally heard the following conversation. 

Field   Master to Huntsmant/pack owner  -  the farmer asked us to stay off the hay crop and keep to the headland
- well we're here now.

It was the beginning of the end for me and hunting, there were over 50 riders galloping across the whole width of that field.


----------



## Wishfilly (27 December 2020)

Tiddlypom said:



			Ah, just checked the report in the Independent, and this latest filmed kill was on 12 Dec.

_Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire Hunt Sabs called on Thames Valley Police to conduct “a robust and fair investigation into the killing of a fox by the Kimblewick” on 12 December._

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...alley-police-kimblewick-b1779307.html?r=94156

Click to expand...

Good to know they weren't also breaking Covid rules then!

I hope, if nothing else, the landowners bring a civil case for tresspass.

The area they were riding round looked like it could be used for workmen etc. Taking dogs and horses through could have caused a nasty accident for someone in different circumstances. 

I agree that legal hunts need to absolutely start distancing themselves from the hunts acting illegally if they want to survive- including drag hunts and bloodhounds condemning illegal behaviour. But from the recent web seminar, I think a lot of "trail" hunts must be sometimes acting illegally- even if they aren't as blatant about it as the Kimblewick.


----------



## Kipper's Dick (27 December 2020)

ycbm said:



			I was out with a drag pack when I personally heard the following conversation. 

Field   Master to Huntsmant/pack owner  -  the farmer asked us to stay off the hay crop and keep to the headland
- well we're here now.

It was the beginning of the end for me and hunting, there were over 50 riders galloping across the whole width of that field.
		
Click to expand...

And the very thought of this makes me cringe (coming from a farming family).  But a field master should be 'he that is obeyed'.  I've hunted with packs where transgressors were sent home (pre- ban, but things should be no different now).  And given a huge rollicking before they went. Which is as it should be, mounted followers were quite fearful of doing the wrong thing. Trail hunts now should be working exceptionally hard at the PR side of things. They've no one but themselves to blame if it all goes tits up.


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2020)

At the risk of pretty much being told again to get off the forum if I am anti hunting (which I fairly recently have been)  I would point out that the local pack have recently been out with over 100 followers which surely breaks Covid rules?
We are in tier 3 here.   Why can they get away with that?  They also often cause disruption on local roads.  They also often openly hunt fox.   Nothing seems to stop them.


----------



## EstherYoung (28 December 2020)

Wishfilly said:



			Apparently, hunts are exempt from rules outside of tier 4. Not sure what makes them special compared to other horsey events which are not allowed, but there you go!
		
Click to expand...

Outdoor sporting activity is now permitted in England in tiers 1-3, with the only limit on participants being the number who can safely be accommodated taking social distancing etc into account - and there must be a covid compliant risk assessment for each event to show that the Covid risks have been mitigated. The exemption only applies whilst participating in the sport, so no socialising outside the rules for your tier (6 or one household or whatever) before or after. 

If hunting is deemed to be an organised sport, they'll fall within the same exemption as every other sport.

No organised sport is permitted in T4, only individual exercise. 

There's also a travel restriction in T3, in that you're not meant to leave your area. Although that's only guidance, insurance companies have indicated that they may nullify insurance if guidance isn't followed.


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2020)

EstherYoung said:



			Outdoor sporting activity is now permitted in England in tiers 1-3, with the only limit on participants being the number who can safely be accommodated taking social distancing etc into account - and there must be a covid compliant risk assessment for each event to show that the Covid risks have been mitigated. The exemption only applies whilst participating in the sport, so no socialising outside the rules for your tier (6 or one household or whatever) before or after.

If hunting is deemed to be an organised sport, they'll fall within the same exemption as every other sport.

No organised sport is permitted in T4, only individual exercise.

There's also a travel restriction in T3, in that you're not meant to leave your area. Although that's only guidance, insurance companies have indicated that they may nullify insurance if guidance isn't followed.
		
Click to expand...

So 100 riders with no social distancing is ok?


----------



## EstherYoung (28 December 2020)

Sandstone1 said:



			So 100 riders with no social distancing is ok?
		
Click to expand...

I'm not saying whether what you saw is within the rules or not, just pointing out what the rules are. All sports are meant to have published and approved guidelines as to how they can operate safely. So the question is, does hunting have such guidance and was it followed?


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2020)

EstherYoung said:



			I'm not saying whether what you saw is within the rules or not, just pointing out what the rules are. All sports are meant to have published and approved guidelines as to how they can operate safely. So the question is, does hunting have such guidance and was it followed?
		
Click to expand...

Thank you,  I cant see how it can be right in these times to have a gathering that large with no distancing.  I doubt they followed any rules as this hunt seems to do what it likes and get away with it too.


----------



## EstherYoung (28 December 2020)

Sandstone1 said:



			Thank you,  I cant see how it can be right in these times to have a gathering that large with no distancing.  I doubt they followed any rules as this hunt seems to do what it likes and get away with it too.
		
Click to expand...

https://www.countryside-alliance.org/news/2020/12/guidance-on-tiered-restrictions-for-hunting-in-eng

https://thehuntingoffice.org.uk/covid


----------



## Old school (28 December 2020)

I loved hunting and live in a jurisdiction where it is legal. I always thought of hunting being necessary to control rogue foxes. So it was a specific task. Not just randomly killing when possible. A couple of things turning me off..   1. An over zealous huntsman. I cannot go into detail, but he spent many hours pointedly working to kill one fox. Totally unnecessary. 2. On my first day out this season, most of the members could not so much as open a gate - what I mean is they have no relationship with any farmers or landowners. So a small minority are working voluntarily to accommodate people who want to amuse themselves with no clue of the countryside or how to conduct themselves. Feel fairly depressed at the reality dawning in my head.


----------



## meleeka (28 December 2020)

Sandstone1 said:



			Thank you,  I cant see how it can be right in these times to have a gathering that large with no distancing.  I doubt they followed any rules as this hunt seems to do what it likes and get away with it too.
		
Click to expand...

I find this incredible that my OH can’t go out with his usual mountain biking friends but he could go hunting on horseback, or even follow a hunt on foot with the same group of friends.


----------



## Crazy_cat_lady (28 December 2020)

meleeka said:



			I find this incredible that my OH can’t go out with his usual mountain biking friends but he could go hunting on horseback, or even follow a hunt on foot with the same group of friends.
		
Click to expand...

Completely agree, why are they getting special privilages?


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2020)

meleeka said:



			I find this incredible that my OH can’t go out with his usual mountain biking friends but he could go hunting on horseback, or even follow a hunt on foot with the same group of friends.
		
Click to expand...

Trail Hunting is identified as organised outdoor sport which is why it is ok for it to go ahead. Trail hunts, Blood hound packs, Drag hound packs are all required to complete a risk assessment and an event management plan which will identify the Covid Compliance Officers for that event.  Those named individuals are responsible by law for Covid Compliance and should carry the can for anything which is not as it should be.  Organised sports are also required to have 1 Covid Compliance officer for every 30 participants.  Up to a couple of thousand spectators are allowed at sporting events under the rules also. 

The MFHA are checking Covid Compliance and require evidence of the paperwork which also must be destroyed under GDPR rules after 21 days.  I know this as I have done exactly this task for our local Trail Hunt (who are NOT hunting illegally).  We are not hunting currently but at the last meet we had a member of the MFHA attend, check that everyone had hand sanitiser and masks (in case of accidents or unavoidable close contact with another individual) as well as checking the paperwork (Risk Assessment and Event management plan).  

This is essentially the difference between a group of friends meeting and organised sport - in an organised sporting setting there are people who must be accountable by law and identifiable through a clear organisational structure for these things and that is not possible with a group of friends.


----------



## Clodagh (28 December 2020)

I don’t think you can hunt in tier 4.


----------



## The Fuzzy Furry (28 December 2020)

Clodagh said:



			I don’t think you can hunt in tier 4.
		
Click to expand...

Spot on.
Our local trail hunt and the drag pack both posted up cessation notices when our county went into tier 4 before xmas.


----------



## Clodagh (28 December 2020)

The Xmas Furry said:



			Spot on.
Our local trail hunt and the drag pack both posted up cessation notices when our county went into tier 4 before xmas.
		
Click to expand...

Ours have certainly stopped. I doubt that footage was Boxing Day if it was in a tier 4.


----------



## Wishfilly (28 December 2020)

Sandstone1 said:



			At the risk of pretty much being told again to get off the forum if I am anti hunting (which I fairly recently have been)  I would point out that the local pack have recently been out with over 100 followers which surely breaks Covid rules?
We are in tier 3 here.   Why can they get away with that?  They also often cause disruption on local roads.  They also often openly hunt fox.   Nothing seems to stop them.
		
Click to expand...

Organised outdoor sport is allowed in any numbers outside of tier 4, although a risk assessment is needed and rules around social distancing etc should be adhered to. People are not supposed to travel between tiers to take part in organised sporting events, though.

I am not really sure hunts with 100 people present are what was in mind when the guidance was written though! I, personally, think there should be an upper limit at least. 



Clodagh said:



			I don’t think you can hunt in tier 4.
		
Click to expand...

In tier 4, you're only allowed to meet one other person during your "exercise". Theoretically, I suppose, you could go for ride with hounds in a pair, but a large, organised hunt would be breaking the rules.


----------



## Wishfilly (28 December 2020)

Clodagh said:



			Ours have certainly stopped. I doubt that footage was Boxing Day if it was in a tier 4.
		
Click to expand...

I think we've established it was from earlier in December- but given they are trespassing and appearing to hunt the fox, I'm not sure we can assume they will follow other laws?


----------



## The Fuzzy Furry (28 December 2020)

Wishfilly said:



			I think we've established it was from earlier in December- but given they are trespassing and appearing to hunt the fox, I'm not sure we can assume they will follow other laws?
		
Click to expand...

The Kimblewick are long time (many many years) notorious for not sticking to any rules,  most other hunts advise their followers not to visit the K for various reasons.....


----------



## Clodagh (28 December 2020)

Wishfilly said:



			I think we've established it was from earlier in December- but given they are trespassing and appearing to hunt the fox, I'm not sure we can assume they will follow other laws?
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn’t read the whole thread.
That’ll learn me!


----------



## BeckyFlowers (28 December 2020)

The Xmas Furry said:



			The Kimblewick are long time (many many years) notorious for not sticking to any rules,  most other hunts advise their followers not to visit the K for various reasons.....
		
Click to expand...

Then they should be saying this not only to their members, but everyone, and very loudly.  By acknowledging the Kimblewick's woeful behaviour (telling their own followers not to get involved with the Kimblewick) but doing nothing else they are enabling the Kimblewick's behaviour and will, in effect, eventually kipper themselves.


----------



## pixie (28 December 2020)

As mentioned above, they are not helping themselves with farmers either: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index...-followers-exempt-from-all-laws.332132/page-7


----------



## Wishfilly (28 December 2020)

Clodagh said:



			Sorry, I didn’t read the whole thread.
That’ll learn me!
		
Click to expand...

No worries- it's a long thread!


----------



## The Fuzzy Furry (28 December 2020)

BeckyFlowers said:



			Then they should be saying this not only to their members, but everyone, and very loudly.  By acknowledging the Kimblewick's woeful behaviour (telling their own followers not to get involved with the Kimblewick) but doing nothing else they are enabling the Kimblewick's behaviour and will, in effect, eventually kipper themselves.
		
Click to expand...

Likely they possibly are. Who knows?  A big assumption in your post in what others should be doing.


----------



## BeckyFlowers (28 December 2020)

The Xmas Furry said:



			Likely they possibly are. Who knows?  A big assumption in your post in what others should be doing.
		
Click to expand...

I'm assuming that legal hunts want to continue, silly me.


----------



## The Fuzzy Furry (28 December 2020)

BeckyFlowers said:



			I'm assuming that legal hunts want to continue, silly me.
		
Click to expand...

I'm sure they do.


----------



## Indy (28 December 2020)

pixie said:



			As mentioned above, they are not helping themselves with farmers either: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index...-followers-exempt-from-all-laws.332132/page-7

Click to expand...

This exact same thing happened to us 2 year ago on Boxing Day. The came across drilled land, worried our sheep and sent my old horses stratospheric. They've never had permission to come over our land and by the time I'd done with them they were a sad sorry lot. They don't come this way out anymore.


----------



## Upthecreek (28 December 2020)

You would have thought that bearing in mind many landowners don’t allow hunting on their land these days that hunts would behave impeccably on the land they are allowed on. Er no. In my area they have ridden rough shod over crops, caused sheep to abort lambs, left gates open resulting in livestock getting out onto roads and run across land they were specifically asked not to go on because they “couldn’t stop the hounds” 🙄 Needless to say there are huge areas of country they are now banned from and they only have themselves to blame.


----------



## Wishfilly (28 December 2020)

Another hunt behaving really irresponsibly: https://www.peterboroughmatters.co....ng-group-sorry-for-crematorium-incident-33050

In this case, I don't think it matters if what they were doing was legal or not, or if they were allowed on the land or not. The hunt should have shown respect for the funeral, called their hounds off and gone elsewhere.


----------



## Tiddlypom (28 December 2020)

Wishfilly said:



			In this case, I don't think it matters if what they were doing was legal or not, or if they were allowed on the land or not. The hunt should have shown respect for the funeral, called their hounds off and gone elsewhere.
		
Click to expand...

It sounds like someone did try and call the hounds off, and in doing so they disrupted the funeral even more . What was the hunt doing ‘laying a trail ‘ anywhere near a crematorium, where several funerals a day are regularly held?

_I was there, it was my auntie’s funeral when they sent about 20 or 30 hounds chasing a fox through the crematorium when there was a funeral in progress.” _

_Another added: “Absolutely disgusting behaviour from the Fitzwilliam red coat fox hunters today… You could hear the fox howl as it escaped the woods and ran for safety into the crematorium to be followed by dogs charging across the road and into the crem too._

_"As if these times aren’t hard enough without a convoy of dogs you also had some idiot in his red coat on horse back darting up and down screaming and shouting without a care in the world for those families saying goodbye to their loved ones”. _


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2020)

Its one thing after another with hunting.  How many time are they going to be caught doing illegal things before they are stopped?


----------



## Tiddlypom (29 December 2020)

This is Hunting UK, which seems to be one of the most measured pro hunting Facebook pages, has been getting grief after the recent ITV item on the Kimblewick Hunt.

_TiHUK would like to advise you that today due to a Hunting related incident being reported on ITN the night before last, we have as a result received vile and vicious abuse on unprecedented levels.

Firstly we would like to take this opportunity of reassuring our followers we have all day been taking decisive action and as a result are still continuing to deal with the situation. This is by deleting, banning and reporting to Facebook and the Police._


----------



## Tiddlypom (30 December 2020)

And now another pet cat killing incident - the 2 year old cat being on her owner’s property in Bakewell. Hounds broke into the owner’s yard when on hound exercise, dragged the cat out from under a car where she had run to hide, and killed her.

The High Peak Hunt again, where almost the whole pack recently rioted onto a calf and chased that calf across several fields.

https://forums.horseandhound.co.uk/threads/hounds-riot-onto-calf.797034/

First rioting onto livestock, now domestic pets. What the freeking heck is going on? Time to disband, I think. The High Peak are not denying the incident.

_The hunt has been in contact with the cat owner and apologised unreservedly for the distress this has caused. _

RIP Spider



Spoiler









https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...cBhA8KX4rNq0ya1ewLxxNUnq7L1llrrAzHlm3CJqVwoNM


----------



## Steerpike (30 December 2020)

If they cannot control the hounds, which seems obvious after these two incidents they should not be allowed to take them out and be disbanded.


----------



## BeckyFlowers (30 December 2020)

Christ that's awful.


----------



## Wishfilly (30 December 2020)

That sounds really upsetting for the owner of the cat. 

It sounds like the hounds have tried to get onto the property before, and this time they succeeded. Surely if the hunt cannot control their hounds, they are subject to the same legislation regarding dangerous dogs as the rest of us? 

Given the incident with the calf, it was clearly not a one off.


----------



## Tiddlypom (30 December 2020)

The hounds had previous form for getting onto that property to try and steal the cat food. What muppets are in charge of that pack that they can’t even control hounds when on hound exercise, let alone on a hunting day?

And what exactly are the powers that be in the hunting world doing by allowing such behaviour to go on after the calf incident?

_The hounds had frequently tried to push through the family’s gate to get to their cats or the cat food they put down, Ms Bingham said, adding: “We have had to remove them from our property more than once because of this.”_

Each time I think that it can’t get any worse for examples of poor behaviour from modern hunts, something else happens. I genuinely do not recall anything like this ever happening back in the 70s when I was hunting.


----------



## Sandstone1 (30 December 2020)

So where are all the pro hunters now?  How can they defend that?  A family pet on its own property minding its own business.  Completely unforgivable.


----------



## Wishfilly (30 December 2020)

Tiddlypom said:



			The hounds had previous form for getting onto that property to try and steal the cat food. What muppets are in charge of that pack that they can’t even control hounds when on hound exercise, let alone on a hunting day?

And what exactly are the powers that be in the hunting world doing by allowing such behaviour to go on after the calf incident?

_The hounds had frequently tried to push through the family’s gate to get to their cats or the cat food they put down, Ms Bingham said, adding: “We have had to remove them from our property more than once because of this.”_

Each time I think that it can’t get any worse for examples of poor behaviour from modern hunts, something else happens. I genuinely do not recall anything like this ever happening back in the 70s when I was hunting.
		
Click to expand...

I have a theory that some modern "trail" hunts have deliberately badly controlled/trained hounds- this way, when they kill a fox, they have some plausible deniability. 

Unfortunately, it's local farmers and residents that pay the price for this.


----------



## BeckyFlowers (30 December 2020)

I don't understand the followers of these terribly-behaved hunts.  I am a member of a gym.  If I went out to an organised competition, representing my gym, with other members and staff of the gym, and while we were out some of them went onto someone's property and killed their pet, the chances of me still being a member of the gym the next day, and having any affiliations or ties to it whatsoever, is 0%.  The chances of me plastering it all over social media and approaching local news is 100%.  I want to understand why these hunts still have followers.


----------



## Steerpike (30 December 2020)

Sandstone1 said:



			So where are all the pro hunters now?  How can they defend that?  A family pet on its own property minding its own business.  Completely unforgivable.
		
Click to expand...

I'm sure they will come up with something, give them time....


----------



## Crazy_cat_lady (30 December 2020)

That poor poor cat, that's heartbreaking for her owners,  I don't quite know what I'd have done if they did that to one of my cats.

If they're the same ones as the calf, they should be investigated as they obviously don't have control... also the fact they tried to get onto the cat owner's property before...

And on the article about that poor poor cat above, it links to the below article, how awful some of the cats are still missing:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ssing-cats-west-sussex-hastings-a8155696.html


----------



## CanteringCarrot (30 December 2020)

So, if my dog went into someone's garden and killed or even injured their cat, I would certainly have consequences to face.

But the hunt...what are their consequences?


----------



## Rowreach (30 December 2020)

Tiddlypom said:



			Each time I think that it can’t get any worse for examples of poor behaviour from modern hunts, something else happens. I genuinely do not recall anything like this ever happening back in the 70s when I was hunting.
		
Click to expand...

This is what I'm wondering about.  Hunt staff used to be consummate professionals, they adored their hounds but they had absolute control over them and never tolerated any bit of disobedience.  Young hounds were introduced properly and any that weren't suitable (and almost all were because they were bred to be) were dispatched pdq.

So what has happened?  Do we have a new breed of huntsman that has lost the generations of hunting lore and experience passed down from previous years, or are they breeding the wrong hounds, not producing them properly, being too tolerant of misbehaviour?

I hunted with two of the best huntsmen out there, decades ago.  I remember one day the huntsman's favourite hound rioted on a deer.  The hound was gone before the end of the day's hunting.

I'm glad I don't hunt any more.  There is a renewed movement in NI to ban it, and to be perfectly honest I won't be at all sorry to see it go, and I hope it doesn't get replaced by trail hunting (which I doubt would work here anyway, so it would probably be pretend trail hunting).  I am also now of the opinion that trail hunting in the rest of the UK is simply not realistic in its present form, and the way hunts are behaving are likely to lead to a complete ban anyway.  And probably that is a good thing.


----------



## Wishfilly (30 December 2020)

Rowreach said:



			This is what I'm wondering about.  Hunt staff used to be consummate professionals, they adored their hounds but they had absolute control over them and never tolerated any bit of disobedience.  Young hounds were introduced properly and any that weren't suitable (and almost all were because they were bred to be) were dispatched pdq.

So what has happened?  Do we have a new breed of huntsman that has lost the generations of hunting lore and experience passed down from previous years, or are they breeding the wrong hounds, not producing them properly, being too tolerant of misbehaviour?

I hunted with two of the best huntsmen out there, decades ago.  I remember one day the huntsman's favourite hound rioted on a deer.  The hound was gone before the end of the day's hunting.

I'm glad I don't hunt any more.  There is a renewed movement in NI to ban it, and to be perfectly honest I won't be at all sorry to see it go, and I hope it doesn't get replaced by trail hunting (which I doubt would work here anyway, so it would probably be pretend trail hunting).  I am also now of the opinion that trail hunting in the rest of the UK is simply not realistic in its present form, and the way hunts are behaving are likely to lead to a complete ban anyway.  And probably that is a good thing.
		
Click to expand...

I wonder if it has anything to do with some hunts needing staff who are willing to break the law? I feel like that might exclude some of the previous responsible professionals from working with certain trail hunts?

I also think it's possible that irresponsible packs existed in the past and got away with it because of the lack of proof- I think smart phones and social media have hugely contributed to people being aware of how some hunts behave?


----------



## Rowreach (30 December 2020)

Wishfilly said:



			I wonder if it has anything to do with some hunts needing staff who are willing to break the law? I feel like that might exclude some of the previous responsible professionals from working with certain trail hunts?

I also think it's possible that irresponsible packs existed in the past and got away with it because of the lack of proof- I think smart phones and social media have hugely contributed to people being aware of how some hunts behave?
		
Click to expand...

You could be right, and not only will the hunt staff have turned over, the hunts will have a completely different mastership too.  So the decent ones are no more and the not decent ones have just carried on regardless.


----------



## Wishfilly (30 December 2020)

Rowreach said:



			You could be right, and not only will the hunt staff have turned over, the hunts will have a completely different mastership too.  So the decent ones are no more and the not decent ones have just carried on regardless.
		
Click to expand...

I think, unfortunately, this is highly possible, and perhaps explains why some hunts are now badly run.

I think there's a big difference between being against the ban and actually being willing to break the law in one's professional life.


----------



## ester (30 December 2020)

I've always been very impressed with the distance control over hounds that the huntsman I have been out with had. Ability to call off from wrong lines etc. Once with the Hursley they went a bit off line early in the day, landowner understandably upset but the hunt staff managed the situation well, landowner was happy again and gifts were likely taken round after. 

It is notable recently from both my facebook areas (somerset and cambs) that hunts  are upsetting a lot of people with their behaviour, in particular disregard for being on land they don't have permission to be on.


----------



## ycbm (30 December 2020)

Ditto Ester.  Out with drag packs, I could tell they'd picked up fox,  their voices changed and they were so excited.   But almost unbelievable the level of control the huntsman has.  I never saw them get more than 100 yards or so before they responded to a recall. 
.


----------



## Pedantic (30 December 2020)

People should stick to the law, that includes the Sabs trespassing and intimidating women and kids.

Never understand the enjoyment anyone gets from killing something for fun, for food yes, for fun no.


----------



## palo1 (30 December 2020)

Rowreach said:



			You could be right, and not only will the hunt staff have turned over, the hunts will have a completely different mastership too.  So the decent ones are no more and the not decent ones have just carried on regardless.
		
Click to expand...

There are still very decent, professional and law abiding huntsmen, masters and staff working for trail hunts.  It is tragic that other hunts are letting them down so appallingly.


----------



## Rowreach (30 December 2020)

palo1 said:



			There are still very decent, professional and law abiding huntsmen, masters and staff working for trail hunts.  It is tragic that other hunts are letting them down so appallingly.
		
Click to expand...

Well it’s about time the Hunting Office did something about it then.


----------



## Hackback (30 December 2020)

I hunt when I can with a Bloodhound pack and find them the most courteous friendly bunch I could wish to meet. They only cross land with permission of the landowners (who are often present at the meet and particularly thanked in the master's speech, and by the grateful field). We are instructed when we have to stick to headlands/ride single file etc and everyone follows the instructions because we appreciate the landowners generosity and don't want to abuse it, plus we want to be allowed to hunt there next year. Meets were called off last season out of respect to the landowners, because the hunt didn't think it was fair to churn up the land in the atrocious wet conditions we were having. 

I've ridden in the field through Chatsworth Estate and witnessed hounds completely ignoring the sheep and deer grazing nearby, I've  seen how much hounds adore their master and how much they love their work.

Covid brought changes, we now have to book in advance so numbers are known and can be restricted, and there are now two or three separate fields, each led by an official and which are not allowed to mix. It does take some of the fun and spontaneity out of it, but it's still a fantastic day, or it was before they went into Tier 4 and have had to postpone their meets.

I must admit this thread has shocked me a little, I didnt realise hunts still existed that were so chaotic and destructive. I love going out with my pack, there are jumps, water, gallops gallore and a real fun day. I went out with a foxhound pack a few years ago but we kept having to turn back because of sabs, which made it quite a slow and frustrating day in comparison.


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2020)

Well local hunt out again yesterday.   scores of riders. No social distancing and no masks.  we are now in tier 4 so hopefully that will stop them....


----------



## Frumpoon (31 December 2020)

BBC website details an incident with the High Peak hounds taking a pet cat

What is it with hounds not under control of huntsman??? What is he doing if not training to recall hounds?


----------



## stormox (31 December 2020)

Sandstone1 said:



			Well local hunt out again yesterday.   scores of riders. No social distancing and no masks.  we are now in tier 4 so hopefully that will stop them....
		
Click to expand...

Loads of people out hacking in groups too - but surely you are socially distanced on a  horse anyway, no one rides so close to another horse the riders are less than 6ft apart. Same with cyclists. And outside you dont have to wear a mask! So I would think hunting is a fairly safe pastime..... whether its allowed or not under the latest tier is another matter.


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2020)

Think maybe 100 riders, car followers and terrier men.  Not on really but they do as they like anyway.  Is it appropriate to do it?
Not seen any groups of more than 3 hacking.


----------



## Wishfilly (31 December 2020)

stormox said:



			Loads of people out hacking in groups too - but surely you are socially distanced on a  horse anyway, no one rides so close to another horse the riders are less than 6ft apart. Same with cyclists. And outside you dont have to wear a mask! So I would think hunting is a fairly safe pastime..... whether its allowed or not under the latest tier is another matter.
		
Click to expand...

Under Tier 4, it's not allowed- but then neither is hacking out or cycling with more than one other person outside of your household.

I have to say I have never seen a group hack as large as a hunt- it's not just about the distancing etc, but the numbers involved.


----------



## Tiddlypom (31 December 2020)

.


Frumpoon said:



			BBC website details an incident with the High Peak hounds taking a pet cat

What is it with hounds not under control of huntsman??? What is he doing if not training to recall hounds?
		
Click to expand...

Keep up, we’re on it. Though glad it’s made it to the BBC at last. The same pack recently rioted after a calf.

Police investigating after cat killed by High Peak Hunt hound https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-55487525

_Ms Bingham said two riders soon followed after the dogs but failed to get them to release Spider, with her partner stepping in to free the cat.
She said they carried on their exercises soon after, so she called the hunt later to speak about the incident.
"It was a two-minute phone call, and it seemed like it was an inconvenience to speak to me rather than an apology," she said._

To Palo, and to anyone else who may be involved with properly run genuinely legal trail hunting packs :- you need to jump ship from the chaotic self serving disaster that is your current overseeing body and set one up of your own, or you will be pulled down too.

Though, tbf, I think you’ve already left it too late .


----------



## ester (31 December 2020)

I've definitely been much closer to people than 2m on a horse and on a bike.


----------



## Kat (31 December 2020)

Hackback said:



			I hunt when I can with a Bloodhound pack and find them the most courteous friendly bunch I could wish to meet. They only cross land with permission of the landowners (who are often present at the meet and particularly thanked in the master's speech, and by the grateful field). We are instructed when we have to stick to headlands/ride single file etc and everyone follows the instructions because we appreciate the landowners generosity and don't want to abuse it, plus we want to be allowed to hunt there next year. Meets were called off last season out of respect to the landowners, because the hunt didn't think it was fair to churn up the land in the atrocious wet conditions we were having.

I've ridden in the field through Chatsworth Estate and witnessed hounds completely ignoring the sheep and deer grazing nearby, I've  seen how much hounds adore their master and how much they love their work.

Covid brought changes, we now have to book in advance so numbers are known and can be restricted, and there are now two or three separate fields, each led by an official and which are not allowed to mix. It does take some of the fun and spontaneity out of it, but it's still a fantastic day, or it was before they went into Tier 4 and have had to postpone their meets.

I must admit this thread has shocked me a little, I didnt realise hunts still existed that were so chaotic and destructive. I love going out with my pack, there are jumps, water, gallops gallore and a real fun day. I went out with a foxhound pack a few years ago but we kept having to turn back because of sabs, which made it quite a slow and frustrating day in comparison.
		
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure you are talking about the pack I hunt with and I echo everything you say. The master/huntsman is absolutely brilliant and so welcoming to everyone, the hounds are always impeccably behaved and beautifully turned out. They are also very respectful of landowners, both in terms of avoiding damage to the land in bad weather and during covid. 

I am so upset to see what is happening with trail hunting especially locally as I am worried that bloodhound packs will be tarred with the same brush and stopped from hunting on certain estates.


----------



## planete (31 December 2020)

The whole hunting terminalogy needs to go.  There is no legal 'hunting' any longer so why persists in using words such as 'hunts', 'hounds' and 'hunting'?   It gives the general public the wrong idea, it also probably provides some kind of twisted justification for illegal activities.  It might be best to face up to the fact that hunting is over, what we should be promoting now  is 'riding a trail', ie we use dogs to track and we follow on horse back because we like to see dogs working and we like riding across country. If packs are going to survive and, even better, thrive, they need to promote themselves as legal, family friendly, fun that cannot be associated with a now banned pursuit.  It is not enough to say they are law abiding, they need to actively change their image and start getting the public on their side.  Be open about everything to do with their activities, invite the whole local community to 'get to know your pack' days, and promote themselves as widely as possible so local riding schools and happy hackers actually feel like giving it a go, stamp on the elitist image and bury it.  Then they might have a future.


----------



## Elf On A Shelf (31 December 2020)

ester said:



			I've definitely been much closer to people than 2m on a horse and on a bike.
		
Click to expand...

Plus a German scientist worked it out that riding a horse at walk you needed to leave a 4meter gap to allow your breath particles to disperse before the person behind you gets to it. At trot it was 25m, canter 60m, gallop 100m+.


----------



## Kipper's Dick (31 December 2020)

planete said:



			The whole hunting terminalogy needs to go.  There is no legal 'hunting' any longer so why persists in using words such as 'hunts', 'hounds' and 'hunting'?   It gives the general public the wrong idea, it also probably provides some kind of twisted justification for illegal activities.  It might be best to face up to the fact that hunting is over, what we should be promoting now  is 'riding a trail', ie we use dogs to track and we follow on horse back because we like to see dogs working and we like riding across country. If packs are going to survive and, even better, thrive, they need to promote themselves as legal, family friendly, fun that cannot be associated with a now banned pursuit.  It is not enough to say they are law abiding, they need to actively change their image and start getting the public on their side.  Be open about everything to do with their activities, invite the whole local community to 'get to know your pack' days, and promote themselves as widely as possible so local riding schools and happy hackers actually feel like giving it a go, stamp on the elitist image and bury it.  Then they might have a future.
		
Click to expand...

Not enough to just 'like' this post.  Brilliant.  And the only way forward.


----------



## Miss_Millie (31 December 2020)

Tiddlypom said:



			And now another pet cat killing incident - the 2 year old cat being on her owner’s property in Bakewell. Hounds broke into the owner’s yard when on hound exercise, dragged the cat out from under a car where she had run to hide, and killed her.

The High Peak Hunt again, where almost the whole pack recently rioted onto a calf and chased that calf across several fields.

https://forums.horseandhound.co.uk/threads/hounds-riot-onto-calf.797034/

First rioting onto livestock, now domestic pets. What the freeking heck is going on? Time to disband, I think. The High Peak are not denying the incident.

_The hunt has been in contact with the cat owner and apologised unreservedly for the distress this has caused. _

RIP Spider

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...cBhA8KX4rNq0ya1ewLxxNUnq7L1llrrAzHlm3CJqVwoNM

Click to expand...

I'm completely horrified and disgusted by this. My cat is my entire world - if my cat was killed in such a violent way, on my own property, I would give up the will to live.

It's evident that these hunts are completely out of control. They have no respect for other people's property or land. They have no control over their animals. These people are disgraceful.


----------



## Clodagh (31 December 2020)

planete said:



			The whole hunting terminalogy needs to go.  There is no legal 'hunting' any longer so why persists in using words such as 'hunts', 'hounds' and 'hunting'?   It gives the general public the wrong idea, it also probably provides some kind of twisted justification for illegal activities.  It might be best to face up to the fact that hunting is over, what we should be promoting now  is 'riding a trail', ie we use dogs to track and we follow on horse back because we like to see dogs working and we like riding across country. If packs are going to survive and, even better, thrive, they need to promote themselves as legal, family friendly, fun that cannot be associated with a now banned pursuit.  It is not enough to say they are law abiding, they need to actively change their image and start getting the public on their side.  Be open about everything to do with their activities, invite the whole local community to 'get to know your pack' days, and promote themselves as widely as possible so local riding schools and happy hackers actually feel like giving it a go, stamp on the elitist image and bury it.  Then they might have a future.
		
Click to expand...

On the whole I totally agree with your ideas. On the other hand, as an avowed traditionalist the thought of riding a trail with dogs fills me with horror.
I love the people dressing up in the full rig, the smartly turned out horses and a nice level pack of foxhounds. If we are to destroy the whole thing we can lose the dogs and just do a sponsored ride or cross country hack.


----------



## Elf On A Shelf (31 December 2020)

Miss_Millie said:



			It's evident that these hunts are completely out of control. They have no respect for other people's property or land. They have no control over their animals. These people are disgraceful.
		
Click to expand...

Sounds pretty much like the latest generation of kids/teenagers and their parents!


----------



## Elf On A Shelf (31 December 2020)

Clodagh said:



			On the whole I totally agree with your ideas. On the other hand, as an avowed traditionalist the thought of riding a trail with dogs fills me with horror.
I love the people dressing up in the full rig, the smartly turned out horses and a nice level pack of foxhounds. If we are to destroy the whole thing we can lose the dogs and just do a sponsored ride or cross country hack.
		
Click to expand...

The turnout and full tweed/blue/red coats is a sight to behold and I really do not want that to disappear from our countryside. It already is a bit here in Scotland. A new drag hunt has formed, no hounds, no need for formal attire so long as you have the correct boots and hats on, go for an hour or so's jolly, stop for 20mins then go for another hour or so's jolly which really isn't any form of hunting - drag or no.

I remember many years ago when the racehorses were the hunt horses and we were the hunt staff a hound buggered off across a farmers field after a hare. 3 of us searched for 4 hours for the damned thing, it's fate was certain regardless. We never found it. All we could so was ring round all the farmers and locals to pass the word the hound was to be shot on sight,  or if caught the master would come and pick it up to dispatch of it. There was no leeway with this. It just really annoyed that the damned thing has disappeared completely!


----------



## shortstuff99 (9 January 2021)

This is a link to the Sab page but it has made the media today, a huntsman saying he doesn't give a f*ck about covid...

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2290158021129259&id=243223759156039


----------



## ycbm (9 January 2021)

They just keep on giving,  don't they?

That short 'I don't give a'  clip is going to be an anti hunting meme for the rest of time.

It's going to damage ALL hunts,  trail and drag.  Time they set themselves apart from these idiots and starting shouting about it, or the days of drag and trail are numbered as well.
.


----------



## L&M (9 January 2021)

Where is the evidence that he said this?


----------



## Lipglosspukka (9 January 2021)

I am very on the fence with hunting. I have hunted in Ireland, for the experience. I have hunted in the UK post ban and never experienced any wrong doing with the particular hunt I was out with. 

That said I specifically went with a hunt in Ireland who do not use terrier men. As far as I'm concerned, if a fox is strong enough to get himself home then leave him be. To dig a fox out is barbaric. 

I do not agree with hunting being allowed on public land, especially those areas that have feral ponies. I can only imagine the level of stress and carnage. 

I would welcome a one strike policy for hunts. If caught once then that's it. Game over.


----------



## L&M (9 January 2021)

L&M said:



			Where is the evidence that he said this?
		
Click to expand...

Sorry just listened to the clip!! Brain not working this morning....


----------



## Sandstone1 (9 January 2021)

L&M said:



			Where is the evidence that he said this?
		
Click to expand...

I think its quite plain he did say it!  Waiting for the pro hunters to come along and say it was out of context!


----------



## palo1 (9 January 2021)

Not quite a direct response to the above post but this provides considerable context for the 'Covid' clip, not to mention an ongoing demonstration of the unacceptable abuse that hunting people are receiving without any evidence of wrongdoing, intent to do wrong or cause offence or harm to anyone or anything.  The situation with sabs has been particularly aggressive in the last 2 years and undoubtedly Sab behaviour has resulted in some of the incidents passed off as illegal hunting.  Please don't be fooled into thinking that there is only one side to these incidents.  Mark Norris' leading comment is pretty self explanatory in fact...

This is from This isHunting UK - a page/group that is well respected and considered to entirely support legal trail hunting.  Please read with caution, some of the comments posted are deeply offensive and upsetting.


https://countrysquire.co.uk/2021/01...jxy4TzUAJbLZJEUit2rtey7gywrO3RosqX67IEu2TyutQ

*BY NIGEL BEAN & PAUL READ
P*eace and goodwill to all men or so the Christmas saying goes. And in maintaining this tradition of warmth and compassion, this Christmas _This is Hunting UK_ put out on their _Facebook_ page a glad tiding reminding their followers to think of hunt staff and unpaid helpers at this time of year:
*“In recognition of all those who do so much to support our Hunting through these most difficult times, we would like to bring you this Christmas morning a selection of great photos from across the World in our gratitude. The range of people who give so freely of their time is far too great to mention in just a few sentences. However this of all mornings it should be our Hunt Staff who we believe should be highlighted. Be they in Kennels Stables or out in the field it is they who keep the show on the road for us. Lastly but by no means least, thank you to all who have given such great support to TiHUK over the last twelve months, this too is hugely recognised by us all. A Very Happy Christmas to each and every one of you and a Very Happy and Prosperous New Year.”*
What followed came as a shock. Antis from across the country were directed to a pile-on and between them generated three thousand negative/vile/abusive comments while the innocent _This is Hunting UK_ post was shared almost two thousand times.





If you don’t like bad language, please look away now. Here are a small selection of the comments that followed:










Amongst the antis who piled on was a Doctor Simon Peter Braybrook – a Rasputinesque GP from Butetown, a district and community in the south of the city of Cardiff. Dr Braybrook is a partner in Butetown Medical Practice and is Chair of the South East Wales Faculty of the Royal College of General Practitioners. Braybrook has links with Cardiff University and a gender clinic. He was even nominated as a “Welsh icon” in 2015. So what on earth is someone of such supposed standing in his community – a father of two, no less, and supporter of the scouts – getting embroiled in a social media pile-on, you may well ask?










Drunk?
Too many mince pies?
Although less vile than his trolling comrades, Braybrook’s views were there – plastered online for all to see. One hunt supporter challenged him over his decision-affecting bigotry, but Doctor Braybrook carried on ranting, unabated:





One feels somewhat sorry for Braybrook’s colleagues, considering the way he talks about them behind their backs:





The pile-on became so unpleasant and abusive that even an opponent of hunting became so appalled, he felt obliged to make his feelings known:  
_“I just wanted to say I am shocked and sorry for the abuse that has been sent to your organisation. Although we have opposing views it is unacceptable to bombard either side or organisation at that with levels of abuse mentioned in your post. I know we didn’t have the discussions that I wished to have which I regret and apologise for, but I know your group is trying to improve the image of hunting and stand up to and against violence and intimidation which is not recognised by the majority of anti-hunt people. There are a lot of anti-hunt people who are appalled at the abuse that goes on and who distance themselves from those who think it’s fun to do so.”_​More of the latter.
Less Braybrooks, please.  
Doctor Braybrook did delete his comments later. Too late. Some other parts of the exchange can be found below. Copies are on the way to the noble institutions to which Braybrook is affiliated. You can’t suckle on the public teat and expect to get away with those kind of standards. Better that Doctor Braybrook explains to a conduct panel why he behaves in such irresponsible ways, and so publicly.
*Note: If you have been turned down for a shotgun licence by Dr Braybrook or his surgery then please do get in touch.*










Advertisements


----------



## BeckyFlowers (9 January 2021)

Good grief how utterly vile, and I'm glad that doctor isn't my GP.  It mentions he doesn't work for the NHS, which in my view is one thing to be thankful for.  Doesn't sound as though he would be impartial in his treatment of his patients from all that ranting.  

It's such a shame that the skill and mentality of debate and discussion is withering.  Luckily on this thread it has been very polite.


----------



## milliepops (9 January 2021)

BeckyFlowers said:



			Good grief how utterly vile, and I'm glad that doctor isn't my GP.  It mentions he doesn't work for the NHS, which in my view is one thing to be thankful for.  Doesn't sound as though he would be impartial in his treatment of his patients from all that ranting.
		
Click to expand...

i think he meant that signing off the gun licenses is not NHS work. it's a private service that many GPs do.


----------



## ycbm (9 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			Not quite a direct response to the above post but this provides considerable context for the 'Covid' clip, not to mention an ongoing demonstration of the unacceptable abuse that hunting people are receiving without any evidence of wrongdoing, intent to do wrong or cause offence or harm to anyone or anything.  The situation with sabs has been particularly aggressive in the last 2 years and undoubtedly Sab behaviour has resulted in some of the incidents passed off as illegal hunting.  Please don't be fooled into thinking that there is only one side to these incidents.  Mark Norris' leading comment is pretty self explanatory in fact...

This is from This isHunting UK - a page/group that is well respected and considered to entirely support legal trail hunting.  Please read with caution, some of the comments posted are deeply offensive and upsetting.


https://countrysquire.co.uk/2021/01...jxy4TzUAJbLZJEUit2rtey7gywrO3RosqX67IEu2TyutQ

*BY NIGEL BEAN & PAUL READ
P*eace and goodwill to all men or so the Christmas saying goes. And in maintaining this tradition of warmth and compassion, this Christmas _This is Hunting UK_ put out on their _Facebook_ page a glad tiding reminding their followers to think of hunt staff and unpaid helpers at this time of year:
*“In recognition of all those who do so much to support our Hunting through these most difficult times, we would like to bring you this Christmas morning a selection of great photos from across the World in our gratitude. The range of people who give so freely of their time is far too great to mention in just a few sentences. However this of all mornings it should be our Hunt Staff who we believe should be highlighted. Be they in Kennels Stables or out in the field it is they who keep the show on the road for us. Lastly but by no means least, thank you to all who have given such great support to TiHUK over the last twelve months, this too is hugely recognised by us all. A Very Happy Christmas to each and every one of you and a Very Happy and Prosperous New Year.”*
What followed came as a shock. Antis from across the country were directed to a pile-on and between them generated three thousand negative/vile/abusive comments while the innocent _This is Hunting UK_ post was shared almost two thousand times.





If you don’t like bad language, please look away now. Here are a small selection of the comments that followed:










Amongst the antis who piled on was a Doctor Simon Peter Braybrook – a Rasputinesque GP from Butetown, a district and community in the south of the city of Cardiff. Dr Braybrook is a partner in Butetown Medical Practice and is Chair of the South East Wales Faculty of the Royal College of General Practitioners. Braybrook has links with Cardiff University and a gender clinic. He was even nominated as a “Welsh icon” in 2015. So what on earth is someone of such supposed standing in his community – a father of two, no less, and supporter of the scouts – getting embroiled in a social media pile-on, you may well ask?










Drunk?
Too many mince pies?
Although less vile than his trolling comrades, Braybrook’s views were there – plastered online for all to see. One hunt supporter challenged him over his decision-affecting bigotry, but Doctor Braybrook carried on ranting, unabated:





One feels somewhat sorry for Braybrook’s colleagues, considering the way he talks about them behind their backs:





The pile-on became so unpleasant and abusive that even an opponent of hunting became so appalled, he felt obliged to make his feelings known:
_“I just wanted to say I am shocked and sorry for the abuse that has been sent to your organisation. Although we have opposing views it is unacceptable to bombard either side or organisation at that with levels of abuse mentioned in your post. I know we didn’t have the discussions that I wished to have which I regret and apologise for, but I know your group is trying to improve the image of hunting and stand up to and against violence and intimidation which is not recognised by the majority of anti-hunt people. There are a lot of anti-hunt people who are appalled at the abuse that goes on and who distance themselves from those who think it’s fun to do so.”_​More of the latter.
Less Braybrooks, please.
Doctor Braybrook did delete his comments later. Too late. Some other parts of the exchange can be found below. Copies are on the way to the noble institutions to which Braybrook is affiliated. You can’t suckle on the public teat and expect to get away with those kind of standards. Better that Doctor Braybrook explains to a conduct panel why he behaves in such irresponsible ways, and so publicly.
*Note: If you have been turned down for a shotgun licence by Dr Braybrook or his surgery then please do get in touch.*










Advertisements
		
Click to expand...

Palo you mean extremely well,  but taken in December 2020, with clear pictures of dozens of riders sat bunched up knee to knee watching the hounds and clear recording of a  Hunt official  saying "I don't give a f*** about Covid", your defence  of hunting is mistimed,  misguided,  and is unlikely to bring you anything much but approbation.

For a start, after saying that NO illegal behaviour at a hunt is justified,  sab included,   I'm going to metaphorically smack you on the wrist right now for failing,  anywhere in your long post,  to criticise  what we can all see and hear in that video.  .

Irrespective of sab behaviour,  there is no possible justification for the total, deliberate,  breach of Covid-19  social distancing requirements by that hunt.


----------



## BeckyFlowers (9 January 2021)

milliepops said:



			i think he meant that signing off the gun licenses is not NHS work. it's a private service that many GPs do.
		
Click to expand...

Crikey, in which case, that's frightening.


----------



## BeckyFlowers (9 January 2021)

Just to add, in my post I was saying how vile those posts were from all the people swearing etc, not just about the GP.


----------



## Rowreach (9 January 2021)

ycbm said:



			Palo you mean extremely well,  but taken in December 2020, with clear pictures of dozens of riders sat bunched up knee to knee watching the hounds and clear recording of a  Hunt official  saying "I don't give a f*** about Covid", your defence  of hunting is mistimed,  misguided,  and is unlikely to bring you anything much but approbation.

For a start, after saying that NO illegal behaviour at a hunt is justified,  sab included,   I'm going to metaphorically smack you on the wrist right now for failing,  anywhere in your long post,  to criticise  what we can all see and hear in that video.  .

Irrespective of sab behaviour,  there is no possible justification for the total, deliberate,  breach of Covid-19  social distancing requirements by that hunt.
		
Click to expand...

Oh don't be so patronising, Palo started her post by saying she wasn't actually replying to the video, and whatever anyone's views about hunting, surely we should all be condemning the sort of vitriol shown in those comments (which incidentally you didn't do).

I've stated on this thread a couple of times, I used to hunt, I no longer hunt, I think hunts that purport to trail hunt and don't are criminal and doing no service to those that hunt legally, and I think that hunting in any shape or form has probably had its day.  I think the video sucks, and I think the comments in Palo's post suck too.


----------



## Kipper's Dick (9 January 2021)

Palo1, I can really understand your desire to give context, show the other side as it were.  But there is no denying the huge damage caused by the frankly appalling comment made by that member of the Warwickshire Hunt.  No-one should be 'defending' this man.  But I'm assuming that he is not speaking on behalf of all those who are currently trail hunting.  And then I noted ycbm's comment about pictures showing riders bunched up knee to knee in the middle of a pandemic and I despair of their relentless stupidity. 

To be honest, if trail-hunting could only get its act together then I would be recommending that everyone should give it a try.  It is incredibly exciting riding a good horse across country, taking fences as they come. An adrenaline buzz like no other.  And horses love it, the ones I've ridden, anyway. And, no, it's not the same as a farm ride with optional jumps. 

But the way things are going, I'm not holding my breath that it has a future. And I find that very sad, as it is a loss to us all.


----------



## ycbm (9 January 2021)

Rowreach said:



			Oh don't be so patronising, Palo started her post by saying she wasn't actually replying to the video, and whatever anyone's views about hunting, surely we should all be condemning the sort of vitriol shown in those comments (which incidentally you didn't do).

I've stated on this thread a couple of times, I used to hunt, I no longer hunt, I think hunts that purport to trail hunt and don't are criminal and doing no service to those that hunt legally, and I think that hunting in any shape or form has probably had its day.  I think the video sucks, and I think the comments in Palo's post suck too.
		
Click to expand...


I condemned all illegal behaviour and I liked a thread specifically condemning the comments.

I'm not being patronising, Palo and I have had friendly exchanges on this topic and she has previously expressed regret that the subject has caused divisions on the forum.  This was simply a post in the same spirit as previous ones.  And it wasn't addressed to you,  so how about you leave it to Palo to decide if she thinks she is being patronised? And maybe also ask yourself if you would have bothered with your post if it hadn't been my name on mine, because it feels like  this is far from the first time that you actively look for the worst possible motives in my posts..


----------



## palo1 (9 January 2021)

I didn't comment on the conduct of the Warwickshire hunt generally because I wanted to make a particular point about the behaviour of Sabs and the context of that stupid comment on the clip.  I hope that whoever that was has been severely taken to task over that; I thank goodness that it doesn't appear to be a member of the hunt staff.  It is far too easy to be wound up by Sabs to do stupid things sadly and takes discipline and good sense to avoid getting into that kind of situation.  The general protocol for all and any hunt is to NOT engage with sabs...

As for the group of hunting people - I don't know how it can be certain how they are contravening Covid regs; they may well be but then they may not be. If they are/were then they are completely stupid and should be fined.   In any case for me, that is a different matter unrelated to hunting and far more related to how people everywhere seem to find reasons to be Covid non-compliant or at least 'Covid-casual' ; I have seen so many people today (I had to go and pick up some brake fluid for my car from the local town in England) not apparantly Covid compliant that I am beginning to wonder if, actually I have misunderstood the guidance...This whole time through the pandemic people have relentlessly travelled and socialised pretty carelessly and needlessly in some instances.  That isn't anything to do with hunting though.


----------



## ycbm (9 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			As for the group of hunting people - I don't know how it can be certain how they are contravening Covid regs; they may well be but then they may not be. .
		
Click to expand...


Well unless they are all from two households or in a support bubble,   there can be no doubt,  surely?  I don't know how or why you keep trying to defend this.








These are screenshot stiils, they won't play.


----------



## Kipper's Dick (9 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			I didn't comment on the conduct of the Warwickshire hunt generally because I wanted to make a particular point about the behaviour of Sabs and the context of that stupid comment on the clip.  I hope that whoever that was has been severely taken to task over that; I thank goodness that it doesn't appear to be a member of the hunt staff.  It is far too easy to be wound up by Sabs to do stupid things sadly and takes discipline and good sense to avoid getting into that kind of situation.  The general protocol for all and any hunt is to NOT engage with sabs...

As for the group of hunting people - I don't know how it can be certain how they are contravening Covid regs; they may well be but then they may not be. If they are/were then they are completely stupid and should be fined.   In any case for me, that is a different matter unrelated to hunting and far more related to how people everywhere seem to find reasons to be Covid non-compliant or at least 'Covid-casual' ; I have seen so many people today (I had to go and pick up some brake fluid for my car from the local town in England) not apparantly Covid compliant that I am beginning to wonder if, actually I have misunderstood the guidance...This whole time through the pandemic people have relentlessly travelled and socialised pretty carelessly and needlessly in some instances.  That isn't anything to do with hunting though.
		
Click to expand...

Trail-hunters are currently very much in the public eye.  Too public for many of them, I'm sure.  But it is a golden opportunity to show themselves adhering to the very letter of the law. To be whiter than white and beyond reproach.  It would be a good piece of PR work, but they are throwing the opportunity away.  If they possessed just a small amount of your unfailing politeness, dedication and common-sense, Palo1, then I believe that their future would be a lot brighter.


----------



## palo1 (9 January 2021)

ycbm said:



			Well unless they are all from two households or in a support bubble,   there can be no doubt,  surely?  I don't know how or why you keep trying to defend this.


View attachment 62965


View attachment 62966


These are screenshot stiils, they won't play.
		
Click to expand...

Good grief - you can't seriously suggest that this is decent 'evidence' can you?   There is absolutely no way that you can tell for certain that people are not, in fact 2m apart not to mention the fact that the source of this 'evidence' is not exactly unbiased.  The images are considerably foreshortened due to using a zoom which will make everything look very much closer together, not to mention fuzzy in the extreme.  It would be virtually impossible to identify any of these people in any case.  I haven't watched these in any other place but I can't see a date on the images either.  It is really poor.  I am certainly not defending any hunt who were not managing social distancing effectively as the guidance is clear and every hunt must have a Covid officer who should deal with social distancing issues but this film/images are not remotely compelling from a compliance/evidence p.o.v.


----------



## palo1 (9 January 2021)

Kipper's Dick said:



			Trail-hunters are currently very much in the public eye.  Too public for many of them, I'm sure.  But it is a golden opportunity to show themselves adhering to the very letter of the law. To be whiter than white and beyond reproach.  It would be a good piece of PR work, but they are throwing the opportunity away.  If they possessed just a small amount of your unfailing politeness, dedication and common-sense, Palo1, then I believe that their future would be a lot brighter.
		
Click to expand...

The vast majority of hunts were absolutely adhering to the letter of the law, with spaces on a day's hunting needing to be booked, track and trace information collected and stored in line with GDPR regs, social distancing well managed.  This example may or may not be one of non-compliance but tbh the fact that the SABS are selling it makes it less worth bothering with and far less believable/reputable.  IF monitors were as handy looking at local parks, football matches, rugby matches, pubs etc I wonder if they might also find a great many non-hunting related Covid issues.  To be honest, whilst this IS a thread about hunting, the Covid stuff just seems a bit 'irrational' in that context.  I think everyone is very well aware of mass Covid compliance issues all over the place; it's not just for the hunt bashers!! Happy to share endless anecdotes and possibly even 'photographic evidence' of idiots breaking Covid regs...


----------



## ycbm (9 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			Good grief - you can't seriously suggest that this is decent 'evidence' can you? .
		
Click to expand...

Yes,  and I think anyone who isn't desperate to defend hunting,  who knows the physiology of a horse,  who watches the moving video, who can count,   can see without a doubt that there are more than 30 people from  two households or a support bubble  out hunting ignoring the social distancing guidelines.

There is a huge difference between individuals ignoring the advice and organised sports ignoring the advice.

I'm beginning to find your attitude extraordinary.

Your sport would be far better off if it put its energies into condemning this instead of excusing it.  You are all at risk of being banned completely if you don't.


----------



## Sandstone1 (9 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			The vast majority of hunts were absolutely adhering to the letter of the law, with spaces on a day's hunting needing to be booked, track and trace information collected and stored in line with GDPR regs, social distancing well managed.  This example may or may not be one of non-compliance but tbh the fact that the SABS are selling it makes it less worth bothering with and far less believable/reputable.  IF monitors were as handy looking at local parks, football matches, rugby matches, pubs etc I wonder if they might also find a great many non-hunting related Covid issues.  To be honest, whilst this IS a thread about hunting, the Covid stuff just seems a bit 'irrational' in that context.  I think everyone is very well aware of mass Covid compliance issues all over the place; it's not just for the hunt bashers!! Happy to share endless anecdotes and possibly even 'photographic evidence' of idiots breaking Covid regs...
		
Click to expand...

There are none so blind as those who will not see....


----------



## Kipper's Dick (9 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			The vast majority of hunts were absolutely adhering to the letter of the law, with spaces on a day's hunting needing to be booked, track and trace information collected and stored in line with GDPR regs, social distancing well managed.  This example may or may not be one of non-compliance but tbh the fact that the SABS are selling it makes it less worth bothering with and far less believable/reputable.  IF monitors were as handy looking at local parks, football matches, rugby matches, pubs etc I wonder if they might also find a great many non-hunting related Covid issues.  To be honest, whilst this IS a thread about hunting, the Covid stuff just seems a bit 'irrational' in that context.  I think everyone is very well aware of mass Covid compliance issues all over the place; it's not just for the hunt bashers!! Happy to share endless anecdotes and possibly even 'photographic evidence' of idiots breaking Covid regs...
		
Click to expand...

I'm sure that hunts, on the whole, are trying to adhere to the letter of the law.  But remarks made by the Warwickshire Hunt member is providing a stick to be beaten with.  And it is so unnecessary.  I feel the Covid issue is relevant with regard to hunting for the same reason.  As you rightly say, Covid idiots are everywhere.  But right now, in view of the bad publicity on so many fronts, trail-hunting needs them like a hole in the head.  And I don't trust footage provided by anti's, but there are many who might.


----------



## palo1 (9 January 2021)

''I'm beginning to find your attitude extraordinary.'' 

I find that quite hard to believe as I have been entirely consistent in my support for legal trail hunting and in the way that I don't just accept the line that the anti-hunt brigade present.  Sadly I find your attitude entirely predictable.  Thankfully there is room for all viewpoints.


----------



## palo1 (9 January 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			There are none so blind as those who will not see....
		
Click to expand...

Quite.


----------



## shortstuff99 (9 January 2021)

The issue is hunting has a very, very, very, bad public image. The general public member can't understand why anyone wants to watch a fox be killed, they see it as barbaric. They also see hunt people as posh toffs who look down on them (as horses seem like an expensive hobby)! They therefore see sabs/monitors as fighting for the little guy. When hunt people react as they did on this video it just confirms this view to them. This is irrespective of whether hunt supporters thing this view is warranted. 

What legal hunts need to do is go on the PR trail rather then tell everyone they are wrong or arguing with them.


----------



## palo1 (9 January 2021)

The HSA that 'filmed' this breach can be found in the news here: They are not what most people would identify as either a credible or respectable, unbiased source of information.  There is considerable 'history' of aggravation with the Warwickshire Hunt.  I don't mean specifically in relation to the Covid issue but I think it is important to have a balance of 'reporting' if you like...There is form for misrepresentation of 'evidence' and conviction for that.


*A prominent member of the West Midlands Hunt Saboteurs has pleaded guilty of assault by beating after appearing at Coventry Magistrates’ Court on Friday 9th October 2020.*


John Watson, who was filmed assaulting a member of the Warwickshire Hunt on February 15th 2020, was sentenced to paying a £132 fine plus a victim surcharge as well as being ordered to pay £135 to the Crown Prosecution Service.





The shocking attack, which took place in a country lane near Preston on Stour, saw a hunt follower thrown violently to the floor by Watson, who proceeded to scream loudly in a shocking rampage.
Watson of Ryton- on- Dunsmore in Warwickshire, was one of around 20 hunt saboteurs who had descended on the countryside to sab the trail hunting activities of the Warwickshire Hunt that day.
Two separate groups arrived in mini buses from both the West Midlands Hunt Saboteurs as well as Liverpool Hunt Saboteurs. Each were dressed in black and wearing balaclavas designed to intimidate hunt supporters and their families.
Police were called upon their arrival, and officers attended shortly after. After asking the masked saboteurs to disperse witnesses confirmed they quickly returned shortly after the police had vacated the scene.
It was at this time that Watson, who has a long history of being involved in extreme animal rights activism, launched a staggering attack on a hunt steward. The steward had attempted to protect a vehicle, before Watson threw him to the floor while shouting ‘get out the way’.
Witnesses recall that Watson started shouting loudly, while brandishing a radio and waving a video camera.
The victim, who remains anonymous out of fear for his safety, was left shocked by the incident.
A spokesman for the hunt said: “The Warwickshire Hunt are pleased to see justice handed out to a member of the increasingly violent West Midland Saboteurs.
“Witnessing a member of our hunt being attacked whilst protecting his colleagues, their children, and our animals is a frightening thing to experience and we are pleased that the law was upheld,” continued the spokesperson.
“We hope that the practice of organised masked, increasingly aggressive gangs looking for a fight in our countryside will now come to an end, especially with the current state of the nation.”
Polly Portwin, Head of Hunting at the Countryside Alliance said: “ These were incredibly concerning scenes. Hunt Sabs regularly inflict violence on hunt supporters and staff as part of their class war driven agenda. We are pleased to see this matter has been dealt with robustly.”
Last month, another member of the West Midlands Hunt Saboteurs was convicted by a jury in Leicester of using edited footage to falsely bolster his claim that a farmer had assaulted him on the farmer's land.
David Graham, 35, was found guilty unanimously of perverting the course of justice by using video evidence which misrepresented what had happened.





_John Watson (pictured), a prominent member of the West Midlands Hunt Saboteurs, pleaded guilty of assault by beating after appearing at Coventry Magistrates’ Court on Friday 9th October 2020._


----------



## Limit (9 January 2021)

emilylou said:



			I don't have anything to say re: the original post. Apart from what a b****y mess.

But again, from a riders perspective, there really is nothing like it. I've never felt a truer sense of freedom than when being slightly lost, riding to the edge of my abilities, crossing all types of country following a pack of hounds. Its a wildness and sense of being at one with the environment around you with only your senses and wit keeping you alive (sometimes literally) that now doesn't exist in many other parts of life. That sense of freedom is lost so much in our increasingly regulated, urbanized, prescribed, nannying society- (which personally I am not willing to accept as the way of the future and hope to see change of the countryside being more valued and understood and the return and protection of more abundant wild places and wildlife- but that's a different topic entirely)
I've followed both trail and drag packs and trail hunting is much more fun. The rhythm of the day is different and less prescribed as the huntsman does not have knowledge of where the trail is set- with packs I follow usually trails are laid the day prior with further trails laid throughout the day depending on conditions.
I've also found drag riders to have less control and be more worrying to ride with as you get those who are out for a good blast and do not have control of their horses.
Its a huge and lovely community, I agree there are outdated views and malpractice within but for the most part, the majority are there for the love of the horse and hound, the outdoors and their friends within the community. I have never met anyone who I would describe as bloodthirsty and to understand hunting and hunt well you need a respect and understanding for the wildlife and country you are within.

When I was younger I was dead against hunting, I even campaigned against it. Obviously, now true fox hunting is against the law, but I have learnt lots about what hunting was since, and changed my views. Trail hunting should be as it says, -hunting a trail and I hope that for the future of hunting all packs will comply.
But as far as fox control goes, fox control happens regardless of hunting, the gun does not discriminate and kills far more foxes than hunting ever would and the snare and poison are worse.
The original enquiry that investigated hunting and eventually resulted in the 2004 ban agreed that hunting with hounds is the most humane way of controlling the fox population. Mainly because it IS discriminatory. A fit fox will easily outrun and outwit a pack of hounds, I've seen foxes run from cover away from hounds hunting a trail and then turn and lazily watch them, standing in plain sight in front of the field before casually strolling off.
Historically, hounds will typically only catch the older/younger/sick foxes, unless they are having a particularly good day. This leaves the healthy foxes free to carry on, improving the species overall, who will then 'hopefully' stick to wild prey (rabbits, pheasants etc) rather than targeting easier lambs and chickens as their abilities allow them to, thus making them less of a pest.
As well as this, simply running hounds over land deters foxes from claiming it as territory, thus reducing the number of foxes in an area that is hunted as the foxes perceive there to be less territory for them so do not breed as many litters, hence why hunting controls the population without ever sometimes seeing a fox- which is inarguably more humane and a good reason why trail hunting/drag hunting is still a valid form of control to some degree.

Of course, I am aware I am omitting the mention of obvious faux-pax of trespass, violence etc. which should not happen and disappoints me that is does, and those things are indefensible but trail hunting done well and done lawfully I hope does have a place in our future.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Limit (9 January 2021)

emilylou said:



			I don't have anything to say re: the original post. Apart from what a b****y mess.

But again, from a riders perspective, there really is nothing like it. I've never felt a truer sense of freedom than when being slightly lost, riding to the edge of my abilities, crossing all types of country following a pack of hounds. Its a wildness and sense of being at one with the environment around you with only your senses and wit keeping you alive (sometimes literally) that now doesn't exist in many other parts of life. That sense of freedom is lost so much in our increasingly regulated, urbanized, prescribed, nannying society- (which personally I am not willing to accept as the way of the future and hope to see change of the countryside being more valued and understood and the return and protection of more abundant wild places and wildlife- but that's a different topic entirely)
I've followed both trail and drag packs and trail hunting is much more fun. The rhythm of the day is different and less prescribed as the huntsman does not have knowledge of where the trail is set- with packs I follow usually trails are laid the day prior with further trails laid throughout the day depending on conditions.
I've also found drag riders to have less control and be more worrying to ride with as you get those who are out for a good blast and do not have control of their horses.
Its a huge and lovely community, I agree there are outdated views and malpractice within but for the most part, the majority are there for the love of the horse and hound, the outdoors and their friends within the community. I have never met anyone who I would describe as bloodthirsty and to understand hunting and hunt well you need a respect and understanding for the wildlife and country you are within.

When I was younger I was dead against hunting, I even campaigned against it. Obviously, now true fox hunting is against the law, but I have learnt lots about what hunting was since, and changed my views. Trail hunting should be as it says, -hunting a trail and I hope that for the future of hunting all packs will comply.
But as far as fox control goes, fox control happens regardless of hunting, the gun does not discriminate and kills far more foxes than hunting ever would and the snare and poison are worse.
The original enquiry that investigated hunting and eventually resulted in the 2004 ban agreed that hunting with hounds is the most humane way of controlling the fox population. Mainly because it IS discriminatory. A fit fox will easily outrun and outwit a pack of hounds, I've seen foxes run from cover away from hounds hunting a trail and then turn and lazily watch them, standing in plain sight in front of the field before casually strolling off.
Historically, hounds will typically only catch the older/younger/sick foxes, unless they are having a particularly good day. This leaves the healthy foxes free to carry on, improving the species overall, who will then 'hopefully' stick to wild prey (rabbits, pheasants etc) rather than targeting easier lambs and chickens as their abilities allow them to, thus making them less of a pest.
As well as this, simply running hounds over land deters foxes from claiming it as territory, thus reducing the number of foxes in an area that is hunted as the foxes perceive there to be less territory for them so do not breed as many litters, hence why hunting controls the population without ever sometimes seeing a fox- which is inarguably more humane and a good reason why trail hunting/drag hunting is still a valid form of control to some degree.

Of course, I am aware I am omitting the mention of obvious faux-pax of trespass, violence etc. which should not happen and disappoints me that is does, and those things are indefensible but trail hunting done well and done lawfully I hope does have a place in our future.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## shortstuff99 (9 January 2021)

You can discredit the sabs all you want, it won't change the publics view! If anything it entrenches them more! 

You have to start showing positive action rather then just trying to combat. There will be plenty of outsiders (not my opinion!!!!) Who will even think the hunt people deserve it for what they do. Hunts need to change it up, their way is clearly not working or getting them support!


----------



## ycbm (9 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			''I'm beginning to find your attitude extraordinary.''

I find that quite hard to believe as I have been entirely consistent in my support for legal trail hunting and in the way that I don't just accept the line that the anti-hunt brigade present.  Sadly I find your attitude entirely predictable.  Thankfully there is room for all viewpoints.
		
Click to expand...

I meant your attitude specifically to what is in the latest video.  I don't understand how you can convince yourself that hunt was social distancing.  I don't understand how you can't see that if good hunts like yours won't speak out loud against this,  you are all going to lose your sport.  
.


----------



## ycbm (9 January 2021)

shortstuff99 said:



			You can discredit the sabs all you want, it won't change the publics view! If anything it entrenches them more!

You have to start showing positive action rather then just trying to combat. There will be plenty of outsiders (not my opinion!!!!) Who will even think the hunt people deserve it for what they do. Hunts need to change it up, their way is clearly not working or getting them support!
		
Click to expand...

This in spades. Trail hunting and drag hunting seem to me to desperately need some professional PR advice from a hunting neutral supplier.


----------



## palo1 (9 January 2021)

ycbm said:



			I meant your attitude specifically to what is in the latest video.  I don't understand how you can convince yourself that hunt was social distancing.  I don't understand how you can't see that if good hunts like yours won't speak out loud against this,  you are all going to lose your sport. 
.
		
Click to expand...

I haven't convinced myself of anything at all - I have just said that there may or may not be a breach of Covid regulations. I certainly do NOT trust the source that provided the filming. In order for a crime to be committed there has to be unbiased evidence and conviction; in this country, thankfully (though perhaps not in this instance) we have an assumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Good hunts certainly do express their frustration and ire when things go wrong and hunting is misrepresented/badly let down by other hunts. I just can't say why this isn't more publicly understood.  I think the thing is, as Sandstone said 'There are none so blind as those that will not see''. The hunting community is pretty small, not particularly tech savvy and the media will only pick up on sensational, newsworthy stuff - not the boring stuff about internal hunt politics that tell a different story to that which will sell coverage.


----------



## palo1 (9 January 2021)

ycbm said:



			This in spades. Trail hunting and drag hunting seem to me to desperately need some professional PR advice from a hunting neutral supplier.
		
Click to expand...

Is there such a thing?  In fact, hunting has had a huge amount of support from many, many different parts of society over the years and that support hasn't entirely gone away but the spreading of positive news, of approachable hunting coverage and of the real cultural 'story' and relevance of hunting is definately something that desperately needs help at the moment.


----------



## ycbm (9 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			. I just can't say why this isn't more publicly understood.
		
Click to expand...


Because its not being said loud enough in the right places in the right way.  The sport needs some professional PR.


----------



## ycbm (9 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			Is there such a thing?  In fact, hunting has had a huge amount of support from many, many different parts of society over the years and that support hasn't entirely gone away but the spreading of positive news, of approachable hunting coverage and of the real cultural 'story' and relevance of hunting is definately something that desperately needs help at the moment.
		
Click to expand...


It costs a lot of money,  unfortunately,  but yes it exists in professional PR agencies who are well used to brand image change programs. 

One current example might be the PR company that is currently working on how to reestablish the Boeing 737 Max as safe to fly on.  
.


----------



## Wishfilly (9 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			Good grief - you can't seriously suggest that this is decent 'evidence' can you?  There is absolutely no way that you can tell for certain that people are not, in fact 2m apart not to mention the fact that the source of this 'evidence' is not exactly unbiased.  The images are considerably foreshortened due to using a zoom which will make everything look very much closer together, not to mention fuzzy in the extreme.  It would be virtually impossible to identify any of these people in any case.  I haven't watched these in any other place but I can't see a date on the images either.  It is really poor.  I am certainly not defending any hunt who were not managing social distancing effectively as the guidance is clear and every hunt must have a Covid officer who should deal with social distancing issues but this film/images are not remotely compelling from a compliance/evidence p.o.v.
		
Click to expand...

You can't criticise the quality of the images and say that they were taken with the sort of lenses that foreshorten the image enough to make 2m social distancing look like that. 

I will accept they are not dated, but I have seen enough recent footage/photography of hunts who clearly are not even playing lip service to social distancing to suggest that this was a major issue before lockdown. 

I know hunts were legally allowed under a loophole around sporting events, but you have to admit that meeting up in very large groups like this puts us all at risk, and IMO you cannot hunt in such a way as to guarantee that no-one will need assistance from another person (e.g. first aid, a leg up, etc.). Just because you can, does not mean you should.

But given it appears that certain hunts do not care about the actual law, I am not sure why they would care about guidelines intended to keep the rest of society safe, either.


----------



## ester (9 January 2021)

I don't understand why there hasn't been a concerted effort from all hunts to be whiter that white during their interactions with sabs when they know they are desperate to get a rise out of them on film.


----------



## Wishfilly (9 January 2021)

ester said:



			I don't understand why there hasn't been a concerted effort from all hunts to be whiter that white during their interactions with sabs when they know they are desperate to get a rise out of them on film.
		
Click to expand...

I can only assume it's because they think they are above the law.


----------



## palo1 (9 January 2021)

ester said:



			I don't understand why there hasn't been a concerted effort from all hunts to be whiter that white during their interactions with sabs when they know they are desperate to get a rise out of them on film.
		
Click to expand...

I think the vast majority of hunts are certainly aware of the need to be demonstrably following the law but that is not the story that the anti-hunt brigade will want to tell.  The small number of misbehaving hunts are a grim minority and when you have been taunted, baited, harrassed, followed, fillmed, shouted at and on occasions physically assaulted or frightened (for example, by having your horses reins grabbed by an anti) it is inevitable and intended for people to lose their cool.  That is an absolute basic of sab tactics of course.


----------



## shortstuff99 (9 January 2021)

But that can happen in all 'controversial' activities. I used to live near a big animal testing lab and the activists could get very scary there, but the protocol for members of staff to deal/interact with them was very strict. Could the hunts not train members on how to deal with sabs?


----------



## palo1 (9 January 2021)

Wishfilly said:



			I can only assume it's because they think they are above the law.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think that is the case although it may be in some instances.  A great deal of the time, the response to antis/sabs is driven by actual fear or total frustration and outrage that a legal activity is being interrupted by a group of masked vigilantes that would not be tolerated by society in ANY other settting.  That is one reason why the police are often perceived to be on the side of hunters - they are pursuing a legal activity and the police, on the whole, have no time whatsoever for people who conceal their identity and are intent on harm/disruption/causing offence and or intimidation.  It is not really what the UK stands for...


----------



## ester (9 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			I think the vast majority of hunts are certainly aware of the need to be demonstrably following the law but that is not the story that the anti-hunt brigade will want to tell.  The small number of misbehaving hunts are a grim minority and when you have been taunted, baited, harrassed, followed, fillmed, shouted at and on occasions physically assaulted or frightened (for example, by having your horses reins grabbed by an anti) it is inevitable and intended for people to lose their cool.  That is an absolute basic of sab tactics of course.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly it is their tactic, even more reason not to go along with it.


----------



## palo1 (9 January 2021)

shortstuff99 said:



			But that can happen in all 'controversial' activities. I used to live near a big animal testing lab and the activists could get very scary there, but the protocol for members of staff to deal/interact with them was very strict. Could the hunts not train members on how to deal with sabs?
		
Click to expand...

I think that is what those infamous webinar sessions were supposed to be doing....!!  People working in an animal testing lab are professionals - most responses to Sab activity are from members of the field who are not professional in that setting.  Hunt staff tend to cope much better in my experience and often try to kill the SABS with kindness as a tactic; terribly polite when they have to be but on the whole completely disengaged.


----------



## palo1 (9 January 2021)

ester said:



			Exactly it is their tactic, even more reason not to go along with it.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, but much easier said than done, especially when it is your child/husband/wife/friend under attack.


----------



## ester (9 January 2021)

rules of behaviour are set out at the start of every meet though, why shouldn't that cover interactions with sabs? In fact I have certainly heard it come up when their attendance has been likely.


----------



## BeckyFlowers (9 January 2021)

Disgusting behaviour on both sides.


----------



## Tiddlypom (9 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			A great deal of the time, the response to antis/sabs is driven by actual fear or total frustration and outrage that a legal activity is being interrupted by a group of masked vigilantes that would not be tolerated by society in ANY other settting
		
Click to expand...

What proportion of hunts are legally trail hunting, though? You still seem to believe that only a small minority of hunts are deliberately flouting the law.

If it wasn’t for the antis, my local pack would still be fox hunting.


----------



## Michen (9 January 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			What proportion of hunts are legally trail hunting, though? You still seem to believe that only a small minority of hunts are deliberately flouting the law.

If it wasn’t for the antis, my local pack would still be fox hunting.
		
Click to expand...

I have in the last 6 months hunted with 4 different trail packs and not seen any break the law 🤷‍♀️


----------



## ycbm (9 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			The small number of misbehaving hunts are a grim minority.
		
Click to expand...

They have not been a minority in Cheshire where TP and I live.  I also know  people who have talked openly about  hunting fox post ban  in Derbyshire and Leicestershire.  

In one notable conversation the husband of someone I knew well was complaining about sab behaviour.  I asked him why they were being sabbed and he looked at me as if I was a bit dim and said "because we hunt fox of course!". 

If trail hunting wants to be free of sabs they have to rid their sport of people hunting fox.


----------



## Tiddlypom (9 January 2021)

As posted by many of us on here, any genuinely legal trail packs still operating need to get out from their current organising body and set up on their own.


----------



## stormox (9 January 2021)

A lot of the time the 'sabs' don't have permission to be on the private land, whereas the hunt (as far as I know) has got permission from the landowner.
Hunts that are obeying the law and trail hunting have every right to be angry with the sabs. 
The sabs do not discriminate between legal and illegal hunts.


----------



## Tiddlypom (9 January 2021)

Hunts often trespass onto land on which they have no permission to be on.

The sabs and monitors are leaving my now legit local pack alone, although they do keep an eye on them.


----------



## palo1 (9 January 2021)

Baily's hunting directory have published this today:  https://www.bailyshuntingdirectory....6i-VRhdzpKRLsDpFkboQw4GRB-9nO1nscF3bTRcO0KxaM.

*In this guest editorial Ivan Massow MFH describes the birth pains of a new Club supporting Trail laying.*
There will be few hunting enthusiasts who didn’t wake up in a cold sweat, the morning news broke of the MFHAs terrible “smokescreen” gaffe during their now infamous Zoom conference. It was not what was said in the video conference but the way it was said, any impartial observer was left with the impression that there was something to hide. Less inflammatory phrases such as ‘best endeavours’ or ‘all reasonable efforts’ could and should have been used – but weren’t, the phrase used was ‘smoke screen’ a phrase that immediately suggests that something is being concealed.
Masters and field followers alike, who have been hunting within the law, laying trails for the last 15 years, could hardly believe their ears.  For many of us involved in putting on a day’s trail-hunting in country nestled between trendy, increasingly urban cities, and the countless suburban districts that pepper-pot our dog-walker dominated landscape, it’s not like we’ve ever had the option to break the law. In order to keep our traditions alive and prevent our community of farmers, equine enthusiasts and country folk, from being overrun by urbanites who have been told by various pressure group that they have the inalienable right to use someone’s else land as their own. Trail hunting has never been a “smokescreen”, it’s been a real part of everyday life and what’s more, an increasing number of people have grown to love it.
And what’s not to love? Stunning winter days spent with friends, in wonderful countryside, watching skilled hounds pursue an even more skilfully laid scent.
Sadly, all of this is threatened by the failure of a handful of people to take responsibility as they allow the situation to limp on in the hope that COVID paralysis will divert attention and save the day. It is no longer enough to hope that things will simply blow over during lockdown, measures must be taken to demonstrate to a largely alienated critical audience that there we have nothing to hide. Hunting today is not the blatant pursuance of foxes in breach of the law, it is a maintaining of tradition and the hunting community within the law. The exemptions within the Act are not ‘loopholes’ but are essential on the grounds of utility and welfare.
Of course, this isn’t just about the Hunting Office’s perceived failure to take swift decisive mitigating action, which in any other environment would begin with the obvious; suspending the individuals who, let’s face it, messed-up royally. Or, likewise, taking a robust line with hunts who serially do the same; their antics filling the papers and the 10 o’clock news. It’s that, long before “smokescreen-gate” (cries of ‘smokescreen’ now the mantra of every balaclava-wearing student), the MFHA failed to mention, until very recently let alone celebrate, Trail Hunting anywhere on their website despite having 15 years to do so.
For those who take on a Mastership, they quickly discover that it’s almost a full-time job, or should be if they’re doing it right. Most have built their people and organisational skills running businesses, handling publicity and using it to turn disasters into triumph. Our Chairman is one such individual and in the face of the emerging PR disaster, he was swift to put together a team that could create a positive response to the crisis.
It took a small team less than 24 hours to conceptualise and build trail layers club (www.trail-layers.org). The brief was simple; to create an open, upbeat celebration of our beloved pastime supported by a Facebook page where people can upload trail videos and images. To be clear, this is not and never was a political move or a bid to create a rival organisation. The trail layers club is just there to celebrate what we do and help those beleaguered lobbyists in our magnificent organisations like the Countryside Alliance, explain to, growingly impatient, Members of Parliament, why they shouldn’t simply make hunting with hounds, even trail hunting, totally illegal once and for all.
Unfortunately, the road to politics is paved with good intentions and unintentionally the trail layers club landed in the thick of it.   For reasons still unknown the principal players,  moved to frustrate and silence all other voices and offers of help.  A reasonable observer would be forgiven for believing that the trail layers club, rather than the perpetrators of this mess, were the problem!
The day the site went live, calls were received from no fewer than three of the most senior MFHA officers. These calls culminating in a request that the entire site was taken down pending a committee investigation and subsequent decision some two weeks later.
After four weeks with no further communication, whilst being continuously bombarded with letters of encouragement and offers of donations from people eager to support a fresh approach celebrating our way of life, notification was sent to the hunting office that the site would be reinstated and asking them to sign off on a nothing more than a simple link to their website- a link that envisages and promotes a positive future for hunting with hounds.
Finally, finally, the closest thing to support or even receiving their blessing arrived. A page of text for us to include on the site.  Unfortunately, however, that was the last helpful gesture we received. For example, we wrote to a master featured in the wonderful video on the Countryside Alliance website to ask his permission to showcase this video on our new website trail-layers.org. How could he possibly object?
It is impossible not to acknowledge the irony of having to ask his permission to use a video promoting trail laying on a website specifically designed to create positive messaging about Trail hunting. The individual’s own hunt has become a regular fixture on the ITV News for both allegations of animal cruelty and illegal foxhunting over the last two seasons (along with the one he mentors). Depressingly, but not surprisingly, the answer, copied into the Hunting Office, of course, came back as ‘NO!’.
At the present time, COVID has put hunting largely out of action and allowed things to quieten down, hopefully for long enough for MPs to allow us to put the case for our amazing lifestyle, hunting with hounds has always adapted to fundamental changes, e.g. railways, wire, motorways and  increasing urbanization,  but we need to provide a route map to enable the National Trust, the Forestry Commission and the other Parks and landowners to reconsider their decisions to ban trail hunting from their land. If those that ‘govern’ the direction of hunting refuse to countenance change then it’s hard to see all of this land returning to us, if any. Whatever happens, inactivity on our part is not, and in fact never was, a viable option if we want to run hounds over it in the future. We all need to start making lots of noise about Trail-hunting and what it means to our communities – and surely the Hunting Office at the very least, should be seen to be helping and encouraging those people who are willing to dedicate their time and resources to making this happen.
 NB www.trail-layers.org is chaired by Ivan Massow MFH and their Patron is The Countess of Denbigh & Desmond
Image of the Border Beagles courtesy Daryl Owen 2020''


----------



## Sandstone1 (10 January 2021)

I can tell you that the Warwickshire hunt do hunt foxes, they also trespass on land they have no right to be on.  For example a railway line last year which actually held up trains. They were fined for this.
Im not saying sabs are perfect and without blame but what happens if no sabs or monitors?
They just continue to hunt foxes.
They have had hounds in Churchyards etc too.


----------



## Tiddlypom (10 January 2021)

Palo, thank you for publishing the link to:-

https://www.bailyshuntingdirectory....6i-VRhdzpKRLsDpFkboQw4GRB-9nO1nscF3bTRcO0KxaM

It confirms what we have said before. Those of you who wish to carry on to celebrate and practise legal trail hunting will get no support from The Hunting Office. The trail layers club was formed by people with the right ethos, but I cannot see it flourishing within the confines of The Hunting Office (as is clear from the communications detailed in the link). It will need to fly solo.

It‘s a very promising start, though. This is the way forward for you legal trail hunters if you wish to continue.


----------



## Sandstone1 (10 January 2021)

I dont think anyone is against TRAIL HUNTING,  the problem is that a lot (most?)  hunts are still hunting foxes.


----------



## ycbm (10 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			Baily's hunting directory have published this today:  https://www.bailyshuntingdirectory....6i-VRhdzpKRLsDpFkboQw4GRB-9nO1nscF3bTRcO0KxaM.

*In this guest editorial Ivan Massow MFH describes the birth pains of a new Club supporting Trail laying.*
There will be few hunting enthusiasts who didn’t wake up in a cold sweat, the morning news broke of the MFHAs terrible “smokescreen” gaffe during their now infamous Zoom conference. It was not what was said in the video conference but the way it was said, any impartial observer was left with the impression that there was something to hide. Less inflammatory phrases such as ‘best endeavours’ or ‘all reasonable efforts’ could and should have been used – but weren’t, the phrase used was ‘smoke screen’ a phrase that immediately suggests that something is being concealed.
Masters and field followers alike, who have been hunting within the law, laying trails for the last 15 years, could hardly believe their ears.  For many of us involved in putting on a day’s trail-hunting in country nestled between trendy, increasingly urban cities, and the countless suburban districts that pepper-pot our dog-walker dominated landscape, it’s not like we’ve ever had the option to break the law. In order to keep our traditions alive and prevent our community of farmers, equine enthusiasts and country folk, from being overrun by urbanites who have been told by various pressure group that they have the inalienable right to use someone’s else land as their own. Trail hunting has never been a “smokescreen”, it’s been a real part of everyday life and what’s more, an increasing number of people have grown to love it.
And what’s not to love? Stunning winter days spent with friends, in wonderful countryside, watching skilled hounds pursue an even more skilfully laid scent.
Sadly, all of this is threatened by the failure of a handful of people to take responsibility as they allow the situation to limp on in the hope that COVID paralysis will divert attention and save the day. It is no longer enough to hope that things will simply blow over during lockdown, measures must be taken to demonstrate to a largely alienated critical audience that there we have nothing to hide. Hunting today is not the blatant pursuance of foxes in breach of the law, it is a maintaining of tradition and the hunting community within the law. The exemptions within the Act are not ‘loopholes’ but are essential on the grounds of utility and welfare.
Of course, this isn’t just about the Hunting Office’s perceived failure to take swift decisive mitigating action, which in any other environment would begin with the obvious; suspending the individuals who, let’s face it, messed-up royally. Or, likewise, taking a robust line with hunts who serially do the same; their antics filling the papers and the 10 o’clock news. It’s that, long before “smokescreen-gate” (cries of ‘smokescreen’ now the mantra of every balaclava-wearing student), the MFHA failed to mention, until very recently let alone celebrate, Trail Hunting anywhere on their website despite having 15 years to do so.
For those who take on a Mastership, they quickly discover that it’s almost a full-time job, or should be if they’re doing it right. Most have built their people and organisational skills running businesses, handling publicity and using it to turn disasters into triumph. Our Chairman is one such individual and in the face of the emerging PR disaster, he was swift to put together a team that could create a positive response to the crisis.
It took a small team less than 24 hours to conceptualise and build trail layers club (www.trail-layers.org). The brief was simple; to create an open, upbeat celebration of our beloved pastime supported by a Facebook page where people can upload trail videos and images. To be clear, this is not and never was a political move or a bid to create a rival organisation. The trail layers club is just there to celebrate what we do and help those beleaguered lobbyists in our magnificent organisations like the Countryside Alliance, explain to, growingly impatient, Members of Parliament, why they shouldn’t simply make hunting with hounds, even trail hunting, totally illegal once and for all.
Unfortunately, the road to politics is paved with good intentions and unintentionally the trail layers club landed in the thick of it.   For reasons still unknown the principal players,  moved to frustrate and silence all other voices and offers of help.  A reasonable observer would be forgiven for believing that the trail layers club, rather than the perpetrators of this mess, were the problem!
The day the site went live, calls were received from no fewer than three of the most senior MFHA officers. These calls culminating in a request that the entire site was taken down pending a committee investigation and subsequent decision some two weeks later.
After four weeks with no further communication, whilst being continuously bombarded with letters of encouragement and offers of donations from people eager to support a fresh approach celebrating our way of life, notification was sent to the hunting office that the site would be reinstated and asking them to sign off on a nothing more than a simple link to their website- a link that envisages and promotes a positive future for hunting with hounds.
Finally, finally, the closest thing to support or even receiving their blessing arrived. A page of text for us to include on the site.  Unfortunately, however, that was the last helpful gesture we received. For example, we wrote to a master featured in the wonderful video on the Countryside Alliance website to ask his permission to showcase this video on our new website trail-layers.org. How could he possibly object?
It is impossible not to acknowledge the irony of having to ask his permission to use a video promoting trail laying on a website specifically designed to create positive messaging about Trail hunting. The individual’s own hunt has become a regular fixture on the ITV News for both allegations of animal cruelty and illegal foxhunting over the last two seasons (along with the one he mentors). Depressingly, but not surprisingly, the answer, copied into the Hunting Office, of course, came back as ‘NO!’.
At the present time, COVID has put hunting largely out of action and allowed things to quieten down, hopefully for long enough for MPs to allow us to put the case for our amazing lifestyle, hunting with hounds has always adapted to fundamental changes, e.g. railways, wire, motorways and  increasing urbanization,  but we need to provide a route map to enable the National Trust, the Forestry Commission and the other Parks and landowners to reconsider their decisions to ban trail hunting from their land. If those that ‘govern’ the direction of hunting refuse to countenance change then it’s hard to see all of this land returning to us, if any. Whatever happens, inactivity on our part is not, and in fact never was, a viable option if we want to run hounds over it in the future. We all need to start making lots of noise about Trail-hunting and what it means to our communities – and surely the Hunting Office at the very least, should be seen to be helping and encouraging those people who are willing to dedicate their time and resources to making this happen.
NB www.trail-layers.org is chaired by Ivan Massow MFH and their Patron is The Countess of Denbigh & Desmond
Image of the Border Beagles courtesy Daryl Owen 2020''
		
Click to expand...


That's what I was talking about!   A professional campaign to distance trail hunting from illegal hunting. 

It's a great start but now it needs to break itself off from any link to the campaign to return to fox hunting,  amalgamate with the drag packs,  and fight for the sport in its own right,  not as a holding phase before repealing the law.


----------



## BeckyFlowers (10 January 2021)

I really hope the Trail Layers organisation grows and that this becomes the hunting norm.  They sound like a very forward-thinking group 👍🏻


----------



## Kipper's Dick (10 January 2021)

One problem is going to be getting pro-foxhunting landowners to admit defeat and allow trail-hunters on their land.  Many are living in hope that the Hunting Act will be repealed in their favour. 

There has to be some sort of inducement for all farmers/landowners.  Trail-hunting simply cannot take place without their support.  The article mentions the joy of days with friends in wonderful countryside watching skilled hounds.  Not sure that's enough for the farmers watching 'their' bit of countryside being trashed.  It was mentioned upthread the damage a group of riders can do to crops, pasture, hedges, etc.   Why on earth should farmers allow this sort of damage to their livelihood?  Many might see it as just some sort of jolly, serving no useful purpose.  Hopefully the Trail-laying Club would still offer a fallen stock service.  I really wish this Club well, but have a feeling it's not going to be that straightforward.


----------



## ester (10 January 2021)

I always thought that re. what is in it for farmers yet many trail only hunts are still welcomed, even when no fallen stock service is available. I guess it would be helpful for them to find out why that is and replicate it.


----------



## Kipper's Dick (10 January 2021)

ester said:



			I always thought that re. what is in it for farmers yet many trail only hunts are still welcomed, even when no fallen stock service is available. I guess it would be helpful for them to find out why that is and replicate it.
		
Click to expand...

In many cases it might simply be a case of goodwill towards the hunt.  Their fathers used to support them, their grandfathers. It might be risky relying on that goodwill going forward.  Plus farming itself has changed in many ways, far more intensive in some areas, with more of an emphasis on arable.  The old incentive (when many farms were stock farms) to keep the fox at bay, has gone.  I see no reason why a fallen stock service should not still be offered, though. This is appreciated by many farmers.


----------



## Miss_Millie (10 January 2021)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-55534567

*"An alpaca breeder has claimed hounds from a nearby hunt have left her animals "traumatised".*
Teri White, from Bingfield Alpacas, said that hounds from the Tynedale Hunt had got on to her land, near Hexham, Northumberland, on three occasions.
She said they chased newly-weaned alpacas into a corner, terrifying them.
The hunt said a few hounds did "drift" on to the land but did not chase or harm any animals, and it apologised unreservedly for any distress caused.
Ms White described the most recent occasion, just before Christmas, as "horrendous".
She said: "Newly-weaned animals were chased into a corner and we had to sit with them until midnight to calm them down.
"We have pregnant females who could still easily abort as a result of the stress of being chased.
"It's just not right, we are literally staying here all day if we know they are hunting just to try and protect them, to keep them off the land."

So land owners have to live in fear of their animals being injured or killed, because hunts don't have a basic level of control over their hounds. So even if the above was completely legal and no foxes were involved, the lives of beloved animals were still being put at risk. Individuals still felt unsafe on their own property.

Dozens of stories like this come out every year. Pet cats killed, livestock attacked, farmer's crops ruined. Isn't hacking with friends enough for people to have a good time on horseback in the countryside?


----------



## Tiddlypom (10 January 2021)

The Trail Layers Club really are going to be up against it if they try and stay within the current regulatory body.

_Finally, finally, the closest thing to support or even receiving their _(The Hunting Office)_ blessing arrived. A page of text for us to include on the _(Trail Layers Club)_ site.  Unfortunately, however, that was the last helpful gesture we received. _

*ABOUT REGULATION*
_*The Hunting Office*
The Trail Layers Club is not a regulatory body. The six Hunting Associations represent all registered packs of hounds and are the Governing Bodies for all hunting with hounds in the UK.  _

_The Hunting Office is the central organisation which runs the administrative, advisory and supervisory functions of those Hunting Associations; it communicates with all hunts, members and external bodies to set and maintain high standards, and promote and protect the interests of hunting across the UK.  Click Here to visit the Hunting Office Website_

It is hardly a glowing endorsement or heartfelt welcome to the embryonic new group . More a ‘Move along please, this is a bunch of amateurs‘ put down.


----------



## Wishfilly (10 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			I don't think that is the case although it may be in some instances.  A great deal of the time, the response to antis/sabs is driven by actual fear or total frustration and outrage that a legal activity is being interrupted by a group of masked vigilantes that would not be tolerated by society in ANY other settting.  That is one reason why the police are often perceived to be on the side of hunters - they are pursuing a legal activity and the police, on the whole, have no time whatsoever for people who conceal their identity and are intent on harm/disruption/causing offence and or intimidation.  It is not really what the UK stands for...
		
Click to expand...

Yeah, when I was a student, I did research for my dissertation in the sort of environment that @ester describes. The research was actually part of a project aimed at improving animal welfare, but that's another story. We were told never to react to any protestors and never to interact with them, and I have to say I never saw anyone do so- including students who were not professionals and in most cases were in their very early 20s. 

I don't care what the provocation was, the person on the film's remarks about Covid were unacceptable, and I assume he means what he says. 

I'm afraid, following the webinars, I am no longer willing to give any trail hunts the benefit of the doubt on anything. The assumption they are definitely pursuing a legal activity is gone, in my opinion.


----------



## Wishfilly (10 January 2021)

stormox said:



			A lot of the time the 'sabs' don't have permission to be on the private land, whereas the hunt (as far as I know) has got permission from the landowner.
Hunts that are obeying the law and trail hunting have every right to be angry with the sabs.
The sabs do not discriminate between legal and illegal hunts.
		
Click to expand...

Actually, I would say in my local area, there is a specific focus from sabs/monitors on a couple of hunts that are rumoured to still hunt fox, and they leave another couple of hunts who everyone seems to think follow the law alone. 

I say rumoured, because it has never been proven in a court of law, but I have seen photos taken by sabs of one hunt that looked an awful lot like they were hunting fox (i.e. a fox was being chased by hounds).

I would suggest the anger of the hunts is better directed at those hunts who bring hunting into disrepute by breaking the law.


----------



## palo1 (10 January 2021)

ester said:



			I always thought that re. what is in it for farmers yet many trail only hunts are still welcomed, even when no fallen stock service is available. I guess it would be helpful for them to find out why that is and replicate it.
		
Click to expand...

Where we are, landowners are friendly and welcoming because for them, hunting is a part of their culture as a whole.  In remote areas farmers are delighted to see visitors who are often old friends.  Ours is a pretty traditional hunt though in that sense; most of the local farms have had the same family for years  Quite a lot of people also express the view that they welcome the hunt in preference to other groups of people that they find more difficult and don't really relate to; walkers with dogs, mountain bikers etc who they fear have little understanding of the countryside or where the real footpath is etc etc.  

My experience suggests that some farmers prefer the hunt to unknown dog walkers, countryside visitors and those that are likely to cause trouble with sheep/cattle/rights of way.  I do think that in some cases there is a sense, here at least, where the divisions in society generally are kind of on a plate and some people would rather take their 'side' with the hunting community that represents tradition, conservatism (non-political) and familiarity than the community that is on 'the other side' (whatever that is).  Farmers certainly fear and distrust 'animal rights people'; often for no other reason than they see them as disruptive trouble makers that don't understand animal husbandry.  The militant vegan is probably the most terrifying urban legend for farming folk...!!  At least with the hunt, they know what is likely to happen and when (yes, we do clear our country properly and ensure that landowners both know we are in the area and have given permission for trail laying).  I do know too that if farmers think that sabs might pitch up, they are determined to have the hunt and not be intimidated.  That is a response that anti-hunt protestors have created and even more than anything a hunt may do, those farmers will not tolerate the sense of entitlement to trespass that comes with the sabs.

Of course, not all our farmers welcome the hunt - most often because of ancient family or neigbhour disputes though sometimes they will have fallen out with a member of the hunting community and then the whole lot of us are unwelcome.  You cannot always avoid that kind of thing.

I know too, that as soon as I assert this, several people will leap up to prove that I am utterly wrong, ignorant, naive, clueless etc but really I have NEVER seen a local hunt damaging ground in the way that the anti-hunt lobby maintain they do.  Literally never.  I have seen the odd visitor make a complete balls up of a fence and not tell us (we soon get it in the ear though and pitch up to make repairs).  I have seen visitors/newcomers being continually reminded to WALK  on the headland too.  Perhaps in the most fashionable, smart/well subscribed hunts there are lots of people who behave badly but our neighbours are quite 'smart' and they certainly DON'T tolerate damage to their friends' and neighbours' property.  What DOES happen is that the landowner will give permission for the hunt to visit and their tenant may not be so pleased but that isn't something that is the hunt's responsibility to untangle. 

I guess, in short, farmers see and feel comfortable with the 'cultural' value of hunting - similar I guess to the way that urbanites are happy enough with various kinds of social disturbance as it is part of living in an urban environment.  It may not be perfect but it is understood and assimilated into a way of life that suits.  

I expect huge contradictions to what I have posted here; it is clearly not all idyllic at all and of course things go wrong but at the same time, in spite of the headlines, there are many, many hunts that are thriving, that are not on the wrong end of the news, that don't attract the attention of extremists and that continue to have country to hunt in spite of increasing urbanisation and lack of empathy and experience of traditional rural cultures.  Young people and children regularly join hunts - it still seems entirely valid to them and the number of people wanting to try trail hunting has increased post-ban.  Many, many top equestrian competitors, including Carl Hester support trail hunting - presumably because they recognise it's place and value in different ways to our culture.  Not everyone wants to see society 'move on', 'develop', become more global, more IT centred etc and there are also many people who are and do all that and actually want to take time to step away from it; hunting is an anti-dote to some modern problems! We are not all the same and as people don't see 'what is in it' for the farmers, so that suggests that farming folk/landowners have literally no other consideration for their lifestyle than the profit and loss aspect of it. I think that is pretty ignorant and unimaginative to be honest.  Do most of us only do things that 'have something in it' for ourselves?  Really?


----------



## Kipper's Dick (10 January 2021)

I take it that the 'ignorant and unimaginative' might be directed at me, Palo1?  I'm from a farming family and know many farmers. My family still farm.  They have a profit to make and many I know do not share your golden view of trail hunts and their followers.  In fact many of them are royally p*ssed off with the cavalier way that some riders treat crops and pasture land and have taken to banning them completely.  Venture on to the Farmers Forum and you'll not find many who seem to have any patience with hunts/trail hunts of any description.  Going onto land where they have not been invited, hounds harassing stock, damage to fencing, trashing crops, are just a few of their complaints. I would also suggest that insulting people who don't totally see your rosy view of things is hardly the best, or polite, way forward.


----------



## GoldenWillow (10 January 2021)

ester said:



			I always thought that re. what is in it for farmers yet many trail only hunts are still welcomed, even when no fallen stock service is available. I guess it would be helpful for them to find out why that is and replicate it.
		
Click to expand...

In my immediate area the hunt was allowed purely as goodwill towards the hunt as they had hunted there for an extremely long time and there was a much loved and respected local ex farmer involved with the hunt. They do not provide a fallen stock service covering our area. After he sadly passed away the hunt was still allowed access by land owner but after numerous incidents of them hunting on land they were specifically asked to avoid and members of the hunt being incredibly rude to both LO's partner and farm manager they are no longer allowed access.


----------



## Sandstone1 (10 January 2021)

It always amuses me when Im told I dont understand hunting as its a countryside tradition etc etc, Problem is I was born and bred in the countryside.  I do understand it and still dont agree with it, whats more it is against the law.


----------



## palo1 (10 January 2021)

Kipper's Dick said:



			I take it that the 'ignorant and unimaginative' might be directed at me, Palo1?  I'm from a farming family and know many farmers. My family still farm.  They have a profit to make and many I know do not share your golden view of trail hunts and their followers.  In fact many of them are royally p*ssed off with the cavalier way that some riders treat crops and pasture land and have taken to banning them completely.  Venture on to the Farmers Forum and you'll not find many who seem to have any patience with hunts/trail hunts of any description.  Going onto land where they have not been invited, hounds harassing stock, damage to fencing, trashing crops, are just a few of their complaints. I would also suggest that insulting people who don't totally see your rosy view of things is hardly the best, or polite, way forward.
		
Click to expand...

Kipper's Dick, I certainly wasn't aiming any of my comments at anyone in particular; I apologise if you felt somehow singled out by what I wrote.  I too am from a farming family and I certainly understand the pressures that farmers feel under.  Not all farmers post on the farmers forum though and there are lots of different views within farming; about hunting and other things.  I do think one of the really big problems with such a social media driven world as we live in is the strength of the echo chamber walls - all of us end up surrounded by palatable views and like minded people.  It is problematic in having a real discussion.  I certainly have no intention to insult anyone directly.


----------



## palo1 (10 January 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			It always amuses me when Im told I dont understand hunting as its a countryside tradition etc etc, Problem is I was born and bred in the countryside.  I do understand it and still dont agree with it, whats more it is against the law.
		
Click to expand...

Trail hunting is legal Sandstone.


----------



## Tiddlypom (10 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			I know too, that as soon as I assert this, several people will leap up to prove that I am utterly wrong, ignorant, naive, clueless etc but really I have NEVER seen a local hunt damaging ground in the way that the anti-hunt lobby maintain they do.
		
Click to expand...

All I can say is that I have seen and heard of this hereabouts many times, and directly from the farmers and landowners. Remember my equine vet hiding in a barn hiding from clients while her farmer husband ranted at the hunt for trespassing? The milking and non milking cows mixed up and injured after the same hunt trespassed across another local farm and brought down all the fencling?

Just because your pack behaves well does not mean that there are those (all too many) who do not.


----------



## Sandstone1 (10 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			Trail hunting is legal Sandstone.
		
Click to expand...

It is, but most hunts do not trail hunt do they?


----------



## ester (10 January 2021)

One thing I've noticed since here is that the cambridge drag definitely have a much wider area over which they hold meets than has been usual for non-drags IME. Not sure if that is the same for other drags. Though arguably with the number of hunt mergers other countries are going to quickly increase in geographical spread too.


----------



## Michen (10 January 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			All I can say is that I have seen and heard of this hereabouts many times, and directly from the farmers and landowners. Remember my equine vet hiding in a barn hiding from clients while her farmer husband ranted at the hunt for trespassing? The milking and non milking cows mixed up and injured after the same hunt trespassed across another local farm and brought down all the fencling?

Just because your pack behaves well does not mean that there are those (all too many) who do not.
		
Click to expand...

I really don’t believe that this is the norm. How is it that this doesn't seem to be the case in packs local to me? I remember once my stirrup flying off the bar at a flat out gallop, in order to emergency pull my horse up I did a big turn and one of his hooves went on the drilled field. Boy did I (rightly so) get a bollocking and I was mortified!

Every single hunt I’ve ever hunted with, trail or drag (and in total that’s 8 different packs) have been nothing but hugely respectful and grateful to landowners.

Is it just fluke that I have decent packs where I am!?


----------



## Tiddlypom (10 January 2021)

Michen, I don’t know why some packs are like this. It was a shock to me too after moving up from the West Country. In my day, we did as we were told, or we got sent home.

Maybe here it is because much of the land here belongs to big sporting estates who require their tenant farmers to allow the hunt access, like it or not. It is fair to say that some masters do not accord the tenants the respect they deserve. Even now, I hear of such a such joint master who the farmers don’t like, so the hunt have to wheel out another more genial acting master for certain days.

I did smile after the hunt had somehow upset my farmer neighbour. For years he would allow the hunt onto his land as he was bidden, but from first thing he’d be out there, muck spreading right across the fields they would hunt over.


----------



## palo1 (11 January 2021)

Michen said:



			I really don’t believe that this is the norm. How is it that this doesn't seem to be the case in packs local to me? I remember once my stirrup flying off the bar at a flat out gallop, in order to emergency pull my horse up I did a big turn and one of his hooves went on the drilled field. Boy did I (rightly so) get a bollocking and I was mortified!

Every single hunt I’ve ever hunted with, trail or drag (and in total that’s 8 different packs) have been nothing but hugely respectful and grateful to landowners.

Is it just fluke that I have decent packs where I am!?
		
Click to expand...

No, I don't think it is a fluke. All of the packs that I know too are like this.  We always have instruction about exactly where we can and can't go; this is often in relation to specific fields and we usually have information about WHY certain places (LH side of this field/not the field bounded by the stone wall etc) are not cleared. A lot of our country is open hill too and the graziers provide both permission and information about cleared land and where the neighbours are likely to be concerned about the hunt moving.  Last season, for example, we were asked to stay away from the hill boundary near one farm as the owner of that farm did not welcome the hunt and we were aware of the need not to cause any upset. A couple of hounds went quite close to this landowner's boundary and even though we were definately not on the property hounds were picked up quick smart with no rating but quietly and with no fuss. That is how hunts must and do operate as a norm.  I am in pretty close contact with neighbouring packs via friends there and this is how it is across English and Welsh packs, Vale and Hill.

The fact that landlords are uncaring about their tenants wishes wrt to hunting is absolutely not the problem of hunting!!


----------



## ycbm (11 January 2021)

The fact that landlords are uncaring about their tenants wishes wrt to hunting is absolutely not the problem of hunting!!
		
Click to expand...

Of course it is.  You wouldn't,  I hope,   go and have a family barbecue in your neighbour's garden if you knew they didn't want you to but their landlord told you it was ok?

Hunts knowingly take numerous horses over land where they know they aren't wanted,  causing work to safeguard stock,  repair hedges and fences, and restore tracks and land.  I don't see how that's not a problem of the hunt,  because it's a problem for the farmer directly caused by the hunt.
.


----------



## Tiddlypom (11 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			The fact that landlords are uncaring about their tenants wishes wrt to hunting is absolutely not the problem of hunting!!
		
Click to expand...

Palo, it is not just that. The hunt knew that the tenants could not refuse them access to the land, so some joint masters did not bother to liaise with them re their plans for a hunting day. The tenants were expected to lump it.

A hunting friend who used to give out meet cards got so fed up of being kept out of the loop when farmers tried to pass on requests to avoid such and such a piece of land that she packed it in.

This pack is all round much better now, but up until recently it reckoned that it was number one priority rural traffic, all else to give way.

Anyhow, that is only my local experience. As a former hunting person, I was genuinely shocked at the hunt’s attitude.


----------



## Gucc (11 January 2021)

I have two horses living out 24/7 and the hunt do not have the common decency to let me know when  they are in the area despite them having my contact details and the contact details of other local horse owners.  this causes much distress to others horses as they go past and also injuries from my horses getting so wound up and panicked.   Is this acceptable?  Work with the local horse owners and also the landowners as the hunt alienate themselves otherwise.  I did ring the hunt to complain and all that was said was oh... sorry about that!


----------



## palo1 (11 January 2021)

ycbm said:



			Of course it is.  You wouldn't,  I hope,   go and have a family barbecue in your neighbour's garden if you knew they didn't want you to but their landlord told you it was ok?

Hunts knowingly take numerous horses over land where they know they aren't wanted,  causing work to safeguard stock,  repair hedges and fences, and restore tracks and land.  I don't see how that's not a problem of the hunt,  because its a problem for the farmer directly caused by the hunt.
.
		
Click to expand...

]

I get your point ycbm and you are right that you would not hold a bbq in your neighbour's garden even if the landlord said it was ok but that is actually different and you are deliberately (and often rather good at) ignoring the nuance here.  Agricultural tenants know that they may differ in their opinion to their landlords over things like hunting, shooting and other access as well as particular farming practices.   They are, through their agents or in direct negotiation, in a position to discuss and re-negotiate those things.  If you had tenants on your land and you determined that they could not mow a field before the end of July due to ground nesting birds under a monitoring scheme with an outside agency that is your right as the landowner to dictate. Your tenant may be mightily cheesed off but it would not be the fault of the third party.  I get that this is not a direct comparison and that you will pick holes in what I am saying, lol but I am just dashing out of the door!! The landowner does have the final say over land use and agricultural terms and conditions are entirely different and have slightly different legal conventions to that of domestic/home tenancies.  I think you know that and that you are being disingenuous...


----------



## ycbm (11 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			I get your point ycbm and you are right that you would not hold a bbq in your neighbour's garden even if the landlord said it was ok but that is actually different and you are deliberately (and often rather good at) ignoring the nuance here.  Agricultural tenants know that they may differ in their opinion to their landlords over things like hunting, shooting and other access as well as particular farming practices.   They are, through their agents or in direct negotiation, in a position to discuss and re-negotiate those things.  If you had tenants on your land and you determined that they could not mow a field before the end of July due to ground nesting birds under a monitoring scheme with an outside agency that is your right as the landowner to dictate. Your tenant may be mightily cheesed off but it would not be the fault of the third party.  I get that this is not a direct comparison and that you will pick holes in what I am saying, lol but I am just dashing out of the door!! The landowner does have the final say over land use and agricultural terms and conditions are entirely different and have slightly different legal conventions to that of domestic/home tenancies.  I think you know that and that you are being disingenuous...
		
Click to expand...

I get your point that the land is rented with the condition that it is hunted.

But I'm being disingenuous? No, but I'm not going to pick holes in your argument that contractual land management practices equate to damage and inconvenience caused by a group of people  on horseback enjoying themselves.

It is hunting's problem,  because it further adds to the image of hunting as arrogant and entitled that hunts are prepared to ride for the pleasure of the followers over land where they know they are not welcome,  whether they are contractually entitled to or not.


----------



## neddy man (11 January 2021)

In the old days when I hunted 2x weekly the forbidden fields had red flags placed in them if you jumped into one of them you were asked/told to leave the meet and not comeback until you knew and understood hunting etiquette.


----------



## Tiddlypom (11 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			Agricultural tenants know that they may differ in their opinion to their landlords over things like hunting, shooting and other access as well as particular farming practices
		
Click to expand...

You are missing the point. The farmer tenants are not  anti hunting,  but they need to be treated with the same courtesy as landowners. These are not incomers, but long standing tenants often stretching back generations.

Having 50 to 100 horses rock up to cross your land when you are not expecting them, or would prefer them to keep off certain areas, is not acceptable.

Certain joint masters saw the country as their plaything, to cross as they saw fit and to provide amusement for the mounted field.


----------



## Kipper's Dick (11 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			Kipper's Dick, I certainly wasn't aiming any of my comments at anyone in particular; I apologise if you felt somehow singled out by what I wrote.  I too am from a farming family and I certainly understand the pressures that farmers feel under.  Not all farmers post on the farmers forum though and there are lots of different views within farming; about hunting and other things.  I do think one of the really big problems with such a social media driven world as we live in is the strength of the echo chamber walls - all of us end up surrounded by palatable views and like minded people.  It is problematic in having a real discussion.  I certainly have no intention to insult anyone directly.
		
Click to expand...

I appreciate your apology, Palo1, which is why I 'liked' your post.  But I still feel care should be taken when using words such as 'unimaginative' and 'ignorant'.  It might be best not to insult people indirectly, either!  

Some hunts do a great job of keeping their farmers and landowners happy: requesting permission beforehand, strict field-mastering, making good damage to fences, recompense for crop damage, regular Farmers Suppers, bottle of whisky at Christmas, etc.   Others behave like entitled brats.  It is no surprise which is more popular.  It can all change with a change of mastership, too.  A hunt's reputation can soon go downhill.

I would actually like to see trail-hunting continue.  I've made that clear in previous posts.  But I really struggle in my support when I read of pets being killed, and horses and livestock being harassed and injured.  I sometimes wonder if some hunts deserve the privileges they receive.


----------



## palo1 (11 January 2021)

ycbm said:



			I get your point that the land is rented with the condition that it is hunted.

But I'm being disingenuous? No, but I'm not going to pick holes in your argument that contractual land management practices equate to damage and inconvenience caused by a group of people  on horseback enjoying themselves.

It is hunting's problem,  because it further adds to the image of hunting as arrogant and entitled that hunts are prepared to ride for the pleasure of the followers over land where they know they are not welcome,  whether they are contractually entitled to or not.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, I am genuinely a bit lost with this - I have nowhere argued that contractual land management practices equate to damage and inconvenience caused by a group of people on horseback enjoying themselves!!

Land management practices can be viewed in so many different ways and I am sure you know that.  There are plenty of landlords, for example that see rewilding as a shocking and destructive act of land 'management' too.  There are many farmers that feel the best use of their land is through intensive production, control and dredging of rivers, extensive fertiliser and pesticide use (in order to make their farm pay for itself) which other people may see as 'damage'.  The same goes for the extensive grazing of sheep for example where some folk would argue that this causes an ecological desert where others would assert that the landscape has been created by sheep grazing and that the same thing prevents dominant species such as bracken from overtaking the uplands.  Some landowners view trailhunting as a significant continuation of cultural practice that has meaning and value to them and they do not find that there is 'damage' or inconvenience caused by that activity.  What people choose to do with their land is bound by the law, not by public opinion.


----------



## palo1 (11 January 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			You are missing the point. The farmer tenants are not  anti hunting,  but they need to be treated with the same courtesy as landowners. These are not incomers, but long standing tenants often stretching back generations.

Having 50 to 100 horses rock up to cross your land when you are not expecting them, or would prefer them to keep off certain areas, is not acceptable.

Certain joint masters saw the country as their plaything, to cross as they saw fit and to provide amusement for the mounted field.
		
Click to expand...

I do agree that tenants should be accorded respect in the matter of hunting BUT tenants may come and go, the landowner is the person with the final say.  When you say 50-100 horses rocking up to cross your land when you are not expecting them...this is an entirely unfamiliar scenario for me but you have repeated this so many times that you must have experienced or witnessed such a thing.


----------



## palo1 (11 January 2021)

Kipper's Dick said:



			I appreciate your apology, Palo1, which is why I 'liked' your post.  But I still feel care should be taken when using words such as 'unimaginative' and 'ignorant'.  It might be best not to insult people indirectly, either!

Some hunts do a great job of keeping their farmers and landowners happy: requesting permission beforehand, strict field-mastering, making good damage to fences, recompense for crop damage, regular Farmers Suppers, bottle of whisky at Christmas, etc.   Others behave like entitled brats.  It is no surprise which is more popular.  It can all change with a change of mastership, too.  A hunt's reputation can soon go downhill.

I would actually like to see trail-hunting continue.  I've made that clear in previous posts.  But I really struggle in my support when I read of pets being killed, and horses and livestock being harassed and injured.  I sometimes wonder if some hunts deserve the privileges they receive.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to offend anyone directly or indirectly and I am usually at pains to be tactful so I am sorry if I wasn't on this occasion.  I think traditional hunting people would always assert that rioting hounds, disrespectful riders and hunt committees are intolerable.  I have seen the rise and fall of masters and the reputation of hunts over the years - you are right in how easy it is for good relationships to be ruined.   Sadly, I do think that some of the reports that bring hunts into disrepute are made a very great deal of; I have seen with my own eyes this thing; we pass a field of horses - they literally trot round for the time we are passing their field (even though I myself have informed this neighbour that we will be about and no issues or concerns raised by that person; we have other potential routes past this horse owner so could have diverted had we been requested to) and later on that day the local social media is full of reports of 'traumatised' horses and fences broken by their distress; fences which have been broken for several months...I am not saying that all of these incidents are of that ilk but I do know what I have experienced myself.  Those people who dislike hunting, for whatever reason are often vindicated in almost anything they say. I guess that is because it is a good story for the media to pick up?


----------



## ycbm (11 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			Sorry, I am genuinely a bit lost with this - I have nowhere argued that contractual land management practices equate to damage and inconvenience caused by a group of people on horseback enjoying themselves!!
		
Click to expand...

You said you expected me to pick holes,  so I avoided doing that.  

But you compared this situation




			If you had tenants on your land and you determined that they could not mow a field before the end of July due to ground nesting birds under a monitoring scheme with an outside agency that is your right as the landowner to dictate. Your tenant may be mightily cheesed off but it would not be the fault of the third party.
		
Click to expand...

with a large group of riders going out purely to  enjoy themselves, inevitably causing disruption and usually some damage even if minor. 

In the first case,  the third party has an objective which I would suggest is considerably more worthy of upsetting a tenant farmer than a group of riders having fun,  and the third party does not enter the property en masse.

I think if hunt people could get themselves out of the mindset that they are  preserving hunting until legal fox hunting returns,  and understand that it will never return,  then they will see that what they are doing is no more and no less than an entertainment.

In that context,  a lot of things about the way hunts behave become questionable.  
.


----------



## Tiddlypom (11 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			I do agree that tenants should be accorded respect in the matter of hunting BUT tenants may come and go, the landowner is the person with the final say.  When you say 50-100 horses rocking up to cross your land when you are not expecting them...this is an entirely unfamiliar scenario for me but you have repeated this so many times that you must have experienced or witnessed such a thing.
		
Click to expand...

We are actually  agreeing here a lot . Of course the tenant farmers know that the hunt has right of access to their land, it is written down as part of the tenancy agreement. 

This is not about anti hunting tenant farmers, it is about farmers who are working the land and need to know when to expect the hunt for stock management purposes, and to able to request that certain areas are avoided for genuine farming reasons. A person handing out meet cards was asked by a farmer of the hunt’s intentions on one day, and they asked the relevant joint master about this to pass back to the farmer. They were told ‘Don’t engage with him, he’s been given a meet card, that’s enough’ ie the joint master cba to work with the farmer.

Yes, I have repeated it frequently because it is what has happened  here. I know of some of the ill feeling that has been caused by inadequate mastership from in hunt sources. 

This would never have happened back in my hunting days, but how much of that is down to the different ethos of small West Country packs to posher larger packs up here, I do not know.


----------



## palo1 (11 January 2021)

ycbm said:



			You said you expected me to pick holes,  so I avoided doing that.

But you compared this situation



with a large group of riders going out purely to  enjoy themselves, inevitably causing disruption and usually some damage even if minor.

In the first case,  the third party has an objective which I would suggest is considerably more worthy of upsetting a tenant farmer than a group of riders having fun,  and the third party does not enter the property en masse.

I think if hunt people could get themselves out of the mindset that they are  preserving hunting until legal fox hunting returns,  and understand that it will never return,  then they will see that what they are doing is no more and no less than an entertainment.

In that context,  a lot of things about the way hunts behave become questionable.
.
		
Click to expand...


I understand why you might feel this to be the case but that denies acknowledgement that some people do view hunting and trail hunting as culturally valuable, worth hanging on to for reasons other than might relate to foxes and that maintaining a link with historic hunting cultures, traditions and communities does have real meaning and value.  I am not suggesting that everyone has to see that but even UNESCO has identified that the intangible cultural heritage of hunting (in Europe) is something which may need legal protection.  UNESCO already works to protect the cultural heritage of hunting in other places where it is considered that is severely endangered.  This also ackowledges the potential conflict with other very worthwhile and meaningful goals.   Just because you don't value those things on the basis that they are linked to activities you don't approve of or appreciate does not mean they are definitively valueless.  Within the cultural heritage context it is impossible to see that the continuation of rituals, engagement with the land, directly related crafts, dress codes, music, song, art, literature as pure 'entertainment' as they are the cultural capital that creates a rich and diverse culture and society. 

Safeguarding the sub-culture of Punk, Rave or other things is probably anathema to many people but you would be very hard pressed to find any cultural organisation prepared to destroy it wilfully.  Those too are/were 'entertainment' on one level but manifestations of culture at a much deeper and more important level as well.


----------



## Miss_Millie (11 January 2021)

Palo, you fail to address the beloved pets killed and livestock attacked by hunting hounds. You fail to mention the trespass and damage caused to land, which as Kipper has said, many farmers on forums express their disgust and anger at.

It seems that to many who hunt, any 'accidents', such as cats killed, are just unfortunate collateral damage. I can't think of a single other outdoor activity that repeatedly results in trespass, damaged fencing, and animal attacks. People feeling unsafe on their own properties and worrying for the lives of their animals.

I still remember, in horror, the many cats who lost their lives when the Celia Hammond sanctuary was invaded by a pack of hounds in 2018. After SO many incidents like this, year after year, no-one can convince me that the behaviour of hunters is anything other than irresponsible and self-serving.


----------



## ycbm (11 January 2021)

Dupe


----------



## ycbm (11 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			I understand why you might feel this to be the case but that denies acknowledgement that some people do view hunting and trail hunting as culturally valuable, worth hanging on to for reasons other than might relate to foxes and that maintaining a link with historic hunting cultures, traditions and communities does have real meaning and value.  I am not suggesting that everyone has to see that but even UNESCO has identified that the intangible cultural heritage of hunting (in Europe) is something which may need legal protection.  UNESCO already works to protect the cultural heritage of hunting in other places where it is considered that is severely endangered.  This also ackowledges the potential conflict with other very worthwhile and meaningful goals.   Just because you don't value those things on the basis that they are linked to activities you don't approve of or appreciate does not mean they are definitively valueless.  Within the cultural heritage context it is impossible to see that the continuation of rituals, engagement with the land, directly related crafts, dress codes, music, song, art, literature as pure 'entertainment' as they are the cultural capital that creates a rich and diverse culture and society.

Safeguarding the sub-culture of Punk, Rave or other things is probably anathema to many people but you would be very hard pressed to find any cultural organisation prepared to destroy it wilfully.  Those too are/were 'entertainment' on one level but manifestations of culture at a much deeper and more important level as well.
		
Click to expand...

Preserving the cultural heritage does not require riding where you are not welcome.

Quite the reverse,  I would think it's more likely that hunts riding en masse where they are not welcome will probably hasten the demise of all forms of following hounds on horseback, as all hunts become tarred with the same brush.
.


----------



## Tiddlypom (11 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			I understand why you might feel this to be the case but that denies acknowledgement that some people do view hunting and trail hunting as culturally valuable, worth hanging on to for reasons other than might relate to foxes and that maintaining a link with historic hunting cultures, traditions and communities does have real meaning and value.
		
Click to expand...

Yup.

So to be allowed to continue hunts need to obey the freeking law, stop hunting foxes, and stop trespassing onto land which they do not have permission to be on.

Oh, and stop killing cats, alpacas, chasing calves...


----------



## palo1 (11 January 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			Yup.

So to be allowed to continue hunts need to obey the freeking law, stop hunting foxes, and stop trespassing onto land which they do not have permission to be on.

Oh, and stop killing cats, alpacas, chasing calves...
		
Click to expand...

Well I agree that hunts, nor anyone else should be where they don't have permission to be.  I have to add, to your frustration I am sure, that some of the incidents that bring hunts into disrepute (not all but some at least) are caused and then exacerbated by the actions of sabs who are only too delighted to see trouble caused.  This has caused death, injury, trespass and mayhem - all of which the most 'influential' sab groups delight in. They view this as collateral damage in their desire to see hunting banished at all and any cost.  Sabs make a very great deal of incidents of great upset in which they have had a large hand...


----------



## palo1 (11 January 2021)

And the sabs are increasing their 'range' ...latest updates from the HSA include angling in their pursuits:-

''The number of sab groups including angling in their activities is increasing. On the whole anglers are less likely to get pleasure out of the suffering they cause than hunters and enjoy instead the mindlessness of outwitting a fish into impaling itself on a hook, they don’t tend to be inherently violent. This is a bonus if you are a small group, as you can sab more anglers than you might want to confront if they were all blood crazed terrier boys. The other thing about sabbing angling, is that it can form a satisfying end to a day, after dealing with a hound pack.'' (https://www.huntsabs.org.uk/sabbing-angling/). I suppose at least they are getting a day out in the countryside!


----------



## BeckyFlowers (11 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			And the sabs are increasing their 'range' ...latest updates from the HSA include angling in their pursuits:-

''The number of sab groups including angling in their activities is increasing. On the whole anglers are less likely to get pleasure out of the suffering they cause than hunters and enjoy instead the mindlessness of outwitting a fish into impaling itself on a hook, they don’t tend to be inherently violent. This is a bonus if you are a small group, as you can sab more anglers than you might want to confront if they were all blood crazed terrier boys. The other thing about sabbing angling, is that it can form a satisfying end to a day, after dealing with a hound pack.'' (https://www.huntsabs.org.uk/sabbing-angling/). I suppose at least they are getting a day out in the countryside!
		
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what this brings to the discussion re this thread - from what I can gather most people on here are of the opinion that the sabs behave badly just as the hunts who are acting illegally and/or disrespectfully do.


----------



## Nasicus (11 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			And the sabs are increasing their 'range' ...latest updates from the HSA include angling in their pursuits:-

''The number of sab groups including angling in their activities is increasing. On the whole anglers are less likely to get pleasure out of the suffering they cause than hunters and enjoy instead the mindlessness of outwitting a fish into impaling itself on a hook, they don’t tend to be inherently violent. This is a bonus if you are a small group, as you can sab more anglers than you might want to confront if they were all blood crazed terrier boys. The other thing about sabbing angling, is that it can form a satisfying end to a day, after dealing with a hound pack.'' (https://www.huntsabs.org.uk/sabbing-angling/). I suppose at least they are getting a day out in the countryside!
		
Click to expand...

Latest updates? That article came from a magazine in 1992 lol
"Reproduced from HOWL (No 49, Summer 92) – magazine of the Hunt Saboteurs Association "


----------



## palo1 (11 January 2021)

Nasicus said:



			Latest updates? That article came from a magazine in 1992 lol
"Reproduced from HOWL (No 49, Summer 92) – magazine of the Hunt Saboteurs Association "
		
Click to expand...

Doh!! Their bad though as it is the latest info on their website  I do hope someone has warned Jeremy Wade...


----------



## palo1 (11 January 2021)

BeckyFlowers said:



			I'm not sure what this brings to the discussion re this thread - from what I can gather most people on here are of the opinion that the sabs behave badly just as the hunts who are acting illegally and/or disrespectfully do.
		
Click to expand...

Well you are probably right and no, it doesn't particularly add anything to the discussion except that I feel the need to point out that those that present information to the media most often about hunting and 'hunting incidents' are questionable in a number of ways.  If it would help to get back on track it is not difficult to find video footage of sabs spraying hounds with chemicals...  I have no strong feelings about fishing at all btw.

You are probably right about most people feeling sabs act badly but that doesn't seem to stop them from believing what the HSA spouts.


----------



## BeckyFlowers (11 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			Well you are probably right and no, it doesn't particularly add anything to the discussion except that I feel the need to point out that those that present information to the media most often about hunting and 'hunting incidents' are questionable in a number of ways.  If it would help to get back on track it is not difficult to find video footage of sabs spraying hounds with chemicals...  I have no strong feelings about fishing at all btw.

You are probably right about most people feeling sabs act badly but that doesn't seem to stop them from believing what the HSA spouts.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think it matters what people believe or don't believe, or what side of the fence they are re hunting, but when a pack of hunt dogs bust onto someone's property and kill pets or livestock (or foxes!), or chase pets or livestock, the hunter in charge of controlling the dogs has clearly failed.  In my view there is absolutely no defence or excuse for this happening.  The HSA can spout what it likes (I have never actively listened to anything they say) but when the hunter loses control of the dogs there can be no excuse.  I don't see it any differently than someone walking a dog that does the same thing.


----------



## ycbm (11 January 2021)

It was a fair point,  Palo. The sabs will increase their range if hunting all turns demonstrably squeaky clean.  Fishing and shooting are obvious targets,  if you'll pardon the pun.
.


----------



## palo1 (11 January 2021)

ycbm said:



			It was a fair point,  Palo. The sabs will increase their range if hunting all turns demonstrably squeaky clean.  Fishing and shooting are obvious targets,  if you'll pardon the pun.
.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, and then what?  I can see the time that what we now see as 'extremists' will campaign for no domestic animals, no pets and of course that would threaten the thing that here we are most passionate about.  I really don't want to return to a discussion about the killing of foxes as that IS illegal when carried out by hounds but one of the unintended consequences of the hunting act was that the welfare of individual animals became more influential than the welfare of the species and that is not 'big picture/ecosystem' thinking.  I think that is a fearful environmental and human situation to find ourselves in.


----------



## Ditchjumper2 (11 January 2021)

In the absence of hunting the sabs have already targeted shoots in this area. That is why all country sports need to stand together and work as one. The sabs will target shooting then fishing, the extremists wont be happy until anything involving animals is banned.


----------



## Ditchjumper2 (11 January 2021)

I do agree Palo1. Farmers would leave foxes and the hunt would cull the weakest thus leaving a stronger species. Farmers now shoot them all so actually more foxes get killed than the hunt ever did.

Just saying that's all.


----------



## Tiddlypom (11 January 2021)

Ditchjumper2 said:



			I do agree Palo1. Farmers would leave foxes and the hunt would cull the weakest thus leaving a stronger species. Farmers now shoot them all so actually more foxes get killed than the hunt ever did.

Just saying that's all.
		
Click to expand...

There are a lot of us on here who hunted pre ban, and we agree on that. The fox population was better regarded by farmers and healthier when fox hunting was legal.

However, that was then...


----------



## ycbm (11 January 2021)

Ditchjumper2 said:



			In the absence of hunting the sabs have already targeted shoots in this area. That is why all country sports need to stand together and work as one. The sabs will target shooting then fishing, the extremists wont be happy until anything involving animals is banned.
		
Click to expand...


I don't agree I'm afraid.  If trail and drag hunting want to survive,  I think they need to distance themselves swiftly from the killing of any animal.


----------



## Tiddlypom (11 January 2021)

Ditchjumper2 said:



			In the absence of hunting the sabs have already targeted shoots in this area. That is why all country sports need to stand together and work as one. The sabs will target shooting then fishing, the extremists wont be happy until anything involving animals is banned.
		
Click to expand...

I know that this is what the pro field sports peeps keep saying, but sabs round here are leaving my now legit local pack alone, although they keep an eye on them.


----------



## ycbm (11 January 2021)

Ditchjumper2 said:



			I do agree Palo1. Farmers would leave foxes and the hunt would cull the weakest thus leaving a stronger species. Farmers now shoot them all so actually more foxes get killed than the hunt ever did.

Just saying that's all.
		
Click to expand...

Can of worms! 

Is it ok, then,  to leave foxes alive so they can be chased for sport? 

Is there any shortage of foxes,  as a whole?   

Do they need to be made stronger?  The urban ones seem very strong and big to me when they are released here by the RSPCA to be promptly shot by farmers.  
.


----------



## palo1 (11 January 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			I know that this is what the pro field sports peeps keep saying, but sabs round here are leaving my now legit local pack alone, although they keep an eye on them.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, sabs may leave the legit packs alone at the moment (if only, actually...) but they have already started to target shoots and fishing which are entirely legal.


----------



## palo1 (11 January 2021)

ycbm said:



			Can of worms! 

Is it ok, then,  to leave foxes alive so they can be chased for sport?

Is there any shortage of foxes,  as a whole? 

Do they need to be made stronger?  The urban ones seem very strong and big to me when they are released here by the RSPCA to be promptly shot by farmers.
.
		
Click to expand...

I think the key difference here is that hunters (the world over)would say that it is NOT sport but utility in one way or another - sport is, in this sense, a reductive term (from an anthropological point of view and as regarded by cultural legal bodies) and ethically this has been called into question.  There is a generally accepted difficulty with the idea that one lot of people can tell another lot how to classify and manage their 'culture' and very well respected international organisations work hard to push back against this form of globalisation, homogenisation and in some cases colonialisation of cultures. In the UK, fox hunting was carried out by a very small 'team' of people, with the 'sport' element being that of those following the skilled hunters (the team/hunt staff).  Objection to viewing a kill is utterly nonsensical - if that objection had any real traction in this country David Attenborough would have been a non-starter as a national treasure!!  It is entirely clear that anti-fox hunting protestors abhor those people engaged in fox-hunting rather than the practice itself.  However, that practice is now illegal. 

It is interesting to consider other contexts for hunting and the difficulties that it causes cultures not in the UK.  For example: https://www.survivalinternational.org/about/hunting monitors and documents this very thing.  I admit that I support this charity, but certainly not purely for it's stance on hunting.  Survival International certainly views a variety of forms of hunting as culturally valid and worth protecting.  A great deal of research around contemporary attitudes to hunting resonates with those who have deep environmental concerns and a committment to protect traditional cultures.

Foxes, along with every other species within an ecosystem, need to face natural ecological pressures in order for the species to thrive.  Sadly I see a number of mangy urban foxes as well as those so bold as to not move more than 10 yards from an approaching horse.


----------



## Ditchjumper2 (11 January 2021)

ycbm said:



			Can of worms! 

Is it ok, then,  to leave foxes alive so they can be chased for sport?

Is there any shortage of foxes,  as a whole?  

Do they need to be made stronger?  The urban ones seem very strong and big to me when they are released here by the RSPCA to be promptly shot by farmers. 
.
		
Click to expand...

I am more getting at tbe sabs view that they save foxes wheres actually more end up getting killed but by farmers that's all.

I agree that  most hunts are their own worse enemy.


----------



## Tiddlypom (11 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			It is entirely clear that anti-fox hunting protestors abhor those people engaged in fox-hunting rather than the practice itself. However, that practice is now illegal.
		
Click to expand...

I rather think that anti fox hunting protestors detest those who engage in fox hunting AND the practice itself.

Going back to my posts on hunt trespass, on none of those days were any antis out at all, so there is no one else to blame bar the hunt itself for the sat nav failures.


----------



## ycbm (11 January 2021)

Ditchjumper2 said:



			I am more getting at tbe sabs view that they save foxes wheres actually more end up getting killed but by farmers that's all.

I agree that  most hunts are their own worse enemy.
		
Click to expand...


I get it.  There never was any argument that it would save or improve any foxes lives.  It was a blatantly political move to ban it but it's done now and I can't see any government repealing it. It's sad for people who genuinely believe its the right thing for foxes and the country,  but I do hope they reconcile themselves to the permanence of the situation soon.  
.


----------



## palo1 (11 January 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			I rather think that anti fox hunting protestors detest those who engage in fox hunting AND the practice itself.

Going back to my posts on hunt trespass, on none of those days were any antis out at all, so there is no one else to blame bar the hunt itself for the sat nav failures.
		
Click to expand...

And on this occasion the antis were trespassing where there was not a hunt.  Trespass is not the sole preserve of the hunting community by a very, very long way...trespass happens far too regularly in many ways and causes considerable distress.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/n...ts-gang-balaclava-wearing-hunt-saboteurs.html


----------



## Tiddlypom (11 January 2021)

Palo, I have posted repeatedly that I do not condone active disruption of hunts by sabs by horn calls, intimidation, violence etc. My money is on the monitors. The best evidence is from covert cctv, which has caught the infamous Kimblewick Hunt out twice now.

I will stick by my point that some hunts do not much care whether they have permission to cross the land they are on or not. I know that you find that hard to believe.


----------



## palo1 (11 January 2021)

Slightly off topic but I have been wondering, if the HSA really wants to disrupt angling activities, when it will be ok for them to yell 'hunting scum' or other slogans to stop small children putting out a crab line in seaside harbours? Or perhaps they will just stick to intimidating wealthy people fishing on expensive beats whose fish stocks (such as they are)  and waters are maintained for that...  I know @Tiddlypom that you don't condone this behaviour - I certainly haven't meant to suggest that you do.  

Shooting is within the sights of the anti-hunt brigade already and is starting to feel a degree of pressure.  Fishing is bound to follow not long after.  I wonder when people will start to see the Hunting Act as one of the worst pieces of bad news for the countryside and our traditional rural culture and relationship with the land and nature...Thankfully, in spite of very strong opinions, on the whole here the discussion has been safe and civilised.


----------



## palo1 (11 January 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			Palo, I have posted repeatedly that I do not condone active disruption of hunts by sabs by horn calls, intimidation, violence etc. My money is on the monitors. The best evidence is from covert cctv, which has caught the infamous Kimblewick Hunt out twice now.

I will stick by my point that some hunts do not much care whether they have permission to cross the land they are on or not. I know that you find that hard to believe.
		
Click to expand...

Monitors are fine but they will find they have problems with the use of drones.


----------



## shortstuff99 (11 January 2021)

I can see why people that don't agree with fox hunting would also disagree with shooting, can't be that much of a surprise. If I'm completely honest commercial shooting bothers me more then fox hunting.


----------



## palo1 (12 January 2021)

shortstuff99 said:



			I can see why people that don't agree with fox hunting would also disagree with shooting, can't be that much of a surprise. If I'm completely honest commercial shooting bothers me more then fox hunting.
		
Click to expand...

I understand this too and there are plenty of incidents where shooting parties/commercial shoots have been reported to have behaved badly but I sincerely hope that the same pattern of mutual abuse and 'behaviour reporting' such as is the case with trail hunting does not impact on shooting or fishing.  I would hope that lessons learnt would include the need for better strategies; description of 'incidents' and media headlines does not help one bit.


----------



## Fellewell (12 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			I think the vast majority of hunts are certainly aware of the need to be demonstrably following the law but that is not the story that the anti-hunt brigade will want to tell.  The small number of misbehaving hunts are a grim minority and when you have been taunted, baited, harrassed, followed, fillmed, shouted at and on occasions physically assaulted or frightened (for example, by having your horses reins grabbed by an anti) it is inevitable and intended for people to lose their cool.  That is an absolute basic of sab tactics of course.
		
Click to expand...

So agree with this post.
The actions of hunt saboteurs often do more to facilitate a kill than prevent one. You could say this was ironic but if the definition of irony is the direct opposite of what's intended, you would need to know their intentions. Given their behaviour/attitude towards hounds, horses and ponies, I seriously question their true intentions.
The demise of hunting will come about because of a lack of country. This will eventually affect us all so be careful what you wish for.


----------



## Miss_Millie (12 January 2021)

Fellewell said:



			So agree with this post.
The actions of hunt saboteurs often do more to facilitate a kill than prevent one. You could say this was ironic but if the definition of irony is the direct opposite of what's intended, you would need to know their intentions. Given their behaviour/attitude towards hounds, horses and ponies, I seriously question their true intentions.
The demise of hunting will come about because of a lack of country. This will eventually affect us all so be careful what you wish for.
		
Click to expand...

The demise of hunting will not come about because of lack of country, but because the countryside is becoming a more diverse place and the majority of the public do not agree with fox hunting (hence the ban). Hunting continues to get bad press, even if it is legal trail hunting, because of damage and trespass, pets being killed, livestock being attacked, and certain individuals who think they are above the lockdown laws, that the majority of us are obeying, despite the impact on our mental health.

Not to mention, countless hunts are STILL flouting the law and killing foxes. When 'accidents' happen (like the recent killing of the cat, Spider), the general public will only become more angry and frustrated that someone's idea of a fun day out = their beloved pet being savagely murdered by dogs on their own property.


----------



## GoldenWillow (12 January 2021)

Michen said:



			I really don’t believe that this is the norm. How is it that this doesn't seem to be the case in packs local to me? I remember once my stirrup flying off the bar at a flat out gallop, in order to emergency pull my horse up I did a big turn and one of his hooves went on the drilled field. Boy did I (rightly so) get a bollocking and I was mortified!

Every single hunt I’ve ever hunted with, trail or drag (and in total that’s 8 different packs) have been nothing but hugely respectful and grateful to landowners.

Is it just fluke that I have decent packs where I am!?
		
Click to expand...

I can only speak of the two packs local to me, one afaik from close friends isn't too bad but has a few times that they know of gone onto land they should not of. The pack that hunts in my immediate area went on land both that they were specifically asked not to by the land owner who's land they were allowed to hunt on, and on land that they had no permission to be on on numerous occasions. That includes going through my field which is set in a parcel of land approx 30 acres non of which they had permission to be on.


----------



## Tiddlypom (12 January 2021)

I can’t confirm the authencity of these particular exchanges, but I can confirm that these are typical of hunt incursions onto farmers land that I personally know of, such onto my vet‘s farm. Permission was given by my vet‘s husband to access most of his land, but to stay off other areas, for perfectly good farming reasons. So the hunt rode right across the forbidden area...

I do know which pack is referred to in the first exchange, it is not my local pack. I’ve blanked out the name.


----------



## Ceriann (12 January 2021)

I live and keep my horses next to a wildlife trust reserve.  The trust has not permitted the local hunt to use their land for over 10 years yet each year they use the reserve.  They are also known to flout the hunting ban - I have viewed them from my own yard on the reserve clearly not following a trail.  The reserve is a wildlife reserve and is also used by local dog walkers, who get no warning to keep away on the days they stray onto the land.  They also often make a mess of the land they use - reserve or adjoining farmers land.  The most recent hunts (pre COVID) that went on the reserve ignored trust volunteers who turned out to police the restricted access - poor hound management being blamed.

The local view is hardening as a result and I have also been in touch with the trust to ask what steps are being taken to enforce their ban.  It’s clear the hunt has a sense of entitlement and a complete lack of awareness of the dwindling support they have - not a good mix.


----------



## palo1 (12 January 2021)

And yet, we have permission to trail hunt across a nature reserve; that is reserved for the huntsman and hounds only; the field must stay outside the reserve which we do; it is usually a good opportunity for a chat and catch up.  We can watch hounds and follow them via the lane and fields surrounding the actual reserve.  If you want a gentle day, this meet is a good one!  We have had this privelage for a number of years and we are glad of it.  We are also able to ride across land where there is an area of real sensitivity in terms of plant life.  Again, we have had this meet many times, everyone is clearly instructed as to where they can and cannot ride and we have had no problems. Constant reporting of 'issues' on either side really doesn't achieve anything as both points of view can evidence positive and negative stories.


----------



## Ceriann (13 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			And yet, we have permission to trail hunt across a nature reserve; that is reserved for the huntsman and hounds only; the field must stay outside the reserve which we do; it is usually a good opportunity for a chat and catch up.  We can watch hounds and follow them via the lane and fields surrounding the actual reserve.  If you want a gentle day, this meet is a good one!  We have had this privelage for a number of years and we are glad of it.  We are also able to ride across land where there is an area of real sensitivity in terms of plant life.  Again, we have had this meet many times, everyone is clearly instructed as to where they can and cannot ride and we have had no problems. Constant reporting of 'issues' on either side really doesn't achieve anything as both points of view can evidence positive and negative stories.
		
Click to expand...

I don’t have a side in my post - I simply set out the way this particular hunt has acted and the way in which they have disregarded a request not to use certain land.  I am not saying all hunts do this, I am saying this one does and I have witnessed it personally.  Your hunt is more respectful - this is not my experience of the one close to me.  As for constant reporting - I see no issue reporting the way this hunt ignores what has been a consistent, clear and respectful request not to use that land.  It is likley to help achieve what the landowner wants, which is for this hunt to stop using the land.


----------



## palo1 (13 January 2021)

An interesting and thought provoking article about trapping, Chris Packham and the RSPB. See here for the full article:  https://countrysquire.co.uk/2021/01/12/justice-perverted-by-set-ups/ 

*S*taged ‘set ups’ have become an increasingly popular tool of activists and campaigners across the country, particularly if they have celebrity support. What started as a favourite trick of animal rights extremists has now spread to anti-lockdown protestors and other conspiracy theorists, who use these tactics for a quick headline-grabbing image, with little consideration to the consequences.

Yesterday across the UK media a story ran about police tactics after a woman in Bournemouth was arrested for ‘sitting on a bench’, having left her house on more than one occasion. It now transpires that this was a ‘planned, staged-managed and recorded’ set up by an extreme anti-lockdown group, according to _Dorset Police_...

The fact that private farmland boasts such a broader array of wildlife and bio-diversity than the RSPB’s reserves appears to have enraged Chris Packham CBE. Speaking about using traps to control wildlife and the consequent remote risk that a properly set trap might kill a non-target species, such as a Little Owl, he said he wanted owners of land used for farming to declare: ‘We are not going to do trapping’, and posed the question, ‘It’s legal but is it ecologically ethical?’.

Why might this cause the people who manage his organisation, the RSPB, any disquiet? Well, they knew that their excitable Vice-President was standing in a large and fragile glasshouse when he started throwing his stones.

As his PR team constructed his edgy, exciting quotes his own organisation’s partners had just made public the list of mammals and birds that had been trapped in the RSPB’s (that’s the one he represents) Orkney stoat eradication programme. He can hardly have been unaware that his RSPB had received £6 million from the EU to exterminate stoats on the Orkney Isles. Even someone as rich as Chris would raise an eyebrow at £6 million of taxpayers money.

Chris and his RSPB are forever proselytising about conservation and the environment. Chris says it is unthinkable to do so, if the traps you set to catch rats accidentally catch something else or indeed if you set traps at all.

Many well-informed readers of this website may be wondering how he has got the bare faced cheek to make such a statement when his own organisation, the RSPB, is using traps on a vast scale themselves. Is it that he thinks the RSPB are just much better at trapping than gamekeepers?

Well, we have the list of what his organisation said they caught and killed.

The plan was to kill stoats and they indeed managed to kill quite a lot. Seven hundred and fifty to be exact. It is also fair to point out that they caught not a single Little Owl. That seems likely to be a result of there being no Little Owls on Orkney, because they seemed so very good at catching other things.

The thousands of traps used by the organisation Chris is proud to represent caught:


*2068 Rats;*
*242 Rabbits;*
*111 Starlings;*
*48 mice;*
*18 Hedgehogs;*
*12 unidentified birds;*
*10 Orkney Voles;*
*9 Frogs and Toads;*
*4 Cats;*
*2 Blackbirds*
*2 Water Rails.*
That’s a total of 3,276 birds, mammals and amphibians caught in RSPB traps.

It is possible that, when he made his palpably hypocritical remarks, he was so ill-informed about his own organisation, that he did not know about the £6 million grant and the mayhem on Orkney.

It’s possible, but hardly probable. Chris specialises in knowing everything, it’s his thing. It is tempting to say that his behaviour is shameless. It is not. It is shameful. The only good to come out of this entire non-event is that it provides another example of the cant and hypocrisy that lies at the heart of some of the big names in the conservation industry.

Of course, engaging in legal predator control does not put someone beyond the pale as a conservationist. Chris Packham CBE knows that perfectly well. His organisation does it – not very well – but a lot.






*[An illegally set RSPB trap in Orkney]*

He may not like to admit it in front of his adoring fans but the legal use of traps to catch small mammalian predators is an essential tool in the protection of many rare, ground nesting birds. He must know this, or he would have long ago broken his ties with RSPB, because they use traps, in the case of Orkney on a scale which is entirely unprecedented. Yet he is happy to casually blacken the entire process for a few column inches intended to, at any given opportunity, promote his image to his acolytes.

Yes. Shameful probably was the right word.


----------



## ycbm (13 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			Constant reporting of 'issues' on either side really doesn't achieve anything as both points of view can evidence positive and negative stories.
		
Click to expand...


It's only the negative ones which are going to affect the future of hunting, though Palo.  They need to be stopped or everyone's sport is at risk.

I've ridden three times (that I know of) on land where the hunt had been told not to go,  and been (reluctant) party to poaching bridleways, footpaths, canal towpaths and verges. 

The countryside is getting too crowded for people to turn a blind eye for much longer.  The 3 packs (drag and bloodhound)  I have been out with have all folded in the last 10 years.
.


----------



## ycbm (13 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			And yet, we have permission to trail hunt across a nature reserve; that is reserved for the huntsman and hounds only; the field must stay outside the reserve which we do; it is usually a good opportunity for a chat and catch up.  .
		
Click to expand...

I can't be the only one wondering what the point of that exercise is?


----------



## hollyandivy123 (13 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			And yet, we have permission to trail hunt across a nature reserve; that is reserved for the huntsman and hounds only; the field must stay outside the reserve which we do; it is usually a good opportunity for a chat and catch up.  We can watch hounds and follow them via the lane and fields surrounding the actual reserve.  If you want a gentle day, this meet is a good one!  We have had this privelage for a number of years and we are glad of it.  We are also able to ride across land where there is an area of real sensitivity in terms of plant life.  Again, we have had this meet many times, everyone is clearly instructed as to where they can and cannot ride and we have had no problems. Constant reporting of 'issues' on either side really doesn't achieve anything as both points of view can evidence positive and negative stories.
		
Click to expand...

Why would you set a trail through a nature reserve. ....just seems to make a complication for yourself...


----------



## meleeka (13 January 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			Palo, you fail to address the beloved pets killed and livestock attacked by hunting hounds. You fail to mention the trespass and damage caused to land, which as Kipper has said, many farmers on forums express their disgust and anger at.

It seems that to many who hunt, any 'accidents', such as cats killed, are just unfortunate collateral damage. I can't think of a single other outdoor activity that repeatedly results in trespass, damaged fencing, and animal attacks. People feeling unsafe on their own properties and worrying for the lives of their animals.

I still remember, in horror, the many cats who lost their lives when the Celia Hammond sanctuary was invaded by a pack of hounds in 2018. After SO many incidents like this, year after year, no-one can convince me that the behaviour of hunters is anything other than irresponsible and self-serving.
		
Click to expand...

Interesting that this comment has been pretty much ignored.  This sums it up for me.


----------



## Tiddlypom (13 January 2021)

hollyandivy123 said:



			Why would you set a trail through a nature reserve. ....just seems to make a complication for yourself...
		
Click to expand...

Keep the local wildlife on their toes (or paws)?


----------



## palo1 (13 January 2021)

Ceriann said:



			I don’t have a side in my post - I simply set out the way this particular hunt has acted and the way in which they have disregarded a request not to use certain land.  I am not saying all hunts do this, I am saying this one does and I have witnessed it personally.  Your hunt is more respectful - this is not my experience of the one close to me.  As for constant reporting - I see no issue reporting the way this hunt ignores what has been a consistent, clear and respectful request not to use that land.  It is likley to help achieve what the landowner wants, which is for this hunt to stop using the land.
		
Click to expand...

Blimey - it is just madness for a hunt to go on land where they are clearly not welcome.


----------



## palo1 (13 January 2021)

meleeka said:



			Interesting that this comment has been pretty much ignored.  This sums it up for me.
		
Click to expand...

I only didn't respond to this post because all of these issues have already been discussed at some length on this thread and it just isn't contentious or needing debate to state that the killing of pets, trespass and damage are wrong!! I read the post as a statement rather than an opening for discussion tbh. My response though, if you like, is that this is not what happens with most hunts at all and that some significant disciplinary action should be taken on hunts that bring hunting in disrepute in these ways.  I cannot comment on any of the examples specifically but there are most certainly instances where the actions of sabs have led directly to some ghastly incidents too.


----------



## palo1 (13 January 2021)

hollyandivy123 said:



			Why would you set a trail through a nature reserve. ....just seems to make a complication for yourself...
		
Click to expand...

The owners and management of the reserve don't perceive any harm at all to the reserve in the way that trail hunting is carried out there AND it has been an area of land traditionally hunted; now not farmed and the owners/management are sympathetic to trail hunting.  There is no reason for a trail not to work through that bit as long as we all stick to the rules (which we do).


----------



## Miss_Millie (13 January 2021)

meleeka said:



			Interesting that this comment has been pretty much ignored.  This sums it up for me.
		
Click to expand...

Yep, and the fact that it was ignored by the pro-hunters confirms my key points - damage, death of pets and trepass are just _collateral damage_ to them. The woman who's cat was killed recently, will have to deal with that grief and trauma for the rest of her life.

And from what I have read, the people in charge of the dogs who killed her cat have got off scott free (as per usual). Had a random pedestrian walked onto her property and broken her cat's neck, they would have been arrested on the spot!!

As it were, the hunt are above the law, and 'accidents happen'.


----------



## meleeka (13 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			I only didn't respond to this post because all of these issues have already been discussed at some length on this thread and it just isn't contentious or needing debate to state that the killing of pets, trespass and damage are wrong!! I read the post as a statement rather than an opening for discussion tbh. My response though, if you like, is that this is not what happens with most hunts at all and that some significant disciplinary action should be taken on hunts that bring hunting in disrepute in these ways.  I cannot comment on any of the examples specifically but there are most certainly instances where the actions of sabs have led directly to some ghastly incidents too.
		
Click to expand...

As my mum always says “Two wrongs don’t make a right”.    Your defence on pretty much all points is that sabs are worse.  If there was a sab on here defending the actions of their group, I’m pretty sure we’d all jump on that, probably more so.  When there’s so many incidences of hunts behaving badly, you really can’t keep making the same point,  in the hope that people will sympathise.


----------



## palo1 (13 January 2021)

I am slightly reluctant to write this, which I do purely out of some frustration, and it does not relate to Miss_Millie or Meleeka's posts, but the assertions about hunts and killing wildlife (which may be justified on occasion) never seem to relate too to people's pets also killing wildlife - particularly cats.  The RSPB has done loads of studies about this and people choose to have cats and are responsible for them - they are predators the same as dogs, yet they are allowed, mostly, to do what they like,  with that also, presumably, being seen as the collateral damage of having a pet cat and that 'accidents' happen/it is in the cat's nature etc etc.  It seems entirely acceptable for people to post and report on the birds and small mammals that their cat has dragged in but that wouldn't be/isn't acceptable when it is a dog (not referring to hounds or hunting here so please feel free to say that this is off-topic)  Perhaps this would be better as a separate thread possibly but why is this so?  I find it genuinely boggling that so many people who want to see the end of legal trail hunting and all hunting, shooting etc also have cats.  Please explain this.  I don't have a cat though I do really like them.


----------



## Miss_Millie (13 January 2021)

meleeka said:



			As my mum always says “Two wrongs don’t make a right”.    Your defence on pretty much all points is that sabs are worse.  If there was a sab on here defending the actions of their group, I’m pretty sure we’d all jump on that, probably more so.  When there’s so many incidences of hunts behaving badly, you really can’t keep making the same point,  in the hope that people will sympathise.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly. And sabs wouldn't need to do what they do if hunts _stopped hunting foxes. _Banned in 2004 (a very long time ago!!) and yet, photos emerged on boxing day of foxes being chased. If there are hunts that are _actually_ trail hunting legally, the many who continue to break the law are not doing the image of hunting any favours!


----------



## palo1 (13 January 2021)

meleeka said:



			As my mum always says “Two wrongs don’t make a right”.    Your defence on pretty much all points is that sabs are worse.  If there was a sab on here defending the actions of their group, I’m pretty sure we’d all jump on that, probably more so.  When there’s so many incidences of hunts behaving badly, you really can’t keep making the same point,  in the hope that people will sympathise.
		
Click to expand...

Two wrongs don't make a right - you are quite correct.   I only keep making the 'same' points because that is my experience and I support trail hunting; it would be daft if I didn't keep responding and engaging in a discussion about something I am passionate about.  I think the discussion here has actually covered quite a lot of ground but there are sort of fundamental arguments underlying both sides of the debate and that is why certain points of view keep being repeated.  Also, sadly, there is what seems to be an unbridgeable divide between pro and anti-hunting people in spite of many common interests (wildlife, conservation, rural issues) and polarised debate does seem to get 'stuck' in that kind of cycle.  It is the reason that previously I have just withdrawn from the discussion as I agree that constant re-hashing of things doesn't achieve much.  I really can't agree however, that my defence on pretty much all points is that sabs are worse; there are so many other things that I have actually discussed but it would be silly if I didn't try to balance the assertion that hunts are criminal, irritating, anti-social, trespassing, arrogant etc with the facts that sabs can be seen to be equally so.


----------



## Miss_Millie (13 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			I am slightly reluctant to write this, which I do purely out of some frustration, and it does not relate to Miss_Millie or Meleeka's posts, but the assertions about hunts and killing wildlife (which may be justified on occasion) never seem to relate too to people's pets also killing wildlife - particularly cats.  The RSPB has done loads of studies about this and people choose to have cats and are responsible for them - they are predators the same as dogs, yet they are allowed, mostly, to do what they like,  with that also, presumably, being seen as the collateral damage of having a pet cat and that 'accidents' happen/it is in the cat's nature etc etc.  It seems entirely acceptable for people to post and report on the birds and small mammals that their cat has dragged in but that wouldn't be/isn't acceptable when it is a dog (not referring to hounds or hunting here so please feel free to say that this is off-topic)  Perhaps this would be better as a separate thread possibly but why is this so?  I find it genuinely boggling that so many people who want to see the end of legal trail hunting and all hunting, shooting etc also have cats.  Please explain this.  I don't have a cat though I do really like them. 

Click to expand...

So...you're comparing an obligate carnivore, killing mice, birds etc, to a PACK OF DOGS, bred by humans to have a bloodlust for anything small that moves, terrorizing and killing someone's pet on their own property?! I genuinely don't know how you can compare the two.

My cat occassionally will kill mice. He always eats them. That is nature. Cats have been domesticated for thousands of years, all the way back to Egyptian times. Most cat owners will take precautions to prevent their cat from killing wildlife - bells on collars etc. Sometimes it happens - they are obligate carnivores and natural preditors.

Let's go back to the case of Spider the cat - owner sees hounds tearing towards her property. She is terrified and quickly tries to get her cats to high ground. Spider is scared and runs under her car. The dogs drag her cat out and kill it in front of her eyes. Her pet (which is also her property) killed on her land, right in front of her. Because of dogs that are bred for a 'sport' are out of control.

Totally different, not even slightly comparable. Once again, if a person had walked onto her property and killed her cat with their bare hands, they would be imprisoned.


----------



## palo1 (13 January 2021)

meleeka said:



			As my mum always says “Two wrongs don’t make a right”.    Your defence on pretty much all points is that sabs are worse.  If there was a sab on here defending the actions of their group, I’m pretty sure we’d all jump on that, probably more so.  When there’s so many incidences of hunts behaving badly, you really can’t keep making the same point,  in the hope that people will sympathise.
		
Click to expand...




meleeka said:



			Interesting that this comment has been pretty much ignored.  This sums it up for me.
		
Click to expand...

I often wonder why things I write are ignored too tbh; I assume that either other posters can't be bothered to reply/respond or that they can't respond or even that they might be thinking about what has been written and are uncertain of how to respond.


----------



## BeckyFlowers (13 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			I often wonder why things I write are ignored too tbh; I assume that either other posters can't be bothered to reply/respond or that they can't respond or even that they might be thinking about what has been written and are uncertain of how to respond.
		
Click to expand...

What have you written that you think has been ignored?


----------



## palo1 (13 January 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			So...you're comparing an obligate carnivore, killing mice, birds etc, to a PACK OF DOGS, bred by humans to have a bloodlust for anything small that moves, terrorizing and killing someone's pet on their own property?! I genuinely don't know how you can compare the two.

My cat occassionally will kill mice. He always eats them. That is nature. Cats have been domesticated for thousands of years, all the way back to Egyptian times. Most cat owners will take precautions to prevent their cat from killing wildlife - bells on collars etc. Sometimes it happens - they are obligate carnivores and natural preditors.

Let's go back to the case of Spider the cat - owner sees hounds tearing towards her property. She is terrified and quickly tries to get her cats to high ground. Spider is scared and runs under her car. The dogs drag her cat out and kill it in front of her eyes. Her pet (which is also her property) killed on her land, right in front of her. Because of dogs that are bred for a 'sport' are out of control.

Totally different, not even slightly comparable. Once again, if a person had walked onto her property and killed her cat with their bare hands, they would be imprisoned.
		
Click to expand...

Oh dear. I really think you have got this completely wrong (apart from the point about a person killing someone's cat!).  This seems like incredibly muddled and contradictory thinking to me so I hope someone else can respond too.


----------



## palo1 (13 January 2021)

BeckyFlowers said:



			What have you written that you think has been ignored?
		
Click to expand...

I guess in the last couple of pages (!!) posts #634, 651, 654 and 661 which all bring slightly different things in to the discussion.  I don't especially mind - I am not asking people to respond to everything anyone posts of course but it is interesting to think about why something doesn't get a response.


----------



## BeckyFlowers (13 January 2021)

I replied to your post 634, and there's many posts from others condemning much of the sab's behaviour.


----------



## BeckyFlowers (13 January 2021)

Post 651 started as "slightly off topic", which may be why it didn't get directly replied to, but post 653 seemed to be addressing your post 651, although it wasn't quoted.


----------



## BeckyFlowers (13 January 2021)

Post 654 is talking about shooting and fishing, where this thread is about hunting - I'm not saying the three things are not somewhat interlinked, but that may be why you perceive this post as being ignored.


----------



## Miss_Millie (13 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			Oh dear. I really think you have got this completely wrong (apart from the point about a person killing someone's cat!).  This seems like incredibly muddled and contradictory thinking to me so I hope someone else can respond too.
		
Click to expand...

What is contradictory?


----------



## BeckyFlowers (13 January 2021)

Post 661 (assuming you are referring to your post that was quoted?) was also quoted in post 664.

Re trail hunting through a nature reserve, I guess if you have permission then there's not much of an issue.

Sorry you feel you're being ignored, but I can't see much evidence of it from the posts you referred to.


----------



## palo1 (13 January 2021)

BeckyFlowers said:



			Post 661 (assuming you are referring to your post that was quoted?) was also quoted in post 664.

Re trail hunting through a nature reserve, I guess if you have permission then there's not much of an issue.

Sorry you feel you're being ignored, but I can't see much evidence of it from the posts you referred to.
		
Click to expand...

I am not worried at all about some posts not getting a direct response - I was just reflecting on Meleeka's post where clearly no response made her assume something and I was responding to that.


----------



## BeckyFlowers (13 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			I am not worried at all about some posts not getting a direct response - I was just reflecting on Meleeka's post where clearly no response made her assume something and I was responding to that.
		
Click to expand...

I'm really glad that you're participating on this thread Palo1, it's refreshing to have a civilised debate with people on both sides of the fence.  I hope you don't feel ignored and then stop replying 👍🏻


----------



## ycbm (13 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			I find it genuinely boggling that so many people who want to see the end of legal trail hunting and all hunting, shooting etc also have cats.  Please explain this.  I don't have a cat though I do really like them. 

Click to expand...

I don't want to see the end of trail hunting if laid with a thick enough scent with obedient hounds following.  I'm bemused that trail hunters can't see that they are likely to lose their sport altogether unless they completely disavow repealing the law and also distance themselves from all other blood sports.  Nobody is going to trust hunts not to hunt fox until they state that they do not want the law repealed. 

As a cat owner,  I will answer,  though.  It is not my intention that my cats chase anything.  I do not train them to chase anything.  I do not take them out of my local area to set them chasing anything. I do not keep them for the pleasure that I see in them chasing anything except a laser dot inside a house. 

It's a question of intent. 

Having said that I've drag hunted often in semi urban areas and as far as I know nothing has ever been worried or killed except one lamb,  and the short term let tenant farmer knew the hunt was coming through.  He was compensated for the value of the lamb.  
.


----------



## Miss_Millie (13 January 2021)

ycbm said:



*As a cat owner,  I will answer,  though.  It is not my intention that my cats chase anything.  I do not train them to chase anything.  I do not take them out of my local area to set them chasing anything. I do not keep them for the pleasure that I see in them chasing anything except a laser dot inside a house.

It's a question of intent.*

.
		
Click to expand...

This is spot on. And I remember someone saying a while back on the thread, that if hunting were to completely disappear, the hunting dogs would be euthanized en masse. This is because these dogs are born and bred to kill and have blood-lust for other animals. This is their only 'use'.

This is why, I feel, hunting is a danger to the safety of local people and their pets. No-one should have to feel unsafe on their own property, or worried for the lives of their pets. The most recent incident, being the alpaca breeder who's animals were attacked on her private property.

I will say it again, there is not other sport/outdoor activity I can think of, that callously puts the lives of pets and livestock at risk, as hunting does.


----------



## Clodagh (13 January 2021)

I hunted for years, BITD, and hounds are not driven by blood lust and liable to rip children to shreds on a whim. 
Not defending any of the pet attacks or riot but when you think how many hounds are out and about daily with how many hunts if they were out of control killers there would be a lot more incidences.
I’m not knocking the upset when it happens at all, hounds should be on a one strike and you are out rule for any dangerous behaviour.


----------



## Miss_Millie (13 January 2021)

Clodagh said:



			I hunted for years, BITD, and hounds are not driven by blood lust and liable to rip children to shreds on a whim.
Not defending any of the pet attacks or riot but when you think how many hounds are out and about daily with how many hunts if they were out of control killers there would be a lot more incidences.
I’m not knocking the upset when it happens at all, hounds should be on a one strike and you are out rule for any dangerous behaviour.
		
Click to expand...

If they aren't driven by bloodlust, why do they attack livestock, cats and even pet dogs?


----------



## Fellewell (13 January 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			The demise of hunting will not come about because of lack of country, but because the countryside is becoming a more diverse place and the majority of the public do not agree with fox hunting (hence the ban). Hunting continues to get bad press, even if it is legal trail hunting, because of damage and trespass, pets being killed, livestock being attacked, and certain individuals who think they are above the lockdown laws, that the majority of us are obeying, despite the impact on our mental health.

Not to mention, countless hunts are STILL flouting the law and killing foxes. When 'accidents' happen (like the recent killing of the cat, Spider), the general public will only become more angry and frustrated that someone's idea of a fun day out = their beloved pet being savagely murdered by dogs on their own property.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think the cat was savagely murdered any more than cats savagely murder birds and rabbits or foxes savagely murder lambs and every last chicken in the coop until they stop flapping. Nature is red in tooth and claw.
Working dogs don't always make the grade, even those bred for purpose. This can be time consuming and costly, even with hounds. The same is true of sheepdogs, gundogs, police dogs and even guide dogs for the blind. Except these groups aren't under the microscope as hunts are. Two pet dogs can kill 30 sheep and it barely gets 2 lines in the press. I think some perspective is needed here.
Meet and greets with hounds are hugely popular at shows, where adults, children and their pets mingle freely with hounds. I remember one excited toddler wobbling into the midst of the pack brandishing an ice cream. Both toddler and ice cream emerged untouched and that is what I expect from a trained animal.


----------



## Miss_Millie (13 January 2021)

Fellewell said:



*I don't think the cat was savagely murdered* any more than cats savagely murder birds and rabbits or foxes savagely murder lambs and every last chicken in the coop until they stop flapping. Nature is red in tooth and claw.
Working dogs don't always make the grade, even those bred for purpose. This can be time consuming and costly, even with hounds. The same is true of sheepdogs, gundogs, police dogs and even guide dogs for the blind. Except these groups aren't under the microscope as hunts are. Two pet dogs can kill 30 sheep and it barely gets 2 lines in the press. I think some perspective is needed here.
Meet and greets with hounds are hugely popular at shows, where adults, children and their pets mingle freely with hounds. I remember one excited toddler wobbling into the midst of the pack brandishing an ice cream. Both toddler and ice cream emerged untouched and that is what I expect from a trained animal.
		
Click to expand...

The cat was dragged from beneath the owner's car, on her property, and killed by a group of hounds in front of her. Hounds trained to kill small animals.

Your total disregard for someone's beloved pet being killed in such a horrible way speaks volumes.


----------



## Tiddlypom (13 January 2021)

There are some rogue hounds, but much of it is down to poor training.

Rogue hounds that riot have historically been culled. What has happened to the High Peak Hunt hounds? Firstly almost the whole pack rioted onto a calf, then a few weeks later they break into a property and kill a pet cat. Were the calf chasing hounds kept on?

Wrt hounds killing cats. I referred earlier to my local pack being sent in to ‘thin out’ the feral cats on a patch of waste ground - as told to me by an in hunt source. These cats were apparently something of a local nuisance, and locals were not sorry to see the numbers go down a bit.

So what happens when the same hounds later happen on a pet cat minding its own business? You can work that one out for yourselves.


----------



## littleshetland (13 January 2021)

Just feel like chucking my pennyworth in here...  I have a question and an of observation that I would appreciate some comments on.  As far as I know, pro fox hunters still adhere tightly to the fact that they are performing a vital service for farmers whose lambs/sheep are endangered by foxes.  My observation on this, having lived in rural somerset for 30 years and having kept sheep and other livestock on my land...Ive never had anything taken by a fox. According to social media, it would appear the biggest threat to livestock these days seems to be dog walkers whose dogs are allowed to run around fields of sheep causing panic and death.  Also, why do huntsmen train hounds to follow a scent using fox urine? I have it on good authority that this is common practice among hunts. Surely this increases the chances of hounds actually hunting foxes thus breaking the law.


----------



## palo1 (13 January 2021)

ycbm said:



			I don't want to see the end of trail hunting if laid with a thick enough scent with obedient hounds following.  I'm bemused that trail hunters can't see that they are likely to lose their sport altogether unless they completely disavow repealing the law and also distance themselves from all other blood sports.  Nobody is going to trust hunts not to hunt fox until they state that they do not want the law repealed.

As a cat owner,  I will answer,  though.  It is not my intention that my cats chase anything.  I do not train them to chase anything.  I do not take them out of my local area to set them chasing anything. I do not keep them for the pleasure that I see in them chasing anything except a laser dot inside a house.

It's a question of intent.

Having said that I've drag hunted often in semi urban areas and as far as I know nothing has ever been worried or killed except one lamb,  and the short term let tenant farmer knew the hunt was coming through.  He was compensated for the value of the lamb. 
.
		
Click to expand...

This is interesting really from a philosophical and logical point of view...(about your cat) as you say it is not your intention that they chase anything, yet that is essentially in their nature and inescapable.  You don't keep a cat for the pleasure of them chasing anything, yet you acknowledge their instincts and 'play' with that chase instinct which could be construed as a form of 'training' as it encourages that behaviour and presumably your cats are able to go outside. Once outside they are, in all likelihood, out of your control and may well chase and kill things. Most predators don't in fact need any training or encouragement - hence all those pet dogs that DO attack and kill sheep and wildlife. 

I don't personally have a problem with pet cats, and I would not want to see anyone feel criticised for having a pet cat; in fact it is considered to be a virtue and certainly not worthy of any criticism at all to use cats for mouse and rat control by most people, as that method of hunting and killing is seen as more humane generally than by baiting rodents or other means of killing (can you see any relevant parallels to hunting here?)  The values and opinions we express about hunting do seem relevant to this.  

I have heard so many times about how appalled people are by accidents/incidents with hounds/loss of control yet, in a similar vein to my earlier post about Chris Packham campaigning against any form of animal trapping yet acting as the poster boy for the RSPB who use this as a deliberate strategy for safeguarding ground nesting birds from predators, I see the same contradictions in owning a cat - an obligate carnivore, that WILL, unless kept in a very unnatural way, go out and kill birds and small mammals - playing with them, tearing them apart (certainly not necessarily for food). Yet that is not considered the facilitation of any kind of wildlife crime or simply the collateral damage in enjoying a pet predator?  Could it not be argued that if a cat is allowed outside, without being controlled then it is no different to the loss of control of any other predatory animal?

My own view is that cats should be controlled (I think the RSPB has found that use of a bell collar is the best) but within the scope of that a cat needs to be kept humanely and I do know of people who only have indoor cats; I am not really comfortable with that.  Other people have confined outdoor spaces built (catios??) but I always understood that to be so that their cat isn't at risk from traffic.   

The way that we are 'comfortable' with cats killing birds, even though they are in someone's ownership and the fact that killing rats with terriers which are under the direct control of a person or people or at the teeth and claws of feral cats is fine seems utterly at odds with the anti-hunting stance where the killing of one 'vermin' animal by another predator is unacceptable even while the killing of another 'vermin' (or not even vermin in the case of wild birds) by another predator is fine.  Of course, I do understand that the killing of foxes by hounds is now illegal - all I was trying to illustrate is how ridiculous that seems because it has no logical or philosophical validity and was always understood to be not related to animal welfare, nor animal cruelty or environmental health.   To think that all trail hunting is put at risk because of this entirely non-sensical approach literally makes my head spin.


----------



## palo1 (13 January 2021)

littleshetland said:



			Just feel like chucking my pennyworth in here...  I have a question and an of observation that I would appreciate some comments on.  As far as I know, pro fox hunters still adhere tightly to the fact that they are performing a vital service for farmers whose lambs/sheep are endangered by foxes.  My observation on this, having lived in rural somerset for 30 years and having kept sheep and other livestock on my land...Ive never had anything taken by a fox. According to social media, it would appear the biggest threat to livestock these days seems to be dog walkers whose dogs are allowed to run around fields of sheep causing panic and death.  Also, why do huntsmen train hounds to follow a scent using fox urine? I have it on good authority that this is common practice among hunts. Surely this increases the chances of hounds actually hunting foxes thus breaking the law.
		
Click to expand...

There has always been an insistence by trail hunts to use a fox based scent on trails; in no small part because of the value given to the fox hounds extraordinary abilities in terms of scent.  No other scent has the same qualities and challenges to a hound as fox based scent and it was acknowledged by the allowed use of this that there is unique value in the skill of scent hunting in this way.  It was also insisted on as necessary by Fox Hound packs because of their desire to maintain this as a a quality in their breeding.  I guess the Hunting Act recognised the validity of this and the strength of feeling of hunters around this subject. Personally I believe you would absolutely lose the essential nature of hounds if they were not judged on their performance on a completely natural sense; it would be like sheepdogs rounding up robot sheep!!   Drag packs tend to use human urine (usually the huntsman's...!) which is infinitely easier for hounds to follow and usually results in a much easier, more direct 'trail'.  This works well where you want riders to have a good time - clean, fast trail that can incorporate jumps.  A fox based scent acts absolutely fundamentally differently so results in a far more 'wandering' and often slower, more 'hesitant' line from hounds as the scent wafts, moves, dies and strengthens depending on ground conditions.  That is why watching hounds work is so intensely fascinating and is recognised as having unique value in lots of way; it is an interaction between the hound, the scent itself and the landscape and weather as a whole.  This is one reason why hunting people are so passionate about hunting providing a connection and understanding between people and the land/environment.

Sadly, I can say that we have had lambs taken by foxes and it is regularly debated in the Welsh parliament whether there can be dispensation for Welsh hound packs to legally hunt foxes on the uplands where no other method of fox control is considered so effective.


----------



## ester (13 January 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			There are some rogue hounds, but much of it is down to poor training.

Rogue hounds that riot have historically been culled. What has happened to the High Peak Hunt hounds? Firstly almost the whole pack rioted onto a calf, then a few weeks later they break into a property and kill a pet cat. Were the calf chasing hounds kept on?

Wrt hounds killing cats. I referred earlier to my local pack being sent in to ‘thin out’ the feral cats on a patch of waste ground - as told to me by an in hunt source. These cats were apparently something of a local nuisance, and locals were not sorry to see the numbers go down a bit.

So what happens when the same hounds later happen on a pet cat minding its own business? You can work that one out for yourselves.
		
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to note whether hunts have to report hounds rioting to anyone/whether the governing body keeps an eye on that, with consequences if the hunt is just ignoring it and carrying on.


----------



## Miss_Millie (13 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			This is interesting really from a philosophical and logical point of view...(about your cat) as you say it is not your intention that they chase anything, yet that is essentially in their nature and inescapable.  You don't keep a cat for the pleasure of them chasing anything, yet you acknowledge their instincts and 'play' with that chase instinct which could be construed as a form of 'training' as it encourages that behaviour and presumably your cats are able to go outside. Once outside they are, in all likelihood, out of your control and may well chase and kill things. Most predators don't in fact need any training or encouragement - hence all those pet dogs that DO attack and kill sheep and wildlife.

I don't personally have a problem with pet cats, and I would not want to see anyone feel criticised for having a pet cat; in fact it is considered to be a virtue and certainly not worthy of any criticism at all to use cats for mouse and rat control by most people, as that method of hunting and killing is seen as more humane generally than by baiting rodents or other means of killing (can you see any relevant parallels to hunting here?)  The values and opinions we express about hunting do seem relevant to this. 

I have heard so many times about how appalled people are by accidents/incidents with hounds/loss of control yet, in a similar vein to my earlier post about Chris Packham campaigning against any form of animal trapping yet acting as the poster boy for the RSPB who use this as a deliberate strategy for safeguarding ground nesting birds from predators, I see the same contradictions in owning a cat - an obligate carnivore, that WILL, unless kept in a very unnatural way, go out and kill birds and small mammals - playing with them, tearing them apart (certainly not necessarily for food). Yet that is not considered the facilitation of any kind of wildlife crime or simply the collateral damage in enjoying a pet predator?  Could it not be argued that if a cat is allowed outside, without being controlled then it is no different to the loss of control of any other predatory animal?

My own view is that cats should be controlled (I think the RSPB has found that use of a bell collar is the best) but within the scope of that a cat needs to be kept humanely and I do know of people who only have indoor cats; I am not really comfortable with that.  Other people have confined outdoor spaces built (catios??) but I always understood that to be so that their cat isn't at risk from traffic.  

The way that we are 'comfortable' with cats killing birds, even though they are in someone's ownership and the fact that killing rats with terriers which are under the direct control of a person or people or at the teeth and claws of feral cats is fine seems utterly at odds with the anti-hunting stance where the killing of one 'vermin' animal by another predator is unacceptable even while the killing of another 'vermin' (or not even vermin in the case of wild birds) by another predator is fine.  Of course, I do understand that the killing of foxes by hounds is now illegal - all I was trying to illustrate is how ridiculous that seems because it has no logical or philosophical validity and was always understood to be not related to animal welfare, nor animal cruelty or environmental health.   To think that all trail hunting is put at risk because of this entirely non-sensical approach literally makes my head spin.
		
Click to expand...

Once again, *intent* is the key word here.

I saw the video of the calf recently being chased across several fields and having to jump a stone wall. There were at least 20 dogs, if not more.

These dogs are bred to hunt and to to kill. They are bred specifically for this 'activity'. 20 dogs against one calf - that isn't nature. It isn't comparable to a cat catching a mouse.

The suffering of pets and livestocks who are attacked and killed by these dogs is surely inevitable, when they're riled up in a pack like that and trained to chase.

It begs the question, why are these dogs not muzzled at the very least, when so many animal attacks continue to happen? Not that muzzling them would prevent the distress of an animal being chased and jumped on.


----------



## palo1 (13 January 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			There are some rogue hounds, but much of it is down to poor training.

Rogue hounds that riot have historically been culled. What has happened to the High Peak Hunt hounds? Firstly almost the whole pack rioted onto a calf, then a few weeks later they break into a property and kill a pet cat. Were the calf chasing hounds kept on?

Wrt hounds killing cats. I referred earlier to my local pack being sent in to ‘thin out’ the feral cats on a patch of waste ground - as told to me by an in hunt source. These cats were apparently something of a local nuisance, and locals were not sorry to see the numbers go down a bit.

So what happens when the same hounds later happen on a pet cat minding its own business? You can work that one out for yourselves.
		
Click to expand...

Hounds should never have been used for clearing out feral cats. That is pretty disgusting to me. IF dogs were identified as the best approach to a feral cat cull, then some other dogs should have been used.  Once the HP hounds had rioted there should have been a cull there too.


----------



## Fransurrey (13 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			I often wonder why things I write are ignored too tbh; I assume that either other posters can't be bothered to reply/respond or that they can't respond or even that they might be thinking about what has been written and are uncertain of how to respond.
		
Click to expand...

In the case of your analogy between an obligate carnivore killing something due to a prey drive and a pack of dogs trained to kill for sport, perhaps they're just too appalled to put into words what they think? How TF can you even compare those two scenarios?


----------



## Sussexbythesea (13 January 2021)

I’ve been reading this thread with interest admittedly not every single post in detail. I see almost nothing except excuses from the hunting enthusiasts on here and virtually no acknowledgement of bad behaviour of certain hunts or how it might be addressed by the wider hunting community. It has only made me even more convinced that hunting is generally populated by a group of self-entitled individuals with no morals. I don’t think you’ve said anything to persuade anyone that this view is unjustified but rather continued to dig your own grave. Well done.


----------



## Miss_Millie (13 January 2021)

Sussexbythesea said:



			I’ve been reading this thread with interest admittedly not every single post in detail. I see almost nothing except excuses from the hunting enthusiasts on here and virtually no acknowledgement of bad behaviour of certain hunts or how it might be addressed by the wider hunting community. I*t has only made me even more convinced that hunting is generally populated by a group of self-entitled individuals with no morals.* I don’t think you’ve said anything to persuade anyone that this view is unjustified but rather continued to dig your own grave. Well done.
		
Click to expand...

This.

The total lack of empathy or disgust for what happened to Spider the cat, speaks volumes. I wonder, if someone's horse on this forum were to be chased and attacked by hounds, would they finally start to see how totally horrendous and disgusting these incidents are to the rest of us? *Just imagine if it was your pet that got killed.*

I would need therapy for the rest of my life; I can't imagine anything more horrifying to witness.


----------



## palo1 (13 January 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			This is spot on. And I remember someone saying a while back on the thread, that if hunting were to completely disappear, the hunting dogs would be euthanized en masse. This is because these dogs are born and bred to kill and have blood-lust for other animals. This is their only 'use'.

This is why, I feel, hunting is a danger to the safety of local people and their pets. No-one should have to feel unsafe on their own property, or worried for the lives of their pets. The most recent incident, being the alpaca breeder who's animals were attacked on her private property.

I will say it again, there is not other sport/outdoor activity I can think of, that callously puts the lives of pets and livestock at risk, as hunting does.
		
Click to expand...

Can I please just ask you to consider your use of the expression 'blood lust for other animals' in relation to hounds as that is simply an inappropriate anthropomorphic version of the expression 'obligate carnivore'.


----------



## palo1 (13 January 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			If they aren't driven by bloodlust, why do they attack livestock, cats and even pet dogs?
		
Click to expand...

Because like a cat they are 'obligate carnivores'...


----------



## Miss_Millie (13 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			Because like a cat they are 'obligate carnivores'...
		
Click to expand...

Dogs are actually omnivores. 

And lots of people own dogs, but most self-respecting individuals keep their dogs on a lead if they suspect there is any chance that their dog might attack another dog, cat, or child.

Apparently hunts are above this.


----------



## littleshetland (13 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			There has always been an insistence by trail hunts to use a fox based scent on trails; in no small part because of the value given to the fox hounds extraordinary abilities in terms of scent.  No other scent has the same qualities and challenges to a hound as fox based scent and it was acknowledged by the allowed use of this that there is unique value in the skill of scent hunting in this way.  It was also insisted on as necessary by Fox Hound packs because of their desire to maintain this as a a quality in their breeding.  I guess the Hunting Act recognised the validity of this and the strength of feeling of hunters around this subject. Personally I believe you would absolutely lose the essential nature of hounds if they were not judged on their performance on a completely natural sense; it would be like sheepdogs rounding up robot sheep!!   Drag packs tend to use human urine (usually the huntsman's...!) which is infinitely easier for hounds to follow and usually results in a much easier, more direct 'trail'.  This works well where you want riders to have a good time - clean, fast trail that can incorporate jumps.  A fox based scent acts absolutely fundamentally differently so results in a far more 'wandering' and often slower, more 'hesitant' line from hounds as the scent wafts, moves, dies and strengthens depending on ground conditions.  That is why watching hounds work is so intensely fascinating and is recognised as having unique value in lots of way; it is an interaction between the hound, the scent itself and the landscape and weather as a whole.  This is one reason why hunting people are so passionate about hunting providing a connection and understanding between people and the land/environment.

Sadly, I can say that we have had lambs taken by foxes and it is regularly debated in the Welsh parliament whether there can be dispensation for Welsh hound packs to legally hunt foxes on the uplands where no other method of fox control is considered so effective.[/QUOTE

so the massively increased risk of the law being broken, ie using fox urine, are secondary to the amount of human enjoyment to be experienced?
		
Click to expand...


----------



## palo1 (13 January 2021)

Fransurrey said:



			In the case of your analogy between an obligate carnivore killing something due to a prey drive and a pack of dogs trained to kill for sport, perhaps they're just too appalled to put into words what they think? How TF can you even compare those two scenarios?
		
Click to expand...

The thing that you are ignoring is that hunting with dogs was never just sport; it was always functional. The sport was for those following to see if they could keep up.  This has been said so many times, by so many people that it seems surprising that you don't know that.   It is clear how I compared the two scenarios I think.


----------



## palo1 (13 January 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			This.

The total lack of empathy or disgust for what happened to Spider the cat, speaks volumes. I wonder, if someone's horse on this forum were to be chased and attacked by hounds, would they finally start to see how totally horrendous and disgusting these incidents are to the rest of us? *Just imagine if it was your pet that got killed.*

I would need therapy for the rest of my life; I can't imagine anything more horrifying to witness.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think that anyone has shown any lack of empathy tbh and of course it would be traumatic if you witnessed your pet being killed; no one has suggested otherwise nor should they.


----------



## littleshetland (13 January 2021)

so the massively increased risk of the law being broken, ie using fox urine, are secondary to the amount of human enjoyment being experienced?


----------



## palo1 (13 January 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			Dogs are actually omnivores.

And lots of people own dogs, but most self-respecting individuals keep their dogs on a lead if they suspect there is any chance that their dog might attack another dog, cat, or child.

Apparently hunts are above this.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, dogs are omnivorous. Hunts are not 'above' controlling their hounds - hence the sense of outrage and disquiet about these incidents.


----------



## palo1 (13 January 2021)

littleshetland said:



			so the massively increased risk of the law being broken, ie using fox urine, are secondary to the amount of human enjoyment being experienced?
		
Click to expand...

It is not about 'enjoyment' but about the value given to aspects of the activity of scent hunting, the breeding of dogs, the continuation of tradition and the heritage of hunting skills in the United Kingdom.  These are things that are universally recognised as valuable and culturally important and tbh Parliament passed the Act with that element fully written in to it.  It is entirely legal as are other elements of the act that many people find unpalatable or 'difficult'.  I personally think the Hunting Act was non-sensical and damaging to the fox population and rural ecosystem but most people who still hunt do their best to work within the law.  The fact that some don't is clearly shocking (ie unusual) or there wouldn't be so much coverage of those incidents.  The reason we report 'news' is because it is outside our ordinary expectations and experience.


----------



## Sussexbythesea (13 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			Yes, dogs are omnivorous. Hunts are not 'above' controlling their hounds - hence the sense of outrage and disquiet about these incidents.
		
Click to expand...

I don’t think you’ve come across as outraged anywhere. Lots of “whataboutary” though.


----------



## palo1 (13 January 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			Dogs are actually omnivores.

And lots of people own dogs, but most self-respecting individuals keep their dogs on a lead if they suspect there is any chance that their dog might attack another dog, cat, or child.

Apparently hunts are above this.
		
Click to expand...

But they don't control their cats even though their cat might attack a wild animal...


----------



## palo1 (13 January 2021)

Sussexbythesea said:



			I don’t think you’ve come across as outraged anywhere. Lots of “whataboutary” though.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, the whataboutary is frustrating but feels necessary to bring some 'balance' to arguments and ideas which often feel just...irrational.


----------



## Tiddlypom (13 January 2021)

Wrt foxhounds still being trained to follow fox scent even when trail hunting. How is the young entry trained to follow fox scent? How is all this fox scent gathered and harvested? 

We know how the now disbanded South Herefordshire Hunt did it. They threw captive fox cubs to hounds. Caught out by covert cctv.

Fox cruelty: South Herefordshire Hunt pair found guilty https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-48584227


----------



## Sussexbythesea (13 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			Yes, the whataboutary is frustrating but feels necessary to bring some 'balance' to arguments and ideas which often feel just...irrational.
		
Click to expand...

I don’t think it brings any balance to bring in arguments about unrelated issues which might be an issue in themselves but do not help solve this particular issue. 

I love the way you’ve by default called everyone who doesn’t see it the same way as you irrational - another own goal.


----------



## Miss_Millie (13 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			It is not about 'enjoyment' but about the value given to aspects of the activity of scent hunting, the breeding of dogs, the continuation of tradition and the heritage of hunting skills in the United Kingdom.  These are things that are universally recognised as valuable and culturally important and tbh Parliament passed the Act with that element fully written in to it.  It is entirely legal as are other elements of the act that many people find unpalatable or 'difficult'.  I personally think the Hunting Act was non-sensical and damaging to the fox population and rural ecosystem but most people who still hunt do their best to work within the law.  The fact that some don't is clearly shocking (ie unusual) or there wouldn't be so much coverage of those incidents.  The reason we report 'news' is because it is outside our ordinary expectations and experience.
		
Click to expand...

And yet if you go on any Facebook page reporting illegal hunting, there are several accounts (always including photos or videos of foxes blatantly being chased), per month. In my area alone, there have been many accounts since October!

The sad thing to me is that you seem to care a lot more about 'upholding tradition' than you do about the people and their animals who are hurt by the actions of the hunting community. 

The reality is that the majority of the UK are against hunting full-stop, and the only reason why people keep getting away with fox hunting (despite the ban) is because they have friends in high places.

If legal trail hunting didn't continue to involve trespass and animal attacks, I'm sure that people would view it more favourably. But even many within the equestrian and farming communities, are fed up with them getting away with murder, time and time again.


----------



## Miss_Millie (13 January 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			Wrt foxhounds still being trained to follow fox scent even when trail hunting. How is the young entry trained to follow fox scent? How is all this fox scent gathered and harvested?

We know how the now disbanded South Herefordshire Hunt did it. They threw captive fox cubs to hounds. Caught out by covert cctv.

Fox cruelty: South Herefordshire Hunt pair found guilty https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-48584227

Click to expand...

Sickos!


----------



## palo1 (13 January 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			Wrt foxhounds still being trained to follow fox scent even when trail hunting. How is the young entry trained to follow fox scent? How is all this fox scent gathered and harvested?

We know how the now disbanded South Herefordshire Hunt did it. They threw captive fox cubs to hounds. Caught out by covert cctv.

Fox cruelty: South Herefordshire Hunt pair found guilty https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-48584227

Click to expand...

Fox based scent is easily purchased online from abroad and can be used for lots of different purposes including for the garden.  The young entry are trained to simply follow that amazing, natural odour that every part of them is attracted to.  Hounds need very little training to follow a scent in fact but they do need considerable skilled training in listening to the huntsman about where to go and look for a scent, to stay with the pack and work together on one 'line'  and if need be, leaving that scent to go to another line.  What the SHH did was beyond appalling and that hunt has been utterly ostracised by the hunting community and rightly so.

ETA - you can buy fox urine in liquid, granule or spray form on Amazon.


----------



## palo1 (13 January 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			Sickos! 

Click to expand...

 Yes it was sick.  Those filming them were sadly stupid as they tampered with some of the evidence and refused to allow police access to all related evidence, thus much weakening their case against the SHH and at one point risking it failing completely.  Some of the evidence against SHH was tampered with or withheld by the Sabs for goodness knows what reason...


----------



## palo1 (13 January 2021)

''The sad thing to me is that you seem to care a lot more about 'upholding tradition' than you do about the people and their animals who are hurt by the actions of the hunting community.''

The thing is though that caring about the values implicit in a tradition that fully engages with the countryside and environment means that I DO care about the people and their animals.  Those values, skills and knowledge are very widely recognised to be a vital part of our culture and society - as they are across the globe.  Hunting is not opposed to caring about people or their animals as it is entirely part of that that system of thinking and acting.


----------



## Fransurrey (13 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			The thing that you are ignoring is that hunting with dogs was never just sport; it was always functional. The sport was for those following to see if they could keep up.  This has been said so many times, by so many people that it seems surprising that you don't know that.   It is clear how I compared the two scenarios I think.
		
Click to expand...

Quite a few assumptions about me, there. I'll have to disagree strongly that hunting with dogs is functional. Others have already pointed out that the biggest threat to livestock is not foxes. I never said your comparison wasn't clear. Just that it was wildly inappropriate.


----------



## EarsofaSnowman (13 January 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			This.

The total lack of empathy or disgust for what happened to Spider the cat, speaks volumes. I wonder, if someone's horse on this forum were to be chased and attacked by hounds, would they finally start to see how totally horrendous and disgusting these incidents are to the rest of us? *Just imagine if it was your pet that got killed.*

I would need therapy for the rest of my life; I can't imagine anything more horrifying to witness.
		
Click to expand...

One of my neighbour's chickens was killed by a dog in front of them. There is a footpath nearby, but the dog was on private land having got away from its owner. Should the neighbour have insisted the dog be destroyed? 

I find illegal hunting and the lack of control of packs abhorrent, but as has been previously said, there is not the same level of public outcry when pets kill other pets, and farm animals.


----------



## ycbm (13 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			Hounds should never have been used for clearing out feral cats. That is pretty disgusting to me. IF dogs were identified as the best approach to a feral cat cull, then some other dogs should have been used.  Once the HP hounds had rioted there should have been a cull there too.  

Click to expand...


You talk about a disconnect between people who keep cats and want hounds not to kill anything, but to my mind, that's a drainage ditch compared to the ship canal of the disconnect between using hounds to kill fox and not feral cat.  What on earth is the difference?


----------



## HashRouge (13 January 2021)

I actually do think palo1 raises some good points about cats. I speak as someone who adores cats, but feels quite troubled about the effect they have on wildlife. My parents own a now quite elderly male cat who is a very good hunter and I know they feel very guilty whenever he brings anything in. Unfortunately he's tricky to keep inside and has broken out of his cat flap before in bids for freedom! But if I got a cat again myself I think I would get an indoor cat or have a "catio" and I suspect my Mum and Dad would consider the same in the future. 

However, it is a complete separate issue to fox hunting. It is not a strong argument to try and defend fox hunting by saying "yeah but what about pet cats"...


----------



## ycbm (13 January 2021)

Ears of a horse said:



			I find illegal hunting and the lack of control of packs abhorrent, but as has been previously said, there is not the same level of public outcry when pets kill other pets, and farm animals.
		
Click to expand...


That's because it isn't being done as part of an organised event,  put on by a club with a national governing body, for the entertainment of a large group of horse riders and unmounted followers.
.


----------



## Miss_Millie (13 January 2021)

Ears of a horse said:



			One of my neighbour's chickens was killed by a dog in front of them. There is a footpath nearby, but the dog was on private land having got away from its owner. Should the neighbour have insisted the dog be destroyed?

I find illegal hunting and the lack of control of packs abhorrent, but as has been previously said, there is not the same level of public outcry when pets kill other pets, and farm animals.
		
Click to expand...

Like I said earlier, all responsible dog owners who know that their dog is capable of killing or injuring animals or people, should be kept on a leash at all times in public. In the instance you describe here, the dog entered private property and killed a pet. I don't know what the penalty should be, but I think we can all agree that it is wrong and that the owner should have not even let it become a possibility. I would be devastated if this happened to me, regardless of whether the dog was a hunt dog in a pack or someone's pet dog.

Like ycbm has said above, the main difference in terms of media publicity is that hunting is part of an organised, funded event.


----------



## Muddywellies (13 January 2021)

Bit late to the party here and I'm afraid I haven't read all 725 comments.   But just wanted to add my ten penn'oth.  
I've always been pro hunting, and along with 400,000 others, attended the march in 2002.    But fast forward 18 years and I'm now starting to swap sides. Having liveried for the past few years in an area used regularly by the local hunt, it seems to be that the whole world has to stop in order for a bunch of people to go for a runaround the countryside, trashing fields, hedges and gates along the way.  The local horses would go berserk on hunting day and on one occasion it took my horse a good few weeks to settle down again. At the most recent yard, the YO would make us keep horses in on hunt day.  A friend owns land which was used by the hunt and they used to meet at his yard, but he became tired of the damage to his fields so he stopped it.    I understand the traditional reason for hunting.  Indeed, I've been on the receiving end of the carnage thst foxes cause.  But now, in theory, the hunt isn't supposed to kill foxes, so what is the point?     If I chose to gallop willy nilly across the countryside, I'm sure I'd get my legs slapped. So why can the local hunt do it?   Surely it's just become a glorified hack?


----------



## littleshetland (13 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			Fox based scent is easily purchased online from abroad and can be used for lots of different purposes including for the garden.  The young entry are trained to simply follow that amazing, natural odour that every part of them is attracted to.  Hounds need very little training to follow a scent in fact but they do need considerable skilled training in listening to the huntsman about where to go and look for a scent, to stay with the pack and work together on one 'line'  and if need be, leaving that scent to go to another line.  What the SHH did was beyond appalling and that hunt has been utterly ostracised by the hunting community and rightly so.

ETA - you can buy fox urine in liquid, granule or spray form on Amazon. 

Click to expand...

I wonder how they  'manufacture' and harvest fox urine from abroad...?


----------



## littleshetland (13 January 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			And yet if you go on any Facebook page reporting illegal hunting, there are several accounts (always including photos or videos of foxes blatantly being chased), per month. In my area alone, there have been many accounts since October!

The sad thing to me is that you seem to care a lot more about 'upholding tradition' than you do about the people and their animals who are hurt by the actions of the hunting community.

The reality is that the majority of the UK are against hunting full-stop, and the only reason why people keep getting away with fox hunting (despite the ban) is because they have friends in high places.

If legal trail hunting didn't continue to involve trespass and animal attacks, I'm sure that people would view it more favourably. But even many within the equestrian and farming communities, are fed up with them getting away with murder, time and time again.
		
Click to expand...

Tradition = peer pressure from a bunch of dead people.


----------



## littleshetland (13 January 2021)

I lived very close to the local hunt kennels for many years.  Every boxing day was a complete nightmare for me.  The horses had to be kept in all day, forget hacking or even schooling, as the local hunt spent the entire day tearing round the locality turning every bridlepath into a swamp, breaking fences, cantering up and down the main roads...I could go on.  Also, every hunting day, before they set off, there were the terrier men on their quad bikes with their terriers ready for action...almost like they were expecting to give them a quarry that day...    I moved recently, away from the kennels, and inspire of lockdown, managed to have a lovely peaceful boxing day enjoying riding my horse.


----------



## palo1 (13 January 2021)

A  couple of wider/bigger picture perspectives from : https://geographical.co.uk/nature/wildlife/item/3698-dossier (Rowe:2020)

''One problem is a lack of meaningful monitoring and raw data on the impact of hunting. ‘The data is scattered,’ says Roe. ‘People who are anti-hunting can rightly identify cases of really poor hunting and how it exacerbates the problem. But you can show good examples, where hunting has benefited species. You can cherry-pick your examples to suit your case. What we do know,’ she says, ‘is that for those animals on the [IUCN] Red List, hunting is never listed among the threats they face....

In the UK, thanks to the absence of top predators, the deer population has swollen to around two million. Deer trample and eat crops; carry ticks that transmit lyme disease to humans; trample fragile peatlands; and by grazing woodlands and plants have contributed to the decline of some woodland birds. Some sources associate them with 50,000 traffic accidents annually.
In January this year, a coalition of Scottish conservation groups called for legally enforceable culls of deer, while raising the prospect of local communities becoming more involved in shooting and killing deer for food. ‘Natural systems have kept things in balance for millennia but they are now out of kilter,’ says Born Free’s Mark Jones. ‘The UK is a classic example – it has basically removed the top predators. With no natural limits, the prey animals expand and damage the wider environment...‘Hunting may be perceived as irrelevant – a cruel anachronism in today’s modern world,’ he says. ‘Yet all world fisheries are hunts; and billions of people rely on wild harvested foods, that signify animal death; there is no death-free card to swipe in the wild theatre of food provisioning.'' 


And from: Ecology and Society (2020) Shokirov & Backhaus 
Department of Geography, University of Zurich, 2University Priority Programme Global Change and Biodiversity, University of Zurich

''Indigenous hunting communities around the world possess capabilities to accumulate and maintain knowledge based on their traditional practices, cultural norms, and belief systems. Case studies around the world have demonstrated that merging indigenous hunting knowledge with community-based conservation approaches is often complementary to biodiversity conservation. A combination of such approaches improves wildlife conservation practices and livelihood strategies while enhancing communities’ social-ecological resilience.''

Whilst both of these articles are more global in their outlook this, from the RSPB is related directly to the UK :http://ww2.rspb.org.uk/images/predator report_tcm9-177905.pdf

Remember that the issue of whether foxes need controlling or not is NOT contested and there never was legally satisfactory evidence that hunting foxes with hounds is worse than any other method.  Increasingly the alternatives are contested on welfare, cruelty and other reasons but in the UK uplands there is still a call for foxes to be hunted legally by hounds (more than 2) because of the nature of the control challenges there.  As it is, foxes can still be hunted legally by 2 dogs.  It is not straightforward ethically or ecologically in spite of people's very strong feelings about the matter.


----------



## ester (13 January 2021)

littleshetland said:



			I wonder how they  'manufacture' and harvest fox urine from abroad...?
		
Click to expand...

fur farm foxes was my assumption


----------



## NinjaPony (13 January 2021)

I never really had an opinion on hunting until I was at a yard where the hunt met close by regularly. Turns out it’s a bit of a nightmare. Horses kept in going bonkers, the hunt would never stick to the route they claimed to be taking (suspicious...) and they would absolutely tear up all of the local beautiful hacking, particularly  when it was very wet. Didn’t leave the yard for hunt related reasons at all but it is quite nice not to have to worry about it.


----------



## ycbm (13 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			A  couple of wider/bigger picture perspectives from : https://geographical.co.uk/nature/wildlife/item/3698-dossier (Rowe:2020)

''One problem is a lack of meaningful monitoring and raw data on the impact of hunting. ‘The data is scattered,’ says Roe. ‘People who are anti-hunting can rightly identify cases of really poor hunting and how it exacerbates the problem. But you can show good examples, where hunting has benefited species. You can cherry-pick your examples to suit your case. What we do know,’ she says, ‘is that for those animals on the [IUCN] Red List, hunting is never listed among the threats they face....

In the UK, thanks to the absence of top predators, the deer population has swollen to around two million. Deer trample and eat crops; carry ticks that transmit lyme disease to humans; trample fragile peatlands; and by grazing woodlands and plants have contributed to the decline of some woodland birds. Some sources associate them with 50,000 traffic accidents annually.
In January this year, a coalition of Scottish conservation groups called for legally enforceable culls of deer, while raising the prospect of local communities becoming more involved in shooting and killing deer for food. ‘Natural systems have kept things in balance for millennia but they are now out of kilter,’ says Born Free’s Mark Jones. ‘The UK is a classic example – it has basically removed the top predators. With no natural limits, the prey animals expand and damage the wider environment...‘Hunting may be perceived as irrelevant – a cruel anachronism in today’s modern world,’ he says. ‘Yet all world fisheries are hunts; and billions of people rely on wild harvested foods, that signify animal death; there is no death-free card to swipe in the wild theatre of food provisioning.''


And from: Ecology and Society (2020) Shokirov & Backhaus
Department of Geography, University of Zurich, 2University Priority Programme Global Change and Biodiversity, University of Zurich

''Indigenous hunting communities around the world possess capabilities to accumulate and maintain knowledge based on their traditional practices, cultural norms, and belief systems. Case studies around the world have demonstrated that merging indigenous hunting knowledge with community-based conservation approaches is often complementary to biodiversity conservation. A combination of such approaches improves wildlife conservation practices and livelihood strategies while enhancing communities’ social-ecological resilience.''

Whilst both of these articles are more global in their outlook this, from the RSPB is related directly to the UK :http://ww2.rspb.org.uk/images/predator report_tcm9-177905.pdf

Remember that the issue of whether foxes need controlling or not is NOT contested and there never was legally satisfactory evidence that hunting foxes with hounds is worse than any other method.  Increasingly the alternatives are contested on welfare, cruelty and other reasons but in the UK uplands there is still a call for foxes to be hunted legally by hounds (more than 2) because of the nature of the control challenges there.  As it is, foxes can still be hunted legally by 2 dogs.  It is not straightforward ethically or ecologically in spite of people's very strong feelings about the matter.
		
Click to expand...


This article talks about the increase in the deer population.  I sincerely hope you are not going to start defending the hunting of deer with hounds?
.


----------



## ycbm (13 January 2021)

but in the UK uplands there is still a call for foxes to be hunted legally by hounds (more than 2) because of the nature of the control challenges there.  .
		
Click to expand...

Does 2000 feet up in the west of the Peak  Park count as UK uplands?  Because if so,  I can assure you that there has been absolutely no call to hunt this area's foxes with hounds in the last 30 years.  If foxes cause a problem,  they are shot.  If not,  they are left alone.  Judging from tracks in the snow on my arena last week,  I have one hunting on my land.  It's welcome.  If it takes too many lambs from my neighbouring fields instead of wild animals come April/May,  it will be shot.  

There was a foot pack of beagles hunting brown hare, which are plentiful in this area.  I haven't seen them for many years now and I'm very pleased about that.  There was never any reason except "fun" to hunt hare with dogs.  
.


----------



## Miss_Millie (13 January 2021)

ycbm said:



			Does 2000 feet up in the west of the Peak  Park count as UK uplands?  Because if so,  I can assure you that there has been absolutely no call to hunt this area's foxes with hounds in the last 30 years.  If foxes cause a problem,  they are shot.  If not,  they are left alone.  Judging from tracks in the snow on my arena last week,  I have one hunting on my land.  It's welcome.  If it takes too many lambs from my neighbouring fields instead of wild animals come April/May,  it will be shot. 

There was a foot pack of beagles hunting brown hare, which are plentiful in this area.  I haven't seen them for many years now and I'm very pleased about that.  There was never any reason except "fun" to hunt hare with dogs. 
.
		
Click to expand...

This is the main thing that boggles me about the 'logic' of traditional fox hunting. Surely, the most humane and efficient way to kill a fox (if even necessary) is by shooting it through the head, by a trained marksman, who can kill it instantly with one bullet. It does not involve the poor fox being chased for miles by a pack of baying hounds and dug out of its hole in complete terror.

Not to mention, the farmland and bridleways aren't ruined by the many people on horseback. Locals don't have to worry about keeping their cats and dogs indoors. Non-hunting horse owners don't have to worry about their horses getting stressed out and worked up.

It is really just confirmation to me that 'fun' is the name of the game, and claims of 'conservation' and 'pest control' are hogwash.


----------



## Clodagh (13 January 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			Wrt foxhounds still being trained to follow fox scent even when trail hunting. How is the young entry trained to follow fox scent? How is all this fox scent gathered and harvested?

We know how the now disbanded South Herefordshire Hunt did it. They threw captive fox cubs to hounds. Caught out by covert cctv.

Fox cruelty: South Herefordshire Hunt pair found guilty https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-48584227

Click to expand...

That incident was totally slammed by everyone, pros and antis alike, and rightly so.


----------



## Tiddlypom (13 January 2021)

Clodagh said:



			That incident was totally slammed by everyone, pros and antis alike, and rightly so.
		
Click to expand...

Everyone? Because they were caught?


----------



## palo1 (13 January 2021)

ycbm said:



			This article talks about the increase in the deer population.  I sincerely hope you are not going to start defending the hunting of deer with hounds?
.
		
Click to expand...

No - I am not ycbm but it does illustrate how generally 'wrong' we have got things in relation to hunting, conservation and ecology in this country and I think that is pretty universally recognised.  In Poland even there is considerable disquiet about the loss of Fox Hunting in England -which has resulted in elements of Polish hunting being protected.  Other countries have seen what a mess we have made of hunting and want to avoid making similar mistakes.


----------



## palo1 (13 January 2021)

ycbm said:



			Does 2000 feet up in the west of the Peak  Park count as UK uplands?  Because if so,  I can assure you that there has been absolutely no call to hunt this area's foxes with hounds in the last 30 years.  If foxes cause a problem,  they are shot.  If not,  they are left alone.  Judging from tracks in the snow on my arena last week,  I have one hunting on my land.  It's welcome.  If it takes too many lambs from my neighbouring fields instead of wild animals come April/May,  it will be shot.

There was a foot pack of beagles hunting brown hare, which are plentiful in this area.  I haven't seen them for many years now and I'm very pleased about that.  There was never any reason except "fun" to hunt hare with dogs.
.
		
Click to expand...

No, not in the Peak District to my knowledge but most definately in Wales. I hope the fox that is hunting on your land does not take lambs but if it does I hope equally that it is shot outright.  The chances of that are not fabulous but I would hope an instant death would be the outcome.  Hare were hunted for food and because they were perceived to have an impact on arable land but for myself I have never wanted to hunt hare; I would far rather watch them do their own thing which they are immensely capable at!! 

ETA:this information from a UK Gov FOI request https://assets.publishing.service.g...nting_-_27_March_14_6454_Annex_A_Research.pdf 

It says, among other things ''For instance, two dogs as compared to a pack of dogs may be less likely to find foxes when drawing (searching for foxes) in large forestry blocks and if two dogs do find a fox the pursuit before it is flushed out and shot may be more protracted than would be the case if a greater number of dogs were used. These considerations may be particularly relevant to the control of fox numbers in upland areas of Wales and England where lamb predation by foxes is a significant problem and other forms of fox control may be less effective (Burns 2000, Heydon 2000). The current study was undertaken to investigate whether there are any differences in terms of effectiveness and potential welfare indices between the use of two dogs and a pack of dogs to flush foxes.'' 

NRW (Natural Resource Wales) also identifies this as a strategy here in a research paper regarding the use of firearms on NRW Land (https://cdn.cyfoethnaturiol.cymru/m...-evidence.pdf?mode=pad&rnd=131625760710000000) : 5.2.1 Evidence Farmers and representatives of land management groups / membership organisations identify predation of lambs by foxes as an important factor in the livelihoods of Welsh sheep farmers. Financial analysis, based on relationships between lamb losses, fox density and the costs of fox control, suggests that it is only worthwhile for farmers to carry out additional control actions where regional fox densities are high37 . One study found that based on perceived estimates of predation, foxes cost sheep producers across Britain approximately £9.4 million in 199938 . In 1998 the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food estimated that sheep producers in the UK lose up to four million lambs each year, at an annual cost to the industry of £120 million. Deaths due to misadventure and all predators combined accounted for just five percent of these losses; the other losses were due to a variety of management problems39 . In 2000 the Burns Inquiry found that, ‘Other means of fox control, in particular shooting, seem capable of killing at least as many foxes as are killed by hunting, except in mid-Wales and some other upland areas. In mid-Wales, methods involving dogs are currently effective in maintaining the population below carrying capacity and cost very little. In the event of a ban (of hunting with dogs), shooting would be the most viable alternative but even this www.naturalresourceswales.gov.uk Page 15 of 41 would be difficult because of the terrain. Much would depend, in upland areas, on whether it was still permissible to use dogs to flush foxes to guns.’ 40 In addition, the Burns Review stated that, ‘In upland areas, where the fox population causes more damage to sheep-rearing and game management interests, and where there is a greater perceived need for control, fewer alternatives are available to the use of dogs, either to flush out to guns or for digging-out’. 41 In 2013 the Federation of Welsh Farming Packs (FWFP) carried out a poll of 651 sheep farmers in markets throughout Wales42. Table 1 shows the responses including that 90% of respondents said that they had experienced financial loss from fox predation since 2005. Table 1: Percentage of farmers surveyed who had experienced lamb losses through fox predation between 2005 and 2013, from FWFP submission to review38 (‘sic’) The FWFP survey found that the effectiveness of flushing to guns has been reduced with the implementation of the Hunting Act (2004), causing significant additional losses to livestock farmers and that no farmers want to lose the ability to use dogs to flush to guns on 322,000 acres of afforested land in Wales.''


----------



## Clodagh (13 January 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			Everyone? Because they were caught?
		
Click to expand...

Well if I hadn’t known about it I’d not have had an opinion!


----------



## palo1 (13 January 2021)

It is pointless trying to have an actual adult discussion about this if all everyone posts about their personal irritations as in ' the local hunt has annoyed me/done this therefore hunting should be got rid of'.  It seems to me that every time I present something which is not my own opinion but impartial information and views it just gets ignored so that posters can gripe about their personal experience! So frustrating but if that is the level of debate possible so be it. It's just not interesting in all honesty nor productive.


----------



## paddi22 (13 January 2021)

I am trying to understand the angle on the deer hunting you mentioned? We live in a forestry area and there are too many deer currently. They are now being culled by shooters that apply for licenses.  Everyone here has no issue with that and it's a kinder death than being hit by cars (which is a constant danger here at night). But gangs of people aren't chasing the deer around breaking the law and injuring and distressing other animals, so I'm not sure what your point was in relation to fox hunting?


----------



## Miss_Millie (13 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			It is pointless trying to have an actual adult discussion about this if all everyone posts about their personal irritations as in ' the local hunt has annoyed me/done this therefore hunting should be got rid of'.  It seems to me that every time I present something which is not my own opinion but impartial information and views it just gets ignored so that posters can gripe about their personal experience! So frustrating but if that is the level of debate possible so be it. It's just not interesting in all honesty nor productive.
		
Click to expand...

There are several people on here that have claimed they used to hunt and used to be pro-hunt, but that their personal experiences since the ban have completely changed their opinion on the purpose of hunting as a whole - be it because the hunt have upset their animals or trespassed on their land, blocked roads etc.

The thing is, people's opinions on any subject are often validated by their own personal experiences. It's the main reason that people have opinions about anything, e.g. you leave a bad review on a chair you bought because the quality is shoddy and it's uncomfortable. If I was considering buying the chair, I'd listen to that person.

It might be a strange analogy but what I'm trying to say is, people's lived experiences are surely more valid than anything?


----------



## palo1 (13 January 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			This is the main thing that boggles me about the 'logic' of traditional fox hunting. Surely, the most humane and efficient way to kill a fox (if even necessary) is by shooting it through the head, by a trained marksman, who can kill it instantly with one bullet. It does not involve the poor fox being chased for miles by a pack of baying hounds and dug out of its hole in complete terror.

Not to mention, the farmland and bridleways aren't ruined by the many people on horseback. Locals don't have to worry about keeping their cats and dogs indoors. Non-hunting horse owners don't have to worry about their horses getting stressed out and worked up.

It is really just confirmation to me that 'fun' is the name of the game, and claims of 'conservation' and 'pest control' are hogwash.
		
Click to expand...

This is older data but interesting in relation to shooting of foxes: alcons.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Wounding-rates-in-shooting-foxes.pdf.  In brief it found:-

'Both shotguns and rifles are used to shoot foxes and we observed and filmed foxes shot at by all the main methods. We obtained data from the Scottish gun packs for the 2002-2003 season documenting the outcomes of 574 shots fired at 386 live foxes. This revealed an average kill rate of 55% (range 20-79%) for all shots fired, but did not permit exact calculations of wounding rates because some foxes escaped....1.2. Kill rates Many hours, even days, are expended in getting a shot at a fox. We could not provide enough observers to document sufficient fox shooting to determine the kill rate ourselves. We observed foxes shot both by shotguns and by rifles, by day and by night, and we saw foxes killed and foxes wounded by all these methods. However, we did manage to obtain the Hunt Returns for the Scottish Gunpacks 2002-2003 that are being submitted in evidence for their court case (see 1.5.). Their average kill rate was 54.9% (range 20% - 79.3%). The Welsh Gun packs estimated their kill rates at 8 | P a g e around 33% (Aled Jones pers comm.). The kill rate is clearly a very variable figure, depending on circumstances. In general, from what we saw, and from questioning the shooters who participated in the trials, we estimate that the kill rate of real foxes with shotguns with BB or AAA (see 1.5) is around 35% and with high powered rifles, 80-95%. 1.3. The missed and the wounded rates As we cannot use captive live foxes for this research, we must use artificial targets to simulate as closely as possible the same conditions as found in real life situations. By shooting at a lot of dummy targets one can easily see which ones are hit (k + w) and which ones are missed (m). The theory is simple. In practice there are many variables and confounding factors. These need to be assessed, both so that we can assess the accuracy of our estimates and so that we can understand the variation. Cadavers from fox shoots were examined to assess injuries caused by the different shooting regimes. This information was then applied to score the target fox sheets. We can thus estimate what percentage of target foxes are ‘wounded’ (w) and assess what shooting parameters cause more or less wounding. There is no standard way to quantify suffering, and probably never will be, and therefore we have not attempted to assess the welfare implications of these wounds. 1.4. The variables Shooting foxes is not a single, standard activity; rather it is a multi-faceted activity with a host of variables. The only common denominator is that all shooting of free-living foxes inevitably entails some wounding. Variables include type of weapon (rifle or shotgun), calibre, choke, size and number of shot and load, range, ability of the shooter, movement and direction of the fox, and exposure time. These are the most obvious variables. When looking at welfare it is not just the welfare of the target that needs to be considered. The fox may be a vixen with dependent cubs that will starve (Macdonald et al.2000).



This is from BBC Discover Wildlife (https://www.discoverwildlife.com/people/do-we-really-need-to-control-foxes-in-the-uk/) which most definately is not a pro-hunting organisation:-

''David Thomas, of the Federation of Welsh Farmers Packs, said the predominance of sheep farming and the nature of the terrain – upland areas and forestry plantations – make fox control in Wales not just essential but hard to do without using packs of dogs. “Since the ban, farmers have moved to ‘lamping’ with rifles, but in forests it can be hard to see the foxes and they quickly become lamp shy,” he added.
Reynolds said that numerous studies have shown that ground-nesting birds such as curlews, golden plovers and lapwings, as well as hares, all benefit where fox control is carried out. Stone curlews wouldn’t survive in the UK if foxes weren’t culled, he said...
*The costs of foxes for farming*
Foxes cost sheep producers across Britain approximately *£9.4 million* in 1999, according to one estimate.
Reducing fox numbers by *43 per cent* resulted in a three-fold increase in breeding success for lapwings, golden plovers, curlews, red grouse and meadow pipits.

In a survey of Welsh farmers carried out in 2013, *96 per cent* said that predation on lambs had an impact on their income, while *75 per cent* said that they had lost more lambs to foxes since the hunting ban came into effect in 2005.
Hare densities at a farm in Leicestershire have *declined* from a high of more than 50 per km2 when predator control was carried out to less than 8 per km2 at a count in 2006 after a period of several years with no predator control.

I hope this provides some context for the success of shooting foxes.


----------



## palo1 (13 January 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			There are several people on here that have claimed they used to hunt and used to be pro-hunt, but that their personal experiences since the ban have completely changed their opinion on the purpose of hunting as a whole - be it because the hunt have upset their animals or trespassed on their land, blocked roads etc.

The thing is, people's opinions on any subject are often validated by their own personal experiences. It's the main reason that people have opinions about anything, e.g. you leave a bad review on a chair you bought because the quality is shoddy and it's uncomfortable. If I was considering buying the chair, I'd listen to that person.

It might be a strange analogy but what I'm trying to say is, people's lived experiences are surely more valid than anything?
		
Click to expand...

But individual lived experiences, whilst valid and entirely valuable to that individual, are not the way that policy is made nor a basis for legislation which requires evidence based submission from expert, impartial bodies to ensure that a majority 'lived experience' does not invalidate other views and experiences which may have a significant bearing on the subject.


----------



## hollyandivy123 (13 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			But individual lived experiences, whilst valid and entirely valuable to that individual, are not the way that policy is made nor a basis for legislation which requires evidence based submission from expert, impartial bodies to ensure that a majority 'lived experience' does not invalidate other views and experiences which may have a significant bearing on the subject.
		
Click to expand...

isn't this the reason for most of the votes in the referendum in 2016..............


----------



## palo1 (13 January 2021)

paddi22 said:



			I am trying to understand the angle on the deer hunting you mentioned? We live in a forestry area and there are too many deer currently. They are now being culled by shooters that apply for licenses.  Everyone here has no issue with that and it's a kinder death than being hit by cars (which is a constant danger here at night). But gangs of people aren't chasing the deer around breaking the law and injuring and distressing other animals, so I'm not sure what your point was in relation to fox hunting?
		
Click to expand...

Sorry - the point I was making with that post was to demonstrate that the 'received wisdom' of hunting practices in the UK has been proven, at least with the deer population to be deeply flawed.  This might suggest that other policies around hunting, conservation, ecology and species control may also benefit from alternative views and a different approach.  Things change too and there is increasing evidence to suggest that hunting knowledge and practices may have far greater importance than previously understood.  Hence the rather reluctant acknowledgement by conservation and environmental charities that hunting has a role to play in a more nature focussed society.  It is not popular of course and highly contentious which is why many people would rather not discuss it or openly acknowledge that.


----------



## Tiddlypom (13 January 2021)

Clodagh said:



			Well if I hadn’t known about it I’d not have had an opinion!
		
Click to expand...

I know that you were horrified by the SHH case, too.

You can’t help but compare it to the Kimblewick Hunt Cruelty case, though.

Kimblewick Hunt: Men sentenced for releasing fox 'into hunt path' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-50562260

Small unfashionable SHH - reviled and disbanded.

Kimblewick Hunt - carries on undaunted.

You might have thought that at least the Head of Hunting for the Countryside Alliance would think it wise to move to another pack after that court case.


----------



## palo1 (13 January 2021)

Hmm, still no one can find a moment to respond to the data I posted just now but hey ho, carry on!!


----------



## Dizzy socks (13 January 2021)

I have to comend palo for continuing to provide discussion on this thread, even where the majority disagree (including me, for the most part) - its interesting and, I think valuable.

From my perspective, I think are two separate issues which you are amalgamating palo. Firstly, there is the issue on whether fox hunting is beneficial for the countryside. I accept there *may* be arguments to be made that it is a better method of control for the fox population, in that there isn't the chance of wounding which can occur when shooting - the fox either dies or survives. 

However, the second and more important point is public perception. Even if hunting were pragmatically a better option, if public opinion is not on its side then the ban will never be repealed - and public perception isn't. Furthermore, even if the general population were to do a 180 and agree, I can see no scenario where mounted followers would be welcome. Public (and my, tbh) distate for enjoying killing as a fun day out on horseback, especially when percieved as the preserve of the priviledged and elitist, isn't going to go away. You believing that fox-hunting is beneficial is broadly irrelevant, even if you were/are right.

So then there is no scenario where hunting can return as it once was, and so legitimate trail hunts, who enjoy riding after hounds, would do well to distance themselves from the, at times atrocious, behaviour of a number of hunts. While you may not approve of anecdotal evidence of hunts misbehaviour - if on a forum called horse and hound, where you have in theory a far more supportive cross-section than the general population, there is still a majority who dislike even trail hunts, there is already an uphill battle to improve the reputation of trail hunts if they wish to survive. I think changing their name to remove any mention of hunting would probably be a good start.

Sorry I've just re-read this and its convoluted and poorly written, but I hope I've vaguely managed to convey what I intended.


----------



## Dizzy socks (13 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			Hmm, still no one can find a moment to respond to the data I posted just now but hey ho, carry on!!
		
Click to expand...

Have you read the whole thing you linked? You've certaintly only posted the bits which are helpful to your argument. These are also direct quotes from your website link:

"
During its lifetime, a single fox may be worth £150–190 to a farmer through rabbit predation. This translates to an annual benefit of *£7–9 million*.
In Wiltshire, most farmers did not consider the fox to be a pest at all, and rabbits were their *worst* pest.” _Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCRU), 2000_
A survey carried out by _BBC Wildlife_ in 2008 identified the fox as the UK’s *third most popular* mammal (behind otters and hedgehogs).
Foxes are common in new commercial plantations where populations of field voles and rabbits (both of which damage young trees) are high – by predating them, foxes provide an *economic benefit *to forestry operations."

There are other issues to consider. A report written for the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) said there was no evidence killing foxes had any effect on fox populations, other than locally. Culling in one area results in other animals moving into the vacated territory, and if numbers are suppressed it results in more cubs being born in the spring. And there is no evidence that fox numbers have increased since the ban on hunting in 2005.
Defra advice advocates better protection of stock rather than fox control. “In high fox density areas, killing [them] to reduce numbers is often not successful or cost-effective,” it said in 2005.
Foxes also aid commercial forestry, by predating species that can damage young trees, though the exact value of this is unclear. Whatever the truth, it would appear that the economic pros and cons of foxes could simply cancel each other out."


----------



## ycbm (13 January 2021)

Well spotted DS.
.


----------



## Leah3horses (13 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			It is pointless trying to have an actual adult discussion about this if all everyone posts about their personal irritations as in ' the local hunt has annoyed me/done this therefore hunting should be got rid of'.  It seems to me that every time I present something which is not my own opinion but impartial information and views it just gets ignored so that posters can gripe about their personal experience! So frustrating but if that is the level of debate possible so be it. It's just not interesting in all honesty nor productive.
		
Click to expand...

So, why not agree with yourself? ...why not get off your own personal soapbox? You can carry on posting often completely irrelevant links to try to back up your own agenda....others could do exactly the same to support their own, legal and ethical , agenda or opinion. And so it goes on. For ,so far, 18 entire years since the ban.  18  years of hunts breaking the law. What other group of people would get away with that? Reasonable people are fed up to the back teeth with it, as is obvious from this thread, and hundreds like it in the 18 years it's been banned. Debate doesn't go on and on until people agree with you, of course you have the right to keep on repetitively posting your own personal views,  but please don't then complain when others refuse to keep trying to reason with you ,or agree with you. That would be rather controlling 🤔.


----------



## Miss_Millie (13 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			But individual lived experiences, whilst valid and entirely valuable to that individual, are not the way that policy is made nor a basis for legislation which requires evidence based submission from expert, impartial bodies to ensure that a majority 'lived experience' does not invalidate other views and experiences which may have a significant bearing on the subject.
		
Click to expand...

The thing is, you were saying that you 'can't have an adult discussion with people' who are sharing their opinions based off of their own lived experiences. But I'm _sure_ that your pro-hunting stance is based off of your own personal nostalgia and history with hunting - you mention the importance of tradition a lot.

I'm just saying, it would be a little hypocritical to tell others who have had bad personal experiences with hunts, that their experiences are invalidated because they aren't objective enough, when your own stance is clearly not impartial.

At the end of the day, everyone will form their own opinion based on their life experience, what they read in the media and their own personal moral views.

For me, I have had no lived experience of hunting, but as a fellow equestrian who loves animals of all kinds, I find it very hard to see any pros to this activity, especially when people's pets get caught up in it and locals claim to no longer feel safe on their own property. That is scary to me. I also feel terribly sad for the foxes.

Kimblewick getting away with murder time and time again is another reason why I have a very negative view of hunting, because it angers me that they get away with breaking the law constantly - it very much highlights the class divide injustice in this country.


----------



## palo1 (13 January 2021)

Dizzy socks said:



			Have you read the whole thing you linked? You've certaintly only posted the bits which are helpful to your argument. These are also direct quotes from your website link:

"
During its lifetime, a single fox may be worth £150–190 to a farmer through rabbit predation. This translates to an annual benefit of *£7–9 million*.
In Wiltshire, most farmers did not consider the fox to be a pest at all, and rabbits were their *worst* pest.” _Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCRU), 2000_
A survey carried out by _BBC Wildlife_ in 2008 identified the fox as the UK’s *third most popular* mammal (behind otters and hedgehogs).
Foxes are common in new commercial plantations where populations of field voles and rabbits (both of which damage young trees) are high – by predating them, foxes provide an *economic benefit *to forestry operations."

There are other issues to consider. A report written for the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) said there was no evidence killing foxes had any effect on fox populations, other than locally. Culling in one area results in other animals moving into the vacated territory, and if numbers are suppressed it results in more cubs being born in the spring. And there is no evidence that fox numbers have increased since the ban on hunting in 2005.
Defra advice advocates better protection of stock rather than fox control. “In high fox density areas, killing [them] to reduce numbers is often not successful or cost-effective,” it said in 2005.
Foxes also aid commercial forestry, by predating species that can damage young trees, though the exact value of this is unclear. Whatever the truth, it would appear that the economic pros and cons of foxes could simply cancel each other out."
		
Click to expand...


No I was perfectly aware of the content of the article and the potential benefits of foxes on the land; I have never raised that as an issue. None of the stuff you have quoted (and there is plenty more that neither of us has quoted) contradicts my point about there being a desire and potential need for a different kind of fox control.  Wiltshire is not where I was talking about either and the stuff you have quoted is more qualitative than quantative.


----------



## palo1 (13 January 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			The thing is, you were saying that you 'can't have an adult discussion with people' who are sharing their opinions based off of their own lived experiences. But I'm _sure_ that your pro-hunting stance is based off of your own personal nostalgia and history with hunting - you mention the importance of tradition a lot.

I'm just saying, it would be a little hypocritical to tell others who have had bad personal experiences with hunts, that their experiences are invalidated because they aren't objective enough, when your own stance is clearly not impartial.

At the end of the day, everyone will form their own opinion based on their life experience, what they read in the media and their own personal moral views.

For me, I have had no lived experience of hunting, but as a fellow equestrian who loves animals of all kinds, I find it very hard to see any pros to this activity, especially when people's pets get caught up in it and locals claim to no longer feel safe on their own property. That is scary to me. I also feel terribly sad for the foxes.

Kimblewick getting away with murder time and time again is another reason why I have a very negative view of hunting, because it angers me that they get away with breaking the law constantly - it very much highlights the class divide injustice in this country.
		
Click to expand...

Well you have a good point about the value of lived experience and opinion but that isn't the way that laws are made here in the UK.  I don't feel nostalgic about hunting but I do value it's place in our culture and countryside management.  There are many people who feel the same and a great many people who continue to hunt.  I would certainly not want to invalidate someone else's opinion but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them or not push back against ideas that I think are fundamentally wrong and ill informed.  That is the joy in freedom of speech and I think we are all grateful for that.


----------



## Dizzy socks (13 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			No I was perfectly aware of the content of the article and the potential benefits of foxes on the land; I have never raised that as an issue. None of the stuff you have quoted (and there is plenty more that neither of us has quoted) contradicts my point about there being a desire and potential need for a different kind of fox control.  Wiltshire is not where I was talking about either and the stuff you have quoted is more qualitative than quantative.
		
Click to expand...

I don't quite buy that. What you've quoted from this website in your previous post can be split into two sections.

The second section, is purely on the cost of foxes. This does not in any way even imply a need for a different mechanism of control, and I think it means that my quotation on the benefit of foxes is not just relevant but also necessary for balance - they're very clearly intended to be read together.


palo1 said:



			Reynolds said that numerous studies have shown that ground-nesting birds such as curlews, golden plovers and lapwings, as well as hares, all benefit where fox control is carried out. Stone curlews wouldn’t survive in the UK if foxes weren’t culled, he said...
*The costs of foxes for farming*
Foxes cost sheep producers across Britain approximately *£9.4 million* in 1999, according to one estimate.
Reducing fox numbers by *43 per cent* resulted in a three-fold increase in breeding success for lapwings, golden plovers, curlews, red grouse and meadow pipits.

In a survey of Welsh farmers carried out in 2013, *96 per cent* said that predation on lambs had an impact on their income, while *75 per cent* said that they had lost more lambs to foxes since the hunting ban came into effect in 2005.
Hare densities at a farm in Leicestershire have *declined* from a high of more than 50 per km2 when predator control was carried out to less than 8 per km2 at a count in 2006 after a period of several years with no predator control.
		
Click to expand...

The first section you've quoted is a direct quote from someone who believes fox hunting is a better method of control - but as a direct quote it renders your claim that the article is unbiased null - the artile may be, but that quotation definitely is not. Indeed, it comes from a representative from the Federation of Welsh Farmers Packs - a group which represents groups owning packs of hounds and essentially lobbies for repeal; hardly unbiased.



palo1 said:



			This is from BBC Discover Wildlife (https://www.discoverwildlife.com/people/do-we-really-need-to-control-foxes-in-the-uk/) which most definately is not a pro-hunting organisation:-

''David Thomas, of the Federation of Welsh Farmers Packs, said the predominance of sheep farming and the nature of the terrain – upland areas and forestry plantations – make fox control in Wales not just essential but hard to do without using packs of dogs. “Since the ban, farmers have moved to ‘lamping’ with rifles, but in forests it can be hard to see the foxes and they quickly become lamp shy,” he added.
		
Click to expand...

Therefore, I think my counter quotation was in fact contradictory to your overarching point that foxes are detrimental, for which you were cherry picking quotes. And the first point you have quoted appears an attempt to use an arguably unbiased website to make a very biased quotation seem not so.

Finally, if the very article you quoted says that fox numbers have remained largely unaltered following the ban, then even if your point from the Federation of Welsh Farmers Packs were unbiased it would be rendered obsolete by information within that very article you pulled it from - "there is no evidence that fox numbers have increased since the ban on hunting in 2005.".


----------



## palo1 (13 January 2021)

Dizzy socks said:



			I don't quite buy that. What you've quoted from this website in your previous post can be split into two sections.

The second section, is purely on the cost of foxes. This does not in any way even imply a need for a different mechanism of control, and I think it means that my quotation on the benefit of foxes is not just relevant but also necessary for balance - they're very clearly intended to be read together.


The first section you've quoted is a direct quote from someone who believes fox hunting is a better method of control - but as a direct quote it renders your claim that the article is unbiased null - the artile may be, but that quotation definitely is not. Indeed, it comes from a representative from the Federation of Welsh Farmers Packs - a group which represents groups owning packs of hounds and essentially lobbies for repeal; hardly unbiased.


Therefore, I think my counter quotation was in fact contradictory to your overarching point that foxes are detrimental, for which you were cherry picking quotes. And the first point you have quoted appears an attempt to use an arguably unbiased website to make a very biased quotation seem not so.

Finally, if the very article you quoted says that fox numbers have remained largely unaltered following the ban, then even if your point from the Federation of Welsh Farmers Packs were unbiased it would be rendered obsolete by information within that very article you pulled it from - "there is no evidence that fox numbers have increased since the ban on hunting in 2005.".
		
Click to expand...

My last post on this thread (many will be relieved to hear!)  I do see what you mean but my point was that the BBC clearly felt that the quote I used was information that was relevant and appropriate to include in the debate - I took that because of the fact that the non hunting supporting BBC had used this information, clearly demonstrating that it was probably not as subjective as you suggest. This information, of course  is available in other places too but I chose that source because I perceived that to be more persuasive due to the way that the BBC very rarely presents information and views supporting Trail Hunting; this appeared to make it more compelling to me.  

The information is also in context with the earlier stuff that I posted from National Resource Wales and was related to the subject that in upland Welsh areas there are perceived benefits to hunting with more than 2 hounds and in response to discussion about the validity and practicality of shooting foxes in that setting.  The information about fox numbers doesn't seem particularly relevant to me as I never argued anything about fox numbers but I am not really quibbling over that.   I know it is possible to find a great deal of information which might support pro or anti hunting arguments; that is sort of how debate and discussion works so I don't quite understand the frustration of posters on this thread about that, it being a thread about hunting!  I am not sure what is expected of those supporting Trail hunting - other than to just agree or withdraw from on-going discussion so that a comfortable agreement exists between posters.  That, I think, is just an echo chamber. Enjoy it.


----------



## Kipper's Dick (14 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			My last post on this thread (many will be relieved to hear!)  I do see what you mean but my point was that the BBC clearly felt that the quote I used was information that was relevant and appropriate to include in the debate - I took that because of the fact that the non hunting supporting BBC had used this information, clearly demonstrating that it was probably not as subjective as you suggest. This information, of course  is available in other places too but I chose that source because I perceived that to be more persuasive due to the way that the BBC very rarely presents information and views supporting Trail Hunting; this appeared to make it more compelling to me.  

The information is also in context with the earlier stuff that I posted from National Resource Wales and was related to the subject that in upland Welsh areas there are perceived benefits to hunting with more than 2 hounds and in response to discussion about the validity and practicality of shooting foxes in that setting.  The information about fox numbers doesn't seem particularly relevant to me as I never argued anything about fox numbers but I am not really quibbling over that.   I know it is possible to find a great deal of information which might support pro or anti hunting arguments; that is sort of how debate and discussion works so I don't quite understand the frustration of posters on this thread about that, it being a thread about hunting!  I am not sure what is expected of those supporting Trail hunting - other than to just agree or withdraw from on-going discussion so that a comfortable agreement exists between posters.  That, I think, is just an echo chamber. Enjoy it.
		
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know about 'enjoyment', Palo1.  I've found the whole thing rather depressing to be honest.  But whatever differing views we all hold, your courteous and informative input into this discussion has been amazing.  So it's a 'thank you' from me, anyway.


----------



## littleshetland (14 January 2021)

A 'well done' to everyone for such a civilised debate about such an emotive subject.


----------



## stormox (14 January 2021)

A question for you sabs, anti's etc who think killing animals - even pests- cruel.....would you feel the same about killing rats? Suppose you found a huge load of them under your floors?


----------



## hollyandivy123 (14 January 2021)

stormox said:



			A question for you sabs, anti's etc who think killing animals - even pests- cruel.....would you feel the same about killing rats? Suppose you found a huge load of them under your floors?
		
Click to expand...

this is a two part question you are trying to make into one.

removing pests from an environment is reasonable in a controlled way, although managing you environment to reduce access to food sources etc might be a better preventing approach to take. we use to have mice in the house through winter, steel wool and blocking access holes and suddenly no mice.....................better than trapping and killing wouldn't you say

chasing animals for pleasure in the name of pest control...............doesn't stand up to argument in this day and age
chasing animals to hunt to eat, whether deer, wild antelope etc i do not find a problem, do have a slight problem about whales etc, but for consumption okish
breeding animals to chase or shoot....................again hard to justify in this day and age, unless for food consumption and possibly it would be more straightforward not to release/shot and just dispatch from cage?

but a good try to relate rat infections which bring diseases into an environment and chasing foxes.

ps not a sab just a debater


----------



## stormox (14 January 2021)

hollyandivy123 said:



			this is a two part question you are trying to make into one.

ps not a sab just a debater
		
Click to expand...

Not a hunter just a debater too, although I have hunted in the past when most horsey folk did.  Incidentally foxes can carry diseases too,  especially worms and other parasites, and rabies which luckily is not prevalent in the UK. Also I think they can carry parvo, distemper etc.


----------



## ycbm (14 January 2021)

stormox said:



			A question for you sabs, anti's etc who think killing animals - even pests- cruel.....would you feel the same about killing rats? Suppose you found a huge load of them under your floors?
		
Click to expand...

Not a sab but definitely anti repealing the law, ex fox hunter, long term drag hunter, meat eater.

I don't think killing any animal is cruel, per se, it depends on the way it's done and the reason it's done for.  .
.


----------



## hollyandivy123 (14 January 2021)

stormox said:



			Not a hunter just a debater too, although I have hunted in the past when most horsey folk did.  Incidentally foxes can carry diseases too,  especially worms and other parasites, and rabies which luckily is not prevalent in the UK. Also I think they can carry parvo, distemper etc.
		
Click to expand...

In *the United Kingdom*, some figures show that the *rat* population has been rising, with estimations that 81 million *rats* reside in the *U.K.* 
At the end of winter, when numbers are lowest, there are *258,000* adult foxes in Britain, of which *225,000* live in rural areas, *33,000* in urban areas 

i guess is a numbers thing which is more likely to infect you with something


----------



## Miss_Millie (14 January 2021)

hollyandivy123 said:



			In *the United Kingdom*, some figures show that the *rat* population has been rising, with estimations that 81 million *rats* reside in the *U.K.*
At the end of winter, when numbers are lowest, there are *258,000* adult foxes in Britain, of which *225,000* live in rural areas, *33,000* in urban areas

i guess is a numbers thing which is more likely to infect you with something
		
Click to expand...

What have rats got to do with fox hunting?

If I personally found a rat in my house, I would use a humane trap to catch it and drive to release in a field. Mindless killing is pointless - rats are intelligent and sentient. People are quick to classify some animals as 'vermin' in the same way they'd call a dandelion a 'weed'. Yet in victorian times, danelions were a dietary and medicinal staple in this country - our prejudices are very much based on what we've always known, and I think it's important to have a broader perspective.

I find unecessary killing of any kind, completely pointless and a waste of a life. I wouldn't kill a spider in my house, even though I don't like them. I just catch them in a glass and put them outside. I don't see the point whatsoever in killing something that has done nothing to hurt me, even if I don't like it that much.


----------



## littleshetland (14 January 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			What have rats got to do with fox hunting?

If I personally found a rat in my house, I would use a humane trap to catch it and drive to release in a field. Mindless killing is pointless - rats are intelligent and sentient. People are quick to classify some animals as 'vermin' in the same way they'd call a dandelion a 'weed'. Yet in victorian times, danelions were a dietary and medicinal staple in this country - our prejudices are very much based on what we've always known, and I think it's important to have a broader perspective.

I find unecessary killing of any kind, completely pointless and a waste of a life. I wouldn't kill a spider in my house, even though I don't like them. I just catch them in a glass and put them outside. I don't see the point whatsoever in killing something that has done nothing to hurt me, even if I don't like it that much.
		
Click to expand...

Its so easy to forget that an animals life..any animals life..is as important to it, as ours are to us.


----------



## littleshetland (14 January 2021)

stormox said:



			Not a hunter just a debater too, although I have hunted in the past when most horsey folk did.  Incidentally foxes can carry diseases too,  especially worms and other parasites, and rabies which luckily is not prevalent in the UK. Also I think they can carry parvo, distemper etc.
		
Click to expand...

All creatures - ourselves included -can carry a variety of viruses, bacterias and parasites....it's the world we live in.  Humankinds' ability to mishandle and abuse the other living creatures we share our planet with, have very likely resulted in the current pandemic.  Its to our shame that we allow, quite willingly these horrors to continue, but I understand that of course the culling of animals may at times be a necessity for all sorts of reasons, but surely we are able to perform these tasks in the right spirit and with some respect.  Taking pleasure from killing an animal, any animal is abhorrent. I'm happy to repeat myself......... an animals life is as important to it, as ours are to us.


----------



## hollyandivy123 (14 January 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			What have rats got to do with fox hunting?

If I personally found a rat in my house, I would use a humane trap to catch it and drive to release in a field. Mindless killing is pointless - rats are intelligent and sentient. People are quick to classify some animals as 'vermin' in the same way they'd call a dandelion a 'weed'. Yet in victorian times, danelions were a dietary and medicinal staple in this country - our prejudices are very much based on what we've always known, and I think it's important to have a broader perspective.

I find unecessary killing of any kind, completely pointless and a waste of a life. I wouldn't kill a spider in my house, even though I don't like them. I just catch them in a glass and put them outside. I don't see the point whatsoever in killing something that has done nothing to hurt me, even if I don't like it that much.
		
Click to expand...

it was in response to what *stormox *said.................


----------



## Miss_Millie (14 January 2021)

hollyandivy123 said:



			it was in response to what *stormox *said.................
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, I thought I was replying to Stormox!


----------



## Miss_Millie (14 January 2021)

littleshetland said:



			All creatures - ourselves included -can carry a variety of viruses, bacterias and parasites....it's the world we live in.  Humankinds' ability to mishandle and abuse the other living creatures we share our planet with, have very likely resulted in the current pandemic.  Its to our shame that we allow, quite willingly these horrors to continue, but I understand that of course the culling of animals may at times be a necessity for all sorts of reasons, but surely we are able to perform these tasks in the right spirit and with some respect.  Taking pleasure from killing an animal, any animal is abhorrent. I'm happy to repeat myself......... an animals life is as important to it, as ours are to us.
		
Click to expand...

Nicely put


----------



## Sandstone1 (14 January 2021)

stormox said:



			A question for you sabs, anti's etc who think killing animals - even pests- cruel.....would you feel the same about killing rats? Suppose you found a huge load of them under your floors?
		
Click to expand...

There is no rat hunting that I have heard of that involves chasing them for miles before killing them, damaging other peoples land and disturbing livestock and killing pets, disturbing funerals and allowing hounds to poo on graves.  Not to mention holding up trains because they are hunting on a railway line.  All of which have been done by local hunts


----------



## stormox (14 January 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			What have rats got to do with fox hunting?
		
Click to expand...


----------



## stormox (14 January 2021)

Killing rats with dogs is banned by the same act that banned killing foxes with hounds.


----------



## gunnergundog (15 January 2021)

stormox said:



			Killing rats with dogs is banned by the same act that banned killing foxes with hounds.
		
Click to expand...

That is incorrect.
Hunting rats with dogs is a permitted exemption under Schedule 1 of the 2004 Act.  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/37/schedule/1


----------



## Tiddlypom (15 January 2021)

gunnergundog said:



			That is incorrect.
Hunting rats with dogs is a permitted exemption under Schedule 1 of the 2004 Act.  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/37/schedule/1

Click to expand...

Same exemption applies to rabbits, apparently. Thanks for the link, cg.

_Rats
3The hunting of rats is exempt if it takes place on land—

(a)which belongs to the hunter, or

(b)which he has been given permission to use for the purpose by the occupier or, in the case of unoccupied land, by a person to whom it belongs._


----------



## stormox (15 January 2021)

Thanks lads - I didnt realise that rats and rabbits were exempted .....


----------



## minesadouble (15 January 2021)

I will never understand the argument that its acceptable to hunt/shoot to eat but not for sport. 

Firstly it makes no difference to the living animal what happens to its carcass once it is dead. 

Secondly we, as humans, do not NEED to eat meat to survive. We eat meat solely because we (most of us) enjoy the taste/texture of meat. 

So, if you're not vegetarian you are just as guilty of causing the death of an animal for your enjoyment as anyone whose sporting interest results in the death of an animal. 

If I had to choose to come back as either a chicken destined for the human food chain or a fox which may or may not be hunted by a pack of foxhounds I know which I'd choose.


----------



## Tiddlypom (15 January 2021)

minesadouble said:



			I will never understand the argument that its acceptable to hunt/shoot to eat but not for sport.

Firstly it makes no difference to the living animal what happens to its carcass once it is dead.

Secondly we, as humans, do not NEED to eat meat to survive. We eat meat solely because we (most of us) enjoy the taste/texture of meat.

So, if you're not vegetarian you are just as guilty of causing the death of an animal for your enjoyment as anyone whose sporting interest results in the death of an animal.

If I had to choose to come back as either a chicken destined for the human food chain or a fox which may or may not be hunted by a pack of foxhounds I know which I'd choose.
		
Click to expand...

And equally I cannot see why the pro hunt brigade do not see the difference between being seen to ‘apparently’ relish and enjoy the chase and killing of a frightened wild animal and the eating of well reared and humanely despatched farm animals.

The hunters are seen to be enjoying the fear they create in their prey. Now, as a former fox hunter, I do not think that this is largely true, but blood lust is what the public sees and believes, and why not?

Btw I thoroughly agree about the mass production of broiler chicken, which is grim from start to finish.

Have a look at this, filmed on Oct 7 2020 and reported in The Times. Now, I know slightly less than b00ger all about stag hunting, but nothing will persuade me that this was a humane end for an injured stag. It had been apparently been pre identified as needing to be euthanised as it was injured. So the most humane end for this seriously injured animal was to single it out, persue it with whooping riders who were cracking their whips at it so that it could eventually be cornered and then shot by a marksman?

I don’t think so, though doubtless someone will pop up and say that the hunt derived no pleasure from this, necessary job and all that.

I believe that all that is shown on the video is legal, btw (though as I said, I know very little about stag hunting).


----------



## Sandstone1 (15 January 2021)

That is disgusting.  How is that a quick and humane end to a life?
Pro hunters... How can you defend that?
How many people would give up eating meat if thats how your Sunday lunch had to be killed?
I sometimes hate humans.


----------



## skinnydipper (15 January 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			And equally I cannot see why the pro hunt brigade do not see the difference between being seen to ‘apparently’ relish and enjoy the chase and killing of a frightened wild animal and the eating of well reared and humanely despatched farm animals.

The hunters are seen to be enjoying the fear they create in their prey. Now, as a former fox hunter, I do not think that this is largely true, but blood lust is what the public sees and believes, and why not?

Btw I thoroughly agree about the mass production of broiler chicken, which is grim from start to finish.

Have a look at this, filmed on Oct 7 2020 and reported in The Times. Now, I know slightly less than b00ger all about stag hunting, but nothing will persuade me that this was a humane end for an injured stag. It had been apparently been pre identified as needing to be euthanised as it was injured. So the most humane end for this seriously injured animal was to single it out, persue it with whooping riders who were cracking their whips at it so that it could eventually be cornered and then shot by a marksman?

I don’t think so, though doubtless someone will pop up and say that the hunt derived no pleasure from this, necessary job and all that.

I believe that all that is shown on the video is legal, btw (though as I said, I know very little about stag hunting).









Click to expand...


What horrible people.  How can there be any justification for that sort of behaviour.


----------



## minesadouble (15 January 2021)

I also know bog all about Stag hunting but that pic looks indefensible to me.

Sadly there aren't many people ike yourself who only eat ethically sourced  meat. I have no time for people with double standards. 

Hunting is one area where I think it's almost impossible for the two sides to understand another's point of view unfortunately.


----------



## Clodagh (15 January 2021)

I have stag hunted in the dim and distant past and will say it wasn’t for me, although the venery was impressive. The incident above was awful and was condemned by the hunting fraternity.


----------



## Clodagh (15 January 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			That is disgusting.  How is that a quick and humane end to a life?
Pro hunters... How can you defend that?
How many people would give up eating meat if thats how your Sunday lunch had to be killed?
I sometimes hate humans.
		
Click to expand...

That incident is deplorable but your Sunday lunch doesn’t always have a great time in the slaughterhouse. Some people do awful things, most people don’t.


----------



## ycbm (15 January 2021)

minesadouble said:



			I will never understand the argument that its acceptable to hunt/shoot to eat but not for sport.
.
		
Click to expand...


That's an easy one.

It is possible to have a lot of fun riding cross country behind hounds without killing anything.

It is not currently possible to eat meat without killing an animal, and humans are designed to be omnivores.


----------



## minesadouble (15 January 2021)

ycbm said:



			That's an easy one.

It is possible to have a lot of fun riding cross country behind hounds without killing anything.

It is not currently possible to eat meat without killing an animal, and humans are designed to be omnivores.
		
Click to expand...

But its also perfectly possible to eat a healthy balanced diet without killing animals is it not?


----------



## Tiddlypom (15 January 2021)

Clodagh said:



			The incident above was awful and was condemned by the hunting fraternity.
		
Click to expand...

Was it condemned? I didn’t read that anywhere, though maybe I was looking in the wrong places.

I looked at that video and presumed that’s how injured stags are dealt with. The DSSH are a major player, so you’d think that they would play it by the book.


----------



## minesadouble (15 January 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			That is disgusting.  How is that a quick and humane end to a life?
Pro hunters... How can you defend that?
How many people would give up eating meat if thats how your Sunday lunch had to be killed?
I sometimes hate humans.
		
Click to expand...

I feel the main thing to draw from this comparison is that the Stag in the image, in all probability, had a free and happy life until that day. Your Sunday lunch may not have had the same privilege.

I'm not defending the incident in any way because it looks nothing other than thoroughly  deplorable.
But those who are up in arms about hunting/shooting/fishing then happily pop off to the supermarket to buy their halal killed lamb or gassed pig need to look at their own habits  before condeming field sports.


----------



## ycbm (15 January 2021)

minesadouble said:



			But its also perfectly possible to eat a healthy balanced diet without killing animals is it not?
		
Click to expand...

But if you want to eat meat like the omnivore you were born, as the majority of people do,  there is no alternative.

There is an alternative to chasing and killing live animals to find enjoyment riding across country.


----------



## ycbm (15 January 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			And equally I cannot see why the pro hunt brigade do not see the difference between being seen to ‘apparently’ relish and enjoy the chase and killing of a frightened wild animal and the eating of well reared and humanely despatched farm animals.
		
Click to expand...


This is a mystery to me as well.


----------



## minesadouble (15 January 2021)

Were we not also born hunters? Yet very few of us hunt now 😉

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, I can't see myself ever not eating meat, and if I ever do a meat free day I do struggle to meet my protein goal though I'm reliably informed it is possible. 

I do, however, only eat locally produced, humanely reared meat.


----------



## ester (15 January 2021)

You lose money if your stock is stressed pre-slaughter. 
you don't if you are hunting.


----------



## minesadouble (15 January 2021)

ester said:



			You lose money if your stock is stressed pre-slaughter.
you don't if you are hunting.
		
Click to expand...

How do you lose money for stressed animals?

We farm a 600 strong suckler herd and our fat cattle are sold live at auction, along with the vast majority of UK produced beef cattle.

We find out what percentage they kill out at after slaughter, stress doesn't come into the equation at all.


----------



## Clodagh (15 January 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			Was it condemned? I didn’t read that anywhere, though maybe I was looking in the wrong places.

I looked at that video and presumed that’s how injured stags are dealt with. The DSSH are a major player, so you’d think that they would play it by the book.
		
Click to expand...

As it is a pointless exercise I don't do any social media about hunting, especially as I am not involved any more. So it was condemned verbally amongst people I spoke with, including hunt masters and the like.


----------



## ester (15 January 2021)

You might not but someone down the line might well do. 

Stressed meat has altered biochemistry/meat quality and a much shorter shelf life. (PSE or DFD meat)


----------



## Tiddlypom (15 January 2021)

The Times report on the injured stag hunt from Oct ‘20 did contain a response from the Countryside Alliance. No condemnation of the incident from the CA, though, just a defence that it was to ‘minimise the suffering to the stag’ .
_
When presented with the video by The Times, the Countryside Alliance said that the hunt was operating within the law after locating a stag “that displayed obvious signs of injury and required immediate euthanasia”.

When asked why an injured animal would need to be chased for it to be euthanised, they said: “The stag was stopped from running into cover and was shot by a licensed marksman.”

“Members of the hunt attempted to facilitate this as soon as possible to minimise the suffering to the stag._

The Times report is linked below, but is behind a paywall. I’m a subscriber, which is how I first read about this incident.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...pursuing-injured-stag-across-exmoor-jdqgxngqv


----------



## minesadouble (15 January 2021)

ester said:



			You might not but someone down the line might well do.

Stressed meat has altered biochemistry/meat quality and a much shorter shelf life. (PSE or DFD meat)
		
Click to expand...

I'm aware of this, however this does not impact on the payment received for the animal.


----------



## Steerpike (15 January 2021)

I'm kind of speechless when I watched that video, if I did write what I thought I would be banned.


----------



## Sandstone1 (15 January 2021)

Clodagh said:



			That incident is deplorable but your Sunday lunch doesn’t always have a great time in the slaughterhouse. Some people do awful things, most people don’t.
		
Click to expand...

My own Sunday lunch does not go near a slaughterhouse as I dont eat meat and havent  for years.  I was speaking generally.  I agree slaughter houses are not great either but I hope not as bad as stag hunting.


----------



## ycbm (15 January 2021)

Steerpike said:



			I'm kind of speechless when I watched that video, if I did write what I thought I would be banned.
		
Click to expand...

Don't Google hunting the carted stag then.  Yup,  in Ireland they really did load a stag into a trailer and drive it somewhere so they could let it out and chase it.

I think/hope that's now been stopped but I'm not sure.
.


----------



## skinnydipper (15 January 2021)

ycbm said:



			Don't Google hunting the carted stag then.  Yup,  in Ireland they really did load a stag into a trailer and drive it somewhere so they could let it out and chase it.

I think/hope that's now been stopped but I'm not sure.
.
		
Click to expand...


Oh, God.  What is the matter with people?

Who wakes up and thinks "Beautiful morning, what can I kill today?"


----------



## ester (15 January 2021)

minesadouble said:



			I'm aware of this, however this does not impact on the payment received for the animal.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't say that it did, it was a general 'you' as in the supply chain not you personally.


----------



## Steerpike (15 January 2021)

Ugh sometimes I despair of the human race.


----------



## Sandstone1 (15 January 2021)

minesadouble said:



			I feel the main thing to draw from this comparison is that the Stag in the image, in all probability, had a free and happy life until that day. Your Sunday lunch may not have had the same privilege.

I'm not defending the incident in any way because it looks nothing other than thoroughly  deplorable.
But those who are up in arms about hunting/shooting/fishing then happily pop off to the supermarket to buy their halal killed lamb or gassed pig need to look at their own habits  before condeming field sports.
		
Click to expand...

I have not eaten meat for about 40 years.  I was speaking generally about Sunday lunch.


----------



## minesadouble (15 January 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			I have not eaten meat for about 40 years.  I was speaking generally about Sunday lunch.
		
Click to expand...

I kind of guessed that, I was replying generically re the Sunday lunch too.


----------



## Clodagh (15 January 2021)

skinnydipper said:



			Oh, God.  What is the matter with people?

Who wakes up and thinks "Beautiful morning, what can I kill today?"
		
Click to expand...

They don’t kill the carted stag (no idea if it still is a thing) once bought to bay it goes home on the trailer.


----------



## Miss_Millie (15 January 2021)

minesadouble said:



			Were we not also born hunters? Yet very few of us hunt now 😉

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, I can't see myself ever not eating meat, and if I ever do a meat free day I do struggle to meet my protein goal though I'm reliably informed it is possible.

I do, however, only eat locally produced, humanely reared meat.
		
Click to expand...

I think the 'born as hunters' is a silly comparison tbh.

The only hunters I have respect for are indiginous peoples - their entire way of living is about treading as lightly as possible on the earth. They hunt to survive and have complete respect for the landscape and the animals they kill for sustenance. They live outside of the capitalist, consumer-driven world that the rest of us live in.

Those who hunt fox and stag on the other hand, also drive around is their gass-guzzling 4x4s, tear up the landscape, and going by the video above, couldn't give an eff whether or not the animal is distressed, in pain, suffering. Then probably go home to their posh houses and have champagne in the bath!

When it comes to meat eaters being hypocrites/having double standards, that is fair enough to say, but there is some cognative dissonance at play there. If most people had to kill an animal before they ate it, they probably wouldn't do it, because most people love animals and have empathy for them.

Which is why it is alarming and disturbing when you see hunters getting a THRILL out of seeing an animal in fear, being torn to shreds. Surely that type of person would also beat their wife and hit their kids? 

It grosses me out on so many levels.


----------



## Clodagh (15 January 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			I think the 'born as hunters' is a silly comparison tbh.

The only hunters I have respect for are indiginous peoples - their entire way of living is about treading as lightly as possible on the earth. They hunt to survive and have complete respect for the landscape and the animals they kill for sustenance. They live outside of the capitalist, consumer-driven world that the rest of us live in.

Those who hunt fox and stag on the other hand, also drive around is their gass-guzzling 4x4s, tear up the landscape, and going by the video above, couldn't give an eff whether or not the animal is distressed, in pain, suffering. Then probably go home to their posh houses and have champagne in the bath!

When it comes to meat eaters being hypocrites/having double standards, that is fair enough to say, but there is some cognative dissonance at play there. If most people had to kill an animal before they ate it, they probably wouldn't do it, because most people love animals and have empathy for them.

Which is why it is alarming and disturbing when you see hunters getting a THRILL out of seeing an animal in fear, being torn to shreds. Surely that type of person would also beat their wife and hit their kids? 

It grosses me out on so many levels.
		
Click to expand...

We kill our food and then eat it, here on the farm, I’m good with that.
We even have poor people (irony here) who come and kill food and eat it. The money people have is so irrelevant and such a silly point.


----------



## Clodagh (15 January 2021)

And obviously as I would help my husband gut a deer he has shot I also beat my children. 🙄


----------



## skinnydipper (15 January 2021)

Clodagh said:



			They don’t kill the carted stag (no idea if it still is a thing) once bought to bay it goes home on the trailer.
		
Click to expand...

TBH, Clodagh, I didn't look to see what it entailed.  

(I was unable to watch the whole of the video that was posted on a previous post.) 

If it isn't killed, I assume the "pleasure" comes from chasing the thing as it runs for it's life to the point of exhaustion.


----------



## Miss_Millie (15 January 2021)

Clodagh said:



			We kill our food and then eat it, here on the farm, I’m good with that.
We even have poor people (irony here) who come and kill food and eat it. The money people have is so irrelevant and such a silly point.
		
Click to expand...

It's not about the money, it's about the lifestyle that goes with the money and the self-entiled attitude that goes with it.

E.g. indigenous people live off of the land, hunt respectfully and only kill what they need when they need it.

Going by the many years of news reports, hunters in the UK frequently block roads, trespass on land, their dogs attack livestock and kill pets, and if the hunting is 'for sport', then well, I don't think I need to explain why that is totally unsavoury. Not to mention, continuously breaking the law by hunting fox, as if they are above it.


----------



## ycbm (15 January 2021)

skinnydipper said:



			TBH, Clodagh, I didn't look to see what it entailed.

(I was unable to watch the whole of the video that was posted on a previous post.)

If it isn't killed, I assume the "pleasure" comes from chasing the thing as it runs for it's life to the point of exhaustion.
		
Click to expand...

And then they load it up,  take it home,  feed it to get it strong again so they can chase it all over again in a different place next week.  A flighty  prey animal.
.


----------



## Sandstone1 (15 January 2021)

ycbm said:



			And then they load it up,  take it home,  feed it to get it strong again so they can chase it all over again in a different place next week.  A shy prey animal.
.
		
Click to expand...

Oh My God, that is just horrendous.  What sort of people would do that?


----------



## Miss_Millie (15 January 2021)

ycbm said:



			And then they load it up,  take it home,  feed it to get it strong again so they can chase it all over again in a different place next week.  A flighty  prey animal.
.
		
Click to expand...

That's pretty sick and derranged.


----------



## Miss_Millie (15 January 2021)

Clodagh said:



			And obviously as I would help my husband gut a deer he has shot I also beat my children. 🙄
		
Click to expand...

I was referring to the kind of individuals who hunt for fun and get pleasure out of seeing an animal suffering, not those who hunt to eat meat.

I don't eat meat myself, but to be honest, killing a deer with one fatal shot in it's natural habitat is almost definitely a lot kinder than what animals have to go through that are raised for slaughter.

Interestingly, there are a lot of studies on the correlation between slaughterhouse workers and domestic violence. The reason being that people who kill every day, become desensitized to violence (because obviously, slitting throats all day is pretty violent).


----------



## Clodagh (15 January 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			I was referring to the kind of individuals who hunt for fun and get pleasure out of seeing an animal suffering, not those who hunt to eat meat.

I don't eat meat myself, but to be honest, killing a deer with one fatal shot in it's natural habitat is almost definitely a lot kinder than what animals have to go through that are raised for slaughter.

Interestingly, there are a lot of studies on the correlation between slaughterhouse workers and domestic violence. The reason being that people who kill every day, become desensitized to violence (because obviously, slitting throats all day is pretty violent).
		
Click to expand...

That makes a weird sort of sense. How awful and sad. I know the owners of our local slaughterhouse and would say they are pretty blasé about death, but so far as I know haven’t committed domestic violence.


----------



## Clodagh (15 January 2021)

ycbm said:



			And then they load it up,  take it home,  feed it to get it strong again so they can chase it all over again in a different place next week.  A flighty  prey animal.
.
		
Click to expand...

It was banned in England a long time ago. I don’t know about Ireland.


----------



## Sandstone1 (15 January 2021)

Clodagh said:



			It was banned in England a long time ago. I don’t know about Ireland.
		
Click to expand...

Yes well so was fox hunting, oh but wait....


----------



## skinnydipper (15 January 2021)

Irish Times.  *30.12.20*

Huntsman killed by stag at hunt kennels in Co Cork

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ire...-by-stag-at-hunt-kennels-in-co-cork-1.4447468


"Some pro-hunt sources claimed online that the stag was not only a “pet” but also used for scenting purposes to avoid the foxhounds chasing deers while hunting foxes, but little evidence seems to support this claim. Our source explains the stag was held captive and exploited for carted stag hunting for around three years. One of our sources expressed that keeping a stag captive in a kennel full of 40 barking and howling hounds will likely have caused the stag severe stress during his captivity and exploitation. Stag hunting with (more than two) hounds was made illegal in 2007 under the Wildlife Amendment Act, and if there is definitive proof that illegal hunting occurred, the “Duhallow Hunt” could be prosecuted."

https://huntsabsireland.com/news/stag-hunted-and-killed-29/12/20


----------



## Miss_Millie (15 January 2021)

skinnydipper said:



			Irish Times.  *30.12.20*

Huntsman killed by stag at hunt kennels in Co Cork

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ire...-by-stag-at-hunt-kennels-in-co-cork-1.4447468


"Some pro-hunt sources claimed online that the stag was not only a “pet” but also used for scenting purposes to avoid the foxhounds chasing deers while hunting foxes, but little evidence seems to support this claim. Our source explains the stag was held captive and exploited for carted stag hunting for around three years. One of our sources expressed that keeping a stag captive in a kennel full of 40 barking and howling hounds will likely have caused the stag severe stress during his captivity and exploitation. Stag hunting with (more than two) hounds was made illegal in 2007 under the Wildlife Amendment Act, and if there is definitive proof that illegal hunting occurred, the “Duhallow Hunt” could be prosecuted."

https://huntsabsireland.com/news/stag-hunted-and-killed-29/12/20

Click to expand...

That's so horrible. I don't know how people like that sleep at night.


----------



## stormox (15 January 2021)

The Ward Union used to hunt the carted stag -they have a big herd - and as far as I know, the stag was usually allowed to run back to the cart and got taken home again! It has stopped now as a law was passed that meant the only way the hunt could legally carry on was to lead the stag around the countryside, put him away and then the hounds follow the trail...


----------



## Miss_Millie (15 January 2021)

Clodagh said:



			That makes a weird sort of sense. How awful and sad. I know the owners of our local slaughterhouse and would say they are pretty blasé about death, but so far as I know haven’t committed domestic violence.
		
Click to expand...

Slaughterhouse workers also have highly increased rates of PTSD and alcohol/drug abuse. Suicide rates are very high. It's a huge part of the reason why I stopped eating meat. I see it as a human rights issue as much an an animal rights issue.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-50986683

'One skill that you master while working at an abattoir is disassociation. You learn to become numb to death and to suffering. Instead of thinking about cows as entire beings, you separate them into their saleable, edible body parts. It doesn't just make the job easier - it's necessary for survival.'


----------



## palo1 (15 January 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			I think the 'born as hunters' is a silly comparison tbh.

The only hunters I have respect for are indiginous peoples - their entire way of living is about treading as lightly as possible on the earth. They hunt to survive and have complete respect for the landscape and the animals they kill for sustenance. They live outside of the capitalist, consumer-driven world that the rest of us live in.

Those who hunt fox and stag on the other hand, also drive around is their gass-guzzling 4x4s, tear up the landscape, and going by the video above, couldn't give an eff whether or not the animal is distressed, in pain, suffering. Then probably go home to their posh houses and have champagne in the bath!

When it comes to meat eaters being hypocrites/having double standards, that is fair enough to say, but there is some cognative dissonance at play there. If most people had to kill an animal before they ate it, they probably wouldn't do it, because most people love animals and have empathy for them.

Which is why it is alarming and disturbing when you see hunters getting a THRILL out of seeing an animal in fear, being torn to shreds. Surely that type of person would also beat their wife and hit their kids?

It grosses me out on so many levels.
		
Click to expand...

I said I would not post again but...Have you ever lived with, observed or studied any indigenous people @Miss_Millie ?  Do you have any clue what the lives and culture of any indigenous group is like in reality?  There are virtually no indigenous people who do NOT hunt for recreation; ie sport and leisure.  There are lots of reasons for this, depending of which group of people you are looking at, when and in what context and there is a wealth of research around this subject: environmental, ecological and anthropological.  Belief systems and cultural reasons are significant drivers in recreational hunting.  I am not going to point out the absolute mountain of knowledge on this subject, nor the variety of views on it - that is perhaps something you could do yourself if you were interested.  This is an area of knowledge that I have personally, academically and professionally so I do feel confident to challenge your assertions on this.


----------



## Miss_Millie (15 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			I said I would not post again but...Have you ever lived with, observed or studied any indigenous people @Miss_Millie ?  Do you have any clue what the lives and culture of any indigenous group is like in reality?  There are virtually no indigenous people who do NOT hunt for recreation; ie sport and leisure.  There are lots of reasons for this, depending of which group of people you are looking at, when and in what context and there is a wealth of research around this subject: environmental, ecological and anthropological.  Belief systems and cultural reasons are significant drivers in recreational hunting.  I am not going to point out the absolute mountain of knowledge on this subject, nor the variety of views on it - that is perhaps something you could do yourself if you were interested.  This is an area of knowledge that I have personally, academically and professionally so I do feel confident to challenge your assertions on this.
		
Click to expand...

I would just like to say firstly, Palo, that your language is very condescending. I'm not stupid, but you talk to me like I am. It comes across as really rude.

I'm not an expert on indigenous peoples and I never said that I was. My point in comparing indigenous peoples (from various parts of the world) to those who hunt in westernized countries for sport or 'pleasure', is that their primary purpose for hunting is to eat and survive. 

I understand that there are many complexities and probably contradictions to the subject, and you can't tar every person or community with the same brush. That being said, indigenous peoples are generally upheld as stewards of the land and conservationists.

If I were to simplify/broaden my point earlier, it is that I have respect for people who hunt for survival purposes, and zero tolerance for people who kill for fun/take enjoyment out of watching an animal suffer. There are plenty of people who hunt that are drawn to the 'sport' for this reason.


----------



## AdorableAlice (15 January 2021)

ester said:



			You might not but someone down the line might well do.

Stressed meat has altered biochemistry/meat quality and a much shorter shelf life. (PSE or DFD meat)
		
Click to expand...

That is correct.  My father who died many years ago was a butcher and slaughter man.  As a young man he and his brothers reared beef for the business and in later years he picked the beef at market before dealing with it himself.  If the beast is stressed on the hoof pre despatch  the quality is compromised.  I spent many hours with him as a child and he hoped I would take it on.  I vividly remember him explaining how the beasts had to be handled well to eat well.  My mother who is now in her late eighties still enjoys the occasional steak and I have to be very careful where I buy it from because at the first mouthful she will tell me if the beast was stressed, followed by telling me to put the meat in the bin.


----------



## palo1 (15 January 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			I would just like to say firstly, Palo, that your language is very condescending. I'm not stupid, but you talk to me like I am. It comes across as really rude.

I'm not an expert on indigenous peoples and I never said that I was. My point in comparing indigenous peoples (from various parts of the world) to those who hunt in westernized countries for sport or 'pleasure', is that their primary purpose for hunting is to eat and survive.

I understand that there are many complexities and probably contradictions to the subject, and you can't tar every person or community with the same brush. That being said, indigenous peoples are generally upheld as stewards of the land and conservationists.

If I were to simplify/broaden my point earlier, it is that I have respect for people who hunt for survival purposes, and zero tolerance for people who kill for fun/take enjoyment out of watching an animal suffer. There are plenty of people who hunt that are drawn to the 'sport' for this reason.
		
Click to expand...

I am sorry if you found my tone condescending; I was frustrated when I wrote the post.  It just doesn't help anyone to think through any of the issues raised if statements that are not based on any knowledge or understanding are posted.  With reference to your post about indigenous people; there is even trouble clarifying what that means in the 21st century and yes, whilst many commentators from the 'outside' of those societies that may be identified as indigenous assert that these people are the best stewards for the land, others assert that these people are not.  This will be familiar territory I think.

Also, as I said earlier, there are virtually no 'indigenous' (be careful of that phrase, it is highly politicised and makes some folk very edgy!)  people that don't hunt for recreation (sport/pleasure) even if they also need to hunt for survival, subsistence or both.   Cultures that hunt for any reason at all will also hunt for pleasure/sport/recreation.  That isn't contested although it is not fashionable to study that or even acknowledge it in the mainstream press/media as that entirely contradicts the current narrative about finding a kind of environmental nirvana in 'easy on the eye' indigenous cultures. 

The presentation of indigenous tribes as 'pure', naive to consumerism and in total harmony with their environment is appallingly condescending and whilst entirely well meant can be interpreted as pretty offensive and totally unrealistic.  People have living, evolving and pretty complex and sophisticated cultures the world over...how do we judge which are the most 'worthy' of support?   As an academic my particular research interest was in The Uighur culture of Xinjiang in China; the same poor people who are currently being de-cultured by the Chinese government; their language, hobbies, religion, habits and dress are being taken from them and far, far worse.

Their portrayal in the media until recently was pretty minimal but they share their interest in hunting with eagles with other people of that area.  That form of hunting is regularly glamorised by Western media but in reality, Uighurs do NOT need to hunt with eagles to put their tea on the table.  They hunt for pleasure, for status, for competition, occasionally to harass wolves which bother their stock and to provide light relief from really quite hard lives. Effectively, whilst it 'looks' very 'different' to perhaps Sheffield, their eagles live in the equivalent of the garden shed.  They often hunt foxes and learn this skill in the time honoured fashion of doing and making mistakes.  Hunting with eagles undoubtedly takes remarkable skill and knowledge, not to mention no small amount of courage.  However, it is as much a part of their culture as moose hunting is in Sweden for example or perhaps...no, I won't go there!!  Perhaps though, these people would not be quite 'indigenous' enough for you...it would be a good topic to discuss who is indigenous 'enough' actually, anywhere in the world. There is an awful lot of very interesting stuff about this subject but I really do feel I have had my say now.


----------



## Miss_Millie (16 January 2021)

I'm not sure that this conversation is productive, Palo. My main point was that (to me) there is a big difference between hunting for survival and hunting for sport. It makes me sick to see someone take pleasure out of harming an animal - that is just twisted and derranged.

The majority of the UK public are against fox hunting - to most UK residents it is not culturally important, but distasteful and something we'd rather put in the past - hence the reason it was banned a long time ago.


----------



## shortstuff99 (16 January 2021)

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-01-14...y-festival-bans-hunt-from-fundraising-on-site

Bit of a weird article.


----------



## Kipper's Dick (16 January 2021)

shortstuff99 said:



https://www.itv.com/news/2021-01-14...y-festival-bans-hunt-from-fundraising-on-site

Bit of a weird article.
		
Click to expand...

So they are saying that they do not agree with legal trail-hunting?   Do they not realise that fox-hunting is banned now?  And that the Mendip Farmers would be/should be a legal trail hunt?   Strewth, they can stick their stewarding in the place where the sun don't shine.


----------



## Miss_Millie (16 January 2021)

Kipper's Dick said:



			So they are saying that they do not agree with legal trail-hunting?   Do they not realise that fox-hunting is banned now?  And that the Mendip Farmers would be/should be a legal trail hunt?   Strewth, they can stick their stewarding in the place where the sun don't shine.
		
Click to expand...

The Mendip Hunt have a reputation for breaking the law, including attacking badgers. It's no wonder that a festival as famous as Glastonbury wants to distance themselves from that kind of illegal behaviour.


----------



## Kipper's Dick (16 January 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			The Mendip Hunt have a reputation for breaking the law, including attacking badgers. It's no wonder that a festival as famous as Glastonbury wants to distance themselves from that kind of illegal behaviour.
		
Click to expand...

And if this is the information that Glastonbury are basing their decision on, then that is understandable.  Though the article didn't make that clear.  Quote: 'Glastonbury Festival is absolutely not pro-hunting, and we do not - and would not - donate directly to any hunts'. Note the 'any'.   Which proves my earlier assertion that the future for trail-hunting is going to be such an uphill struggle when bad (and illegal) behaviour tarnishes the reputation of law-abiding trail-hunts.


----------



## Tiddlypom (16 January 2021)

Looks like Spider was not the first known feline casualty of the High Peak Hunt. Going back a few years to 2006, they killed another cat that had the effrontery to stay sitting at the side of the road as hounds were out on in exercise. This happened not far from where Spider was killed.

https://www.wildlifeguardian.co.uk/...T-GqFUfin3OXko5B-2dBTtGyj8yiBYW9Cser-GMOyLTSs

_Members of the High Peak Hunt had been riding through Sheldon near Bakewell when the pack of around 40 hounds attacked the animal after spotting it by the side of the road._

_Bob Graham, joint master of the hunt, said some of the younger hounds ran to the cat before the other dogs followed – eventually killing the pet – during the early morning ride through the village._

_He said: “We are all deeply shocked and saddened that something like this has happened – it is not something I have seen before in all my years with the hunt._

_“Normally a cat will run away as soon as it sees or hears us coming, but this one stayed sat at the side of the road._


----------



## ycbm (16 January 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			I'm not sure that this conversation is productive, Palo. My main point was that (to me) there is a big difference between hunting for survival and hunting for sport. It makes me sick to see someone take pleasure out of harming an animal - that is just twisted and derranged.

The majority of the UK public are against fox hunting - to most UK residents it is not culturally important, but distasteful and something we'd rather put in the past - hence the reason it was banned a long time ago.
		
Click to expand...

I don't agree with all you write, (and it certainly isn't about money these days)  but I have a big problem with comparing modern European hunting for sport with the origins of hunting for sport in indigenous people.

It's my understanding that the origin of  hunting for sport will have been a practice for the real thing by the inexperienced,  and then a  test of courage and skill which would have enhanced the successful hunters chances of mating with a female and carrying on his genes.

While I have come across a great deal of such peacock-tail twitching among male hunt followers over the years,  I don't accept that it is a valid reason to hunt an animal for sport in 2st century Europe.



NB by origins, I don't mean any form of hunting which is able to be studied in the current day.


----------



## palo1 (16 January 2021)

ycbm said:



			I don't agree with all you write, (and it certainly isn't about money these days)  but I have a big problem with comparing modern European hunting for sport with the origins of hunting for sport in indigenous people.

Is my understanding that the origin of  hunting for sport will have been a practice for the real thing by the inexperienced,  and then a  test of courage and skill which would have enhanced the successful hunters chances of mating with a female and carrying on his genes.

While I have come across a great deal of such peacock-tail twitching among male hunt followers over the years,  I don't accept that it is a valid reason to hunt an animal for sport in 2st century Europe.
.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry ycbm you are wrong; recreational/sport hunting exists in indigenous communities alongside but also separately and differently to subsistence hunting though the two have a number of cross-over activities too.  Recreational hunting is recognised and valued in it's own way in most cultures where this has been discussed and studied.


----------



## ycbm (16 January 2021)

I have just done an NB to cover the nit I knew you were about to pick, Palo.


The fact that there are non-"westernised" tribes hunting animals for fun does not in any way,  in my view,  justify westernised societies doing the same.

But if we are going to continue the debate about history and culture,  do you support bull fighting, the systematic torture of a bull until it dies,  for the entertainment of a crowd?  It's an important part of the culture of Spain and Portugal for many people.


----------



## Blazingsaddles (16 January 2021)

As a previous owner of Lurchers and whippets of over 25 years, I never got any pleasure from seeing them chase a fellow animal. I still don’t understand how anyone can. Fortunately, if they did chase and kill a wild furry (very rarely) death came quickly. Still saddened me though.


----------



## Miss_Millie (16 January 2021)

ycbm said:



			I have just done an NB to cover the nit I knew you were about to pick, Palo.


The fact that there are non-"westernised" tribes hunting animals for fun does not in any way,  in my view,  justify westernised societies doing the same.

But if we are going to continue the debate about history and culture,  do you support bull fighting, the systematic torture of a bull until it dies,  for the entertainment of a crowd?  It's an important part of the culture of Spain and Portugal for many people.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks ycbm, I appreciate your input on the subject (on this post and above)

When I talk of the money/priviledge aspect in the UK, I am referring to hush money used to pay off people who's pets are killed so they don't spill the beans (this has supposedly happened on several occasions), hunts saying they compensate farmers when their livestock are killed or crops are destroyed. It just seems like a very backwards and priviledged attitude to think 'if we eff anything up then we'll just pay people off, it's nothing to us, so let's just do what we like because there are no consequences/we don't care if innocent people are hurt along the way.'

No to mention that I feel, given how many people have blantantly been caught hunting fox since the ban and not prosecuted, despite breaking the law, there is definitely priviledge at play there, and class/wealth/race are undoubtedly part of the reason for that. I know that not everyone who hunts is wealthy, but being able to afford to keep a horse is definitely a priviledge.

I think that bull fighting is a very good 'sport' to bring up. It has been around for thousands of years, and is probably seen as a 'tradition' by many, but that does not make it right. Animal welfare in Spain is very far behind Britain, but I feel quite confident that it can't last in this day and age.


----------



## Clodagh (16 January 2021)

I don’t see bull fighting in remotely the same light as fox hunting. The fox knows his country and can travel freely, very different to shutting an animal in an arena and sticking big pins in it until it’s near death before being the big man and dispatching it.
I reiterate, I stopped hunting post ban but I don’t think bull fighting and fox hunting are the same kettle of fish at all.


----------



## ycbm (16 January 2021)

Clodagh said:



			I don’t see bull fighting in remotely the same light as fox hunting. The fox knows his country and can travel freely, very different to shutting an animal in an arena and sticking big pins in it until it’s near death before being the big man and dispatching it.
I reiterate, I stopped hunting post ban but I don’t think bull fighting and fox hunting are the same kettle of fish at all.
		
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have connected it either,  but Palo's argument was repeatedly about the value of continuing culturally important activities.  Bullfighting, in the countries which do it,  is extremely culturally important. Even I recognise that.

I'm interested in exploring whether there's a limit to Palo's support for using live animals for entertainment on the grounds of cultural importance,  and if so,  where that limit is, and why.

I think it's a fair question.
.


----------



## palo1 (16 January 2021)

[


ycbm said:



			I wouldn't have connected it either,  but Palo's argument was repeatedly about the value of continuing culturally important activities.  Bullfighting, in the countries which do it,  is extremely culturally important. Even I recognise that.

I'm interested in exploring whether there's a limit to Palo's support for using live animals for entertainment on the grounds of cultural importance,  and if so,  where that limit is, and why.

I think it's a fair question.
.
		
Click to expand...

I think this is a very pointed and uneccessarily personal response @ycbm.  It feels faintly aggressive.  But I will answer you.  I have never connected bull fighting to hunting. Miss_Millie did that; I have never remotely connected the two which as Clodagh says are quite different; even you admit that you wouldn't connect them.  I have only ever referred to hunting in this thread about hunting (not about bull fighting or other forms of animal baiting) and presented Miss_Millie with some information about indigenous people who hunt recreationally and for other reasons. This was because Miss_Millie asserted some things about indigenous people that were, in my experience and academic opinion - entirely evidenced by a great many academics, social scientists, ecologists, environmental scientists and anthropologists entirely unfounded. I was challenging the assertion that indigenous people only hunt for subsistence or survival and do not hunt or enjoy hunting activities recreationally.  I have no idea why you have linked this with bull-fighting other than for the purpose of arguing and being somewhat confrontational?! 

I know virtually nothing about bull-fighting, have never wanted to watch it or participate in any way. I haven't either ever discussed the matter with anyone Spanish or Portuguese. My opinion of bull fighting from what I have seen can only be described as uninformed but I would never want or see any reason, recreational or otherwise to bait a captive animal.  In ANY circumstances.  You have acknowledged the cultural importance of this activity to some European cultures; I have literally never mentioned any recreational activity that includes baiting live animals.  Considerable amounts have been written and discussed about the difference between animal baiting and animal hunting and there are quite profound differences; I suggest you look those up if you are not clear about them.  I do NOT wish to see animals suffer and I think you know that but I am repeating that just in case you or anyone else is in doubt that I do not want to perpetuate unneccesary cruelty to an animal.  

Have you asked other people who trail hunt this question in this way @ycbm; you know a great many hunting people?  What has their response been?  I know no-one who trail hunts who has ever discussed bull fighting nor anyone that has ever spectated this activity.  I am not clear why you have asked me this question directly.  It is...odd and slightly disturbing tbh.


----------



## shortstuff99 (16 January 2021)

Off topic from fox hunting, but if anyone is interested in the issues of indigenous populations and the environment this is a very famous and classic paper to read.

The pristine myth

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1992.tb01965.x


----------



## Miss_Millie (16 January 2021)

I honestly don't think that ycbm was trying to be horrible.

I think what he/she was saying is where do you (not you personally but anyone) draw the line when the importance of tradition is tied to unethical sports or practices. As in, just because it is culturally important/has a history with whatever culture or country, if it is cruel and unethical, should that not be enough to put a stop to it in the 21st century? I can also think of 'traditions' in several cultures, that many countries would consider human rights issues, particularly in the treatment of women.


----------



## palo1 (16 January 2021)

shortstuff99 said:



			Off topic from fox hunting, but if anyone is interested in the issues of indigenous populations and the environment this is a very famous and classic paper to read.

The pristine myth

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1992.tb01965.x

Click to expand...

Yes, this is a good one


----------



## palo1 (16 January 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			I honestly don't think that ycbm was trying to be horrible.

I think what he/she was saying is where do you (not you personally but anyone) draw the line when the importance of tradition is tied to unethical sports or practices. As in, just because it is culturally important/has a history with whatever culture or country, if it is cruel and unethical, should that not be enough to put a stop to it in the 21st century? I can also think of 'traditions' in several cultures, that many countries would consider human rights issues, particularly in the treatment of women.
		
Click to expand...

YCBM directed the question at me entirely personally Miss_Millie.  There are a great many cultural 'traditions' that have been rejected by societies along the way.  Hunting is an entirely global human cultural activity and has been, until the Anthropocene (now), been fundamental to what it is to be human. The importance of hunting in human society is still very contested however regardless, of how necessary or unneccessary in any particular situation it is and there are a great many people who will assert that hunting activities are still relevant and acceptable.  For example in Sweden, which is largely considered to be a tolerant and enlightened modern Western democracy, the great majority of Swedish people support traditional moose hunting.  It may be seen as unneccessary but their general attitude to hunting differs to ours.  Of course we don't have to be like the Swedes, or the French who also generally, widely support hunting activities but without any hunting activity in this country there would, arguably be a further cultural disjunct and further elements of our connection with and knowledge of nature removed or destroyed. The knowledge and practices of hunters are very widely understood to provide valuable insights into nature and I believe that is still relevant in the UK.  That perspective is not, globally, particularly novel or contentious though in particular situations it becomes massively so. Please bear in mind that I am referring to Trail hunting which is legal in the United Kingdom and I don't support illegal hunting.  I don't agree with the assertions that all Trail hunting is illegal and because I believe that the culture of hunting is important to our collective knowledge culturally, environmentally and in relation to specific species and ecosystems which can be of benefit to our understanding and protection of the environment I see hunting as too important to get rid of.


----------



## Tiddlypom (22 January 2021)

These pesky CCTVs. Recording attempts to send a terrier in underground, then use of drainage rods, before hounds conveniently arrive on scene. No fox this time, though.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...RZqlIe7J3VCcOmMlfaDV0S2G14fllcgqGPEAzA0XXtKW4

_A spokesperson for the Grove and Rufford Hunt said: “In the edited video footage allegedly recorded on 12 December, hunt representatives can be seen carrying out exempt hunting activities relating to the use of one dog below ground to protect game birds for shooting, which was being conducted in accordance with the Hunting Act 2004 in full compliance with all of the conditions of the exemption. _

Interesting timing, doing all this on a hunting day, shortly before hounds arrive...


----------



## Steerpike (22 January 2021)

Hunts are not doing themselves any favors, the hunts that hunt by the law need to kick these other hunts into touch or should be disbanded.


----------



## palo1 (22 January 2021)

Steerpike said:



			Hunts are not doing themselves any favors, the hunts that hunt by the law need to kick these other hunts into touch or should be disbanded.
		
Click to expand...

I certainly think that improved governance and discipline are in the pipeline - there is a great deal of anger about the disrepute some hunts are bringing the whole of hunting into. There are definately changes afoot in the 'management' of hunting and hopefully these will be clarified soon. However, it isn't possible to identify whether this CCTV footage is 'clean'.  Even in the most extreme case (South Hereford Hunt )the sabs filming the crimes couldn't provide the police with 'clean' CCTV footage and refused to surrender some of their stuff; thus very nearly resulting in the case being dropped completely. Why was that; what exactly do they have to 'hide'?  For people in the hunting community there is a definate understanding that a great deal of 'evidence' of hunting crimes is manufactured to some degree.  This is reflected in the number of assertions on social media of hunting crimes that never get as far as a criminal investigation but continue to slur hunts that are hunting within the law.  Even if the sabs don't like the exemptions and/or legal activities of people in the countryside they may well not be illegal.  I certainly don't agree with all the 'legal' things that go on in many many spheres of society but there isn't much traction for me ranting on social media (probably a good thing!!)

Tbh, it has been widely acknowledged in so many places that the 'truth' is rarely relevant these days - the best thing to do is swamp social media with suggestions or alternatives and if you throw enough mud (in either direction) some will stick.  It isn't the way forward in resolving conflict, different perspectives or anything really.   The Herts Hunt Sabs recently posted this on their twitter feed : 



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1351464165957918721  They are dismantling some Larsen traps (and boasting about it)  if you can't open the link. Lots of people would not want to see traps used (I am probably one of them) but this interfering with them is illegal (not to mention the issues around Covid at this point) and in light of the mess around the RSPB and trapping the whole conversation around these issues cannot be black and white - polarisation of views and communities tends to be very bad news all round.   I don't think it is possible to assert loudly and angrily one thing whilst tolerating another of exactly the same sort of activity. I know that most hunt sabs would assert that they are ALWAYS on the side of the animal but sadly this is demonstrably not always true. They are also not always on the side of the law, nor can they take the moral high ground in view of the actions of some sabs.  It has become so incredibly fashionable to have a go at 'hunt bashing' that before long I guess the media will have had it's fill...


----------



## ycbm (22 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			Have you asked other people who trail hunt this question in this way @ycbm; you know a great many hunting people?  What has their response been?  I know no-one who trail hunts who has ever discussed bull fighting nor anyone that has ever spectated this activity.  I am not clear why you have asked me this question directly.  It is...odd and slightly disturbing tbh.
		
Click to expand...

I directed the question at the only person I know who has ever claimed that it was culturally important to the UK to keep hunting, nothing remotely personal except that you were that person.

I am VERY pleased to hear that you do not support bull fighting,  no matter the enormous importance of it culturally to the areas where it takes place.
.


----------



## ycbm (22 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			I certainly think that improved governance and discipline are in the pipeline - there is a great deal of anger about the disrepute some hunts are bringing the whole of hunting into. There are definately changes afoot in the 'management' of hunting and hopefully these will be clarified soon. 

.
		
Click to expand...

Good,  it is the only thing which will allow it to survive, and I still harbour dreams of going again one day.


----------



## Tiddlypom (22 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			I certainly think that improved governance and discipline are in the pipeline - there is a great deal of anger about the disrepute some hunts are bringing the whole of hunting into. There are definately changes afoot in the 'management' of hunting and hopefully these will be clarified soon.
		
Click to expand...

That is good to hear. It needs to be a complete changing of the guard, though, not just a token twiddle with job titles. No one who featured on the infamous training webinars, or their connections, or who is associated with any of the known ‘naughty‘ hunts should go forward.

There is little support on here for law breaking by sabs, but I must admit that I didn’t realise that Larsen traps were legal...

As I used to say when pro and anti hunt sides were mixing it up here, ‘I want everyone to obey the letter and the spirit of the law’.


----------



## Clodagh (22 January 2021)

Nothing to do with hunting but Larsen traps save many a life, for all that they are horrible things. The good they do certainly outweighs the unattractive aspects.


----------



## palo1 (22 January 2021)

Clodagh said:



			Nothing to do with hunting but Larsen traps save many a life, for all that they are horrible things. The good they do certainly outweighs the unattractive aspects.
		
Click to expand...

This is the thing isn't it? They don't look great and it is understandable why people don't like them/want them but it isn't black and white at all...I have pondered over the issue of traps a lot lately having read about both Chris Packham and Wild Justice (shooting and trapping) as well as the RSPB action to trap stoats on Orkney in order to support birdlife. (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/06/bbc-quick-listen-chris-packham-friends-rspb/ and the RSPB itself on trapping here: https://community.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/b/investigations/posts/general-licence-to-kill, and a local view here: https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18315870.project-get-rid-alien-stoats-left-illegal-traps-isle/ and here: https://www.thescottishfarmer.co.uk/news/17673426.rspb-reported-illegal-trap-setting/)   Unfortunately this got into the news because the traps also caught some domestic cats! https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/project-rid-alien-stoats-kills-23002138 I like stoats, think they are brilliant of course and don't especially like the idea of trapping/killing them but if the RSPB doesn't do that, ground nesting bird's lives will be lost.  Some of those birds are incredibly vulnerable and it would seem appallingly negligent not to do our best to support them and their habitat.  At the same time CP is the poster boy for the Great British Garden Birdwatch...

The reason I included the tweet about the sabs and Larsen traps is because it isn't possible to know exactly what the consequence of dismantling these traps will be; there can't be an absolute definate animal welfare 'win'.

These issues just aren't simple and it really ires me that the media and social media love to try to make them so...

ETA - I don't want to be even more contentious than normal on this subject but 4 cats were killed by traps, and *18 Hedgehogs * on Orkney yet this isn't a news item that hit the headlines like the hunting issues do but I am certain that the cats on Orkney were as loved as the one at High Peak and I hope those cats and hedgehogs were killed as quickly as possible in the traps...we really don't need to be killing hedgehogs!!


----------



## Steerpike (22 January 2021)

I always wondered what those traps were called, there used to be one on the farm when I first moved my ho|ses there about 7 years ago, they didn't have it up for long and it's now rotted in a corner of a open barn


----------



## Clodagh (22 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			ETA - I don't want to be even more contentious than normal on this subject but 4 cats were killed by traps, and *18 Hedgehogs * on Orkney yet this isn't a news item that hit the headlines like the hunting issues do but I am certain that the cats on Orkney were as loved as the one at High Peak and I hope those cats and hedgehogs were killed as quickly as possible in the traps...we really don't need to be killing hedgehogs!!
		
Click to expand...

On some islands they do need to be killing hedgehogs as they are decimating the ground nesting birds there. Can't remember where they want to do or do a hedgehog cull, there was a lot of opposition to it and it may have been shelved.
No hedgehogs round here anyway, too many badgers.


----------



## palo1 (22 January 2021)

Clodagh said:



			On some islands they do need to be killing hedgehogs as they are decimating the ground nesting birds there. Can't remember where they want to do or do a hedgehog cull, there was a lot of opposition to it and it may have been shelved.
No hedgehogs round here anyway, too many badgers.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't realise that @Clodagh! (about needing to cull hedge-pigs). I have to say that perfectly demonstrates that nuance and facts are very much needed in any discussion. We do have hedgehogs here and also badgers but increasingly rare curlews and other ground nesters.


----------



## Miss_Millie (23 January 2021)

Hedghogs are now considered an endangered species.


----------



## palo1 (23 January 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			Hedghogs are now considered an endangered species.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, they are and they certainly need protection but it is difficult to know which species should be prioritised - ground nesting birds on the edge of extinction in the UK or our wonderful hedgehogs who are suffering mightily in terms of numbers though not quite in danger of extinction...yet.  They all need help in different places and in different ways so blanket policies and opinions about right or wrong ways to manage wildlife are not really that helpful or useful.


----------



## ester (23 January 2021)

Being a ground nesting bird is a bit of an evolutionary lose really.


----------



## Upthecreek (23 January 2021)

Very interesting thread, but I keep coming back to this; Hunting animals with dogs is banned and this will never be repealed. So what is the point of hunts continuing? What benefits are there? Whether you were pro hunting or anti hunting for the control of foxes/deer/hare/otter/mink before the ban, what is the point in hunting now?


----------



## ycbm (23 January 2021)

Upthecreek said:



			Very interesting thread, but I keep coming back to this; Hunting animals with dogs is banned and this will never be repealed. So what is the point of hunts continuing? What benefits are there? Whether you were pro hunting or anti hunting for the control of foxes/deer/hare/otter/mink before the ban, what is the point in hunting now?
		
Click to expand...


Trail/drag/clean boot hunting is damned good fun!

.


----------



## Upthecreek (23 January 2021)

ycbm said:



			Trail/drag/clean boot hunting is damned good fun!

.
		
Click to expand...

But when it causes so many problems in the countryside and animals are being hunted and killed illegally, whether intentionally or not, is it justifiable to continue it just for the fun of those that participate if it is harmful to others? Doing things for fun is fine if it isn’t to the detriment of others - I’m not sure that is the case with hunting.


----------



## ycbm (23 January 2021)

Upthecreek said:



			But when it causes so many problems in the countryside and animals are being hunted and killed illegally, whether intentionally or not, is it justifiable to continue it just for the fun of those that participate if it is harmful to others? Doing things for fun is fine if it isn’t to the detriment of others - I’m not sure that is the case with hunting.
		
Click to expand...

Drag hunting never illegally killed anything all the time I've done it.  One lamb,  total mistake by hunt and farmer who agreed to have hounds go through sheep with lambs at foot.  
.


----------



## Upthecreek (23 January 2021)

ycbm said:



			Drag hunting never illegally killed anything all the time I've done it.  One lamb,  total mistake by hunt and farmer who agreed to have hounds go through sheep with lambs at foot.
.
		
Click to expand...

But with all the examples just on this thread of animals killed, livestock terrorised, crops trampled, fences broken, I go back to my original question; what is the point? I cannot understand why landowners allow hunts on their land for zero benefit when there is a risk of damage. Do hunts pay landowners?


----------



## Clodagh (25 January 2021)

Upthecreek said:



			But with all the examples just on this thread of animals killed, livestock terrorised, crops trampled, fences broken, I go back to my original question; what is the point? I cannot understand why landowners allow hunts on their land for zero benefit when there is a risk of damage. Do hunts pay landowners?
		
Click to expand...

I'm not sure! I would not see the point in drag hunting, just go for a hack or if you must a sponsored ride. That is just me though. Hunts do not pay farmers.


----------



## teapot (25 January 2021)

I keep seeing the hashtag 'huntingwithinthelaw' used by photographers on Instagram. 

Not sure whether that's a good thing or a 'we're photographing legal stuff honest guv'...


----------



## Orangehorse (25 January 2021)

Clodagh said:



			I'm not sure! I would not see the point in drag hunting, just go for a hack or if you must a sponsored ride. That is just me though. Hunts do not pay farmers.
		
Click to expand...

O come on, nothing to compare with (drag) hunting certainly not comparing to hack or a sponsored ride.   Tests the bravery of horse and rider, tacking unseen country, trying to keep up with the hounds and huntsman.  And it is a social thing too, the hunt can be your 100% social life if you like, from the point-to-point, team chase competition, fund raising events like Christmas Fair, luncheons.  All this goes towards the expenses of keeping hounds, horses and paying the hunt staff and maintaining the buildings.


----------



## TGM (25 January 2021)

Clodagh said:



			I would not see the point in drag hunting, just go for a hack or if you must a sponsored ride. .
		
Click to expand...

I've never drag-hunted but I've been out 'hunting the clean boot' (bloodhounding) and it is totally different from going for a hack or going on a sponsored ride!  You get access to land which you normally wouldn't be able to ride over, for a start, and it is very social with a fairly big group of people, some who you may know, and some you have never met before.  Whereas hacking or sponsored rides you would generally be with a small group of people you already know.  Then there is the thrill of being swept along in the field, not knowing quite where you are going or what you may have to jump or what terrain you have to negotiate.  Finally, there is the joy of seeing the hounds work - it is amazing how they can follow the natural scent of a runner without the need for artificial scent.

As to what the farmers/landowners get out of it, whilst they don't get paid, it is often customary to give them a small gift as a thank you afterwards.  Many are horse people themselves and are happy to have their land used.  Obviously if they ride themselves then they can join in without paying a cap. Some landowners love the tradition of having a meet at their place, without having to worry about the possibility of sabs.  I've known some to actually use photos of the meet on their Christmas cards!  If they run businesses from their land (wedding venues, farm shops, garden tours etc) then they might feel they get more exposure of that via people hunting there and the associated coverage on Facebook and websites without the worry of being associated with the possibility of illegal hunting.

However, the hunt I've been with do work hard to keep good relations with landowners, being careful to make good any damage etc.  As an aside, there are several landowners who have commented how nice it is to be treated respectfully, in contrast to their experience with some other packs.


----------



## Clodagh (25 January 2021)

I stopped hunting after the ban. I do think bloodhounds might be fun but the drag hounds packs seem to have a death wish on themselves and their horses.


----------



## palo1 (25 January 2021)

Upthecreek said:



			But when it causes so many problems in the countryside and animals are being hunted and killed illegally, whether intentionally or not, is it justifiable to continue it just for the fun of those that participate if it is harmful to others? Doing things for fun is fine if it isn’t to the detriment of others - I’m not sure that is the case with hunting.
		
Click to expand...

The amount of 'trouble' that is genuinely caused by hunting is actually pretty small - it is impossible to put a number on 'nuisance' incidents but if you start doing that you may also have to calculate, to be perfectly reasonable, the nuisance value also of other things in the countryside that are legal: dog walkers, irresponsibly parked cars, fun runs, Tractor Rallies, fun rides, motor cross bikes, mountain biking and road biking groups, anti-social placing of muck heaps/muck spreading, litter, sheep worrying, cat chasing etc etc. On average there are about 14,000 hunts conducted by trail hunts (that does include the relatively small number of drag hounds and blood hounds though) every year.  Average convictions for criminality re: trail hunting (ie illegal acts) is tiny.  It is about 0.2% (average convictions per year since the ban =33, 33 as a percentage of annual hunts = 0.2%).  I know that antis will say that many, many hunts break the law - that they all do even BUT in this country that isn't the way the law works.  Anti propaganda comes from a few individuals, relates to few incidents and is repeated many many times over. Even a small percentage of criminality is not great tbh but the Hunting Act is a dire piece of legislation that lays the way open to all sorts of interpretation, lack of clarity etc etc ON BOTH SIDES. 

Hunts are invited (or accept access requests) by the landowner and the skills and knowledge involved in hunting is seen as a significant and important thing by many, many people including conservationists and those interested in hounds, horses and landscape. Conservationists are certainly NOT all anti-hunting, nor are welfare experts such as vets -in relation to the impact on wildlife of hounds moving around or on the horses or hounds involved in trailhunting.  Opinion, educated and professional opinion in many areas is divided on hunting. It is notable how many equestrians competing at the top level in all disciplines support trail hunting and acknowledge it's contribution to horse sport and related skills. That is relevant to readers/posters here at the very least.  Not all of these people are ignorant, bloodthirsty law breakers - they are respectable, thoughtful individuals who, on balance are happy to publicly support trail-hunting.  For reference, you could look at the Christmas issue of this years H&H where a great many unexpected people include Boxing day meets on their Christmas activities.   

English Foxhounds are entirely unique and are viewed by some as incredibly precious as a breed and type of dog. Some of their bloodlines go back, in England to the 8th Century and the time of Charlemagne.  For some folk, globally, the nose of the English Foxhound is the ultimate in the scent hunting dog world and that is also considered important and too precious to lose.  If you take away the well known dress of the English hunt which shouts 'privelage', 'class' and other slightly worrying things it is undoubtedly one of the most egalitarian activities you can be involved in; women have never been stereotyped or limited in their ambitions on horse or with hounds on the hunting field and these days the Master (top person) may be a plumber or a Lord of any gender notation, any colour, any religion and any physicality.  The link to community and specific country is also kind of significant.

For some, the point of hunting will always be about the riding and that is great fun but it is not, nor ever really has been the core of hunting's significance which has always been about hounds and their scenting/hunting abilities.  They are unique and a huntsman who can produce a fine working pack is a very skilled and knowledgeable craftsman.  For me, all those things are really important - I have said so a number of times on this thread.

ETA - The High Peak Hunt (cat killing and hounds rioting on calf incident) are looking for a new huntsman.  This hasn't been widely publicised yet and the antis are well aware of it yet would never acknowledge that.  In spite of what people love to say about hunting there is a genuine code of conduct and sense of anger when these things happen but it is fashionable to hate hunting above all other things that happen in the countryside...


----------



## TGM (26 January 2021)

Clodagh said:



			the drag hounds packs seem to have a death wish on themselves and their horses.
		
Click to expand...

 I think the drag hound packs vary, I know our most local one certainly has that reputation, but another drag pack that my daughter travelled to hunt with once was definitely more sane!


----------



## Tiddlypom (26 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			ETA - The High Peak Hunt (cat killing and hounds rioting on calf incident) are looking for a new huntsman. This hasn't been widely publicised yet and the antis are well aware of it yet would never acknowledge that. In spite of what people love to say about hunting there is a genuine code of conduct and sense of anger when these things happen but it is fashionable to hate hunting above all other things that happen in the countryside...
		
Click to expand...





__ https://www.facebook.com/124213577748977/posts/1538051829698471



Palo, you really have convinced yourself that most trail hunting is legal, even after the release of the Hunting Office webinars. I, and many others, do not.

Of course naughty hunting peeps will be encouraging you and your ilk to carry on believing this.

ETA It’s interesting that the disruption caused to through traffic on a hunting day by my local pack has decreased considerably since they went legit. Rather fewer quad bikes zooming up and down the roads, for one.


----------



## Fred66 (26 January 2021)

Tiddlypom said:






__ https://www.facebook.com/124213577748977/posts/1538051829698471



Palo, you really have convinced yourself that most trail hunting is legal, even after the release of the Hunting Office webinars. I, and many others, do not.
		
Click to expand...

Everyone is entitled to an opinion but opinions don’t equal fact.
I tend to treat as I find and since the ban I find that hunting folks are trying their best to follow the law. Are there some hunts that deliberately break the law then yes, probably (especially immediately after the ban) but more and more do not. Just as the few voices on that now infamous webinar supporting ways to circumvent the law are not representative of the many that do not advocate breaking the law.
Whilst I might believe this is a bad law and should be overturned I will continue to follow the law as it is written.
What a shame that antis are not similarly inclined.


----------



## ester (26 January 2021)

TGM said:



			I think the drag hound packs vary, I know our most local one certainly has that reputation, but another drag pack that my daughter travelled to hunt with once was definitely more sane!
		
Click to expand...

I'd go out with the cambridge and I'm a scaredy cat.


----------



## palo1 (26 January 2021)

Tiddlypom said:






__ https://www.facebook.com/124213577748977/posts/1538051829698471



Palo, you really have convinced yourself that most trail hunting is legal, even after the release of the Hunting Office webinars. I, and many others, do not.

Of course naughty hunting peeps will be encouraging you and your ilk to carry on believing this.

ETA It’s interesting that the disruption caused to through traffic on a hunting day by my local pack has decreased considerably since they went legit. Rather fewer quad bikes zooming up and down the roads, for one.
		
Click to expand...

Well @Tiddlypom, I do trailhunt on a regular basis so my opinion is based on my experience and that of many other people that I meet and speak openly with.  I am not ignorant nor naive and my experience is as valid as yours.  We see things differently. At the same time as telling me that I have 'convinced' myself that most trail hunting is legal, you acknowledge that your local pack is 'legit'... It is just typical of the anti mentality that when things go wrong, as with the High Peak, and are then dealt with there is no positive posting about that nor acceptance that the right action has been taken.   There is no acknowledgement from the anti-hunt lobby that generally speaking, professional conservation, ecology and animal welfare opinions on hunting are divided. There is no acknowledgement from the anti-hunt lobby that there is skill in hunting hounds, nor specific knowledge of the countryside gained through hunting activities even though this is a widely understood facet of hunting in conservation, ecology and animal welfare discussion; nor is there any understanding of the 'value' of our hounds - I get that people feel these things may be consigned to the history books if they are no longer 'relevant' but at the same time there has been a huge public reluctance to see the end of rare breeds of horse (Shire horses, Suffolk punches etc) and other domesticated, purpose bred animals.  At the current time, many of those breeds are enjoying considerable support in fact for aspects of their breeding which are newly useful (as conservation grazers, logging animals in sensitive areas).

For me, if only for hounds alone, banning hunting would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.  Ironically too, increasing efforts are being made to save traditional hunting cultures globally as they are recognised as valuable in a number of ways.  I expect some anti-hunt people would assert that our form of hunting is not 'traditional' enough or fails to act to support subsistence yet this entirely dismisses aspects of culture and our relationship with nature which is definately threatened at the moment.  This kind of 'deculturing' by one group acted on another is pretty dangerous and politically 'difficult'.  It is possibly an un-thought of prejudice.


----------



## palo1 (26 January 2021)

Tiddlypom said:






__ https://www.facebook.com/124213577748977/posts/1538051829698471



Palo, you really have convinced yourself that most trail hunting is legal, even after the release of the Hunting Office webinars. I, and many others, do not.

Of course naughty hunting peeps will be encouraging you and your ilk to carry on believing this.

ETA It’s interesting that the disruption caused to through traffic on a hunting day by my local pack has decreased considerably since they went legit. Rather fewer quad bikes zooming up and down the roads, for one.
		
Click to expand...

@Tiddlypom - can I ask you why you think people support trail hunting? (where they do)  I see a great many equine and other professionals that do support trail hunting - including for example Carl Hester and various vets, doctors, nurses, teachers etc.  How do you think they see trail hunting? Why do you think so many people enjoy trail hunting if, as you say, it is dodgy?  Are we all stupid/naive/bloodthirsty/uncaring?  This is often something I want to ask in fact so I am genuinely interested in your opinion and views


----------



## Tiddlypom (26 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			At the same time as telling me that I have 'convinced' myself that most trail hunting is legal, you acknowledge that your local pack is 'legit'...
		
Click to expand...

As I have posted before, it is legit now, but it wasn’t up until fairly recently, and it still wouldn’t be if the antis hadn't muscled in. It still insisted that it was trail hunting, even when it clearly wasn’t. The battle between the two sides was played out here in the countryside, it was certainly disruptive and very unpleasant to us residents, and it also tied up valuable police resources for day after day. 

It was pressure from a major landowner, fed up of the bad publicity, that forced the switch to legit.

Eyeopener? For sure.



palo1 said:



@Tiddlypom - can I ask you why you think people support trail hunting? (where they do)  I see a great many equine and other professionals that do support trail hunting - including for example Carl Hester and various vets, doctors, nurses, teachers etc.  How do you think they see trail hunting? Why do you think so many people enjoy trail hunting if, as you say, it is dodgy?  Are we all stupid/naive/bloodthirsty/uncaring?  This is often something I want to ask in fact so I am genuinely interested in your opinion and views 

Click to expand...

Genuine trail hunting, if there is any, yes. Fox hunting masquerading-as-trail hunting, no.

You are happy to dismiss the hunting webinars, hosted not by some dodgy types mouthing off in a pub but by the great and good of your regulating body, as small beans. Others are not.

As I have said many times before, any genuine legal trail packs need to distance themselves from the naughty practices, and start up anew.


----------



## palo1 (26 January 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			As I have posted before, it is legit now, but it wasn’t up until fairly recently, and it still wouldn’t be if the antis hadn't muscled in. It still insisted that it was trail hunting, even when it clearly wasn’t. The battle between the two sides was played out here in the countryside, it was certainly disruptive and very unpleasant to us residents, and it also tied up valuable police resources for day after day.

It was pressure from a major landowner, fed up of the bad publicity, that forced the switch to legit.

Eyeopener? For sure.

Genuine trail hunting, if there is any, yes. Fox hunting masquerading-as-trail hunting, no.

You are happy to dismiss the hunting webinars, hosted not by some dodgy types mouthing off in a pub but by the great and good of your regulating body, as small beans. Others are not.

As I have said many times before, any genuine legal trail packs need to distance themselves from the naughty practices, and start up anew.
		
Click to expand...

Hi @Tiddlypom - I haven't actually dismissed the hunting webinars as small beans anywhere; I think we are all waiting to see how that plays out...and there are a large number of people involved with hunting that have expressed real disquiet about this incident; I think you probably follow some of those commentators including This is Hunting Uk.   I am sorry to go back a bit but you haven't said why you think people do support trail hunting -whether legit/supposedly legit but dodgy or even just downright dodgy - it baffles me a bit how all these people have either closed their eyes and ears to dodgy/illegal trailhunting or they are all stupid. What do you think the reasons for people following hunting are?


----------



## Tiddlypom (26 January 2021)

Palo, I‘m the wrong person to ask why people support trail hunting, as I have never trail hunted . 

All my hunting was well before the ban. I then couldn’t then afford to both hunt and compete, and I decided that competing was more important to me - heresy, I know.

You may be better asking someone more up to date than me.


----------



## ycbm (26 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			What do you think the reasons for people following hunting are?
		
Click to expand...


I will answer for what I know of Cheshire and parts of  Derbyshire and Staffordshire. Among others,  but the first is way up the list, probably top.

1. Because they want to ride in company over land they would have no other access to, especially winter access.

2. Because being a member of a Hunt often comes with a built in social life. 

3. Because it gives them a focus for their winter riding.


----------



## Clodagh (26 January 2021)

ycbm said:



			I will answer for what I know of Cheshire and parts of  Derbyshire and Staffordshire. Among others,  but the first is way up the list, probably top.

1. Because they want to ride in company over land they would have no other access to, especially winter access.

2. Because being a member of a Hunt often comes with a built in social life.

3. Because it gives them a focus for their winter riding.
		
Click to expand...

Now mine was primarily to watch hound work and to cross the country in a way that you can see hound work.
I agree most people don't care if there is a hound there or not.


----------



## palo1 (26 January 2021)

But why do *antis *think people support hunting?


----------



## Clodagh (26 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			But why do *antis *think people support hunting?
		
Click to expand...

Because we are bloodthirsty killers?


----------



## ycbm (26 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			But why do *antis *think people support hunting?
		
Click to expand...

I don't understand your question,  I don't think.  Do you mean sabs? If you mean antis,  I'm a non radical anti and I've already answered in post 882, where all 3 apply.

Radical antis and sabs make their views clear on social media,  don't they? I'm not sure we have m/any on the forum.  
.


----------



## palo1 (26 January 2021)

Clodagh said:



			Because we are bloodthirsty killers?
		
Click to expand...

I wish I could find the right emoticon for this...!!  Are we all bloodthirsty killers though? Is there literally no other reason that anyone, including olympic level equestrians, vets, doctors, nurses, plumbers, teachers, insurance agents, milkmen, scientists etc want to do this..?  I guess you are right...we must all be bloodthirsty killers who are prepared to risk our professional and personal reputations as well as our privacy for the sake of a few dodgy days out in the winter weather...


----------



## palo1 (26 January 2021)

ycbm said:



			I don't understand your question,  I don't think.  Do you mean sabs? If you mean antis,  I'm a non radical anti and I've already answered in post 882, where all 3 apply.

Radical antis and sabs make their views clear on social media,  don't they? I'm not sure we have m/any on the forum. 
.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, I guess, possibly I do mean more extreme antis...There are certainly opinions expressed on here that suggest that the only reason anyone would want to trail hunt is to break the law and because they are full of 'bloodlust' - whatever that is!!  I was just trying to work out what that position was and how it was rationalised considering the very varied group of people who publicly support trail hunting.


----------



## Tiddlypom (26 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			There are certainly opinions expressed on here that suggest that the only reason anyone would want to trail hunt is to break the law and because they are full of 'bloodlust' - whatever that is!!
		
Click to expand...

Can you find any posts on here that suggest that?

Folk on here tend to support legal trail hunting (but are dubious as to how much trail hunting is legal), but they condemn illegal fox hunting.


----------



## palo1 (26 January 2021)

There are several posts that sound alarmingly like real, back to basics Sabs to me...

Post 9: They just like killing things. Pure and simple. Also some of them are not good enough riders for drag hunting as its faster and has less stopping and starting and hanging around than fox hunting. 

Post 21 (liked by 11 readers) Fox hunting is not about controlling fox numbers. Its about the thrill of the chase. Its about a day out riding across the countryside and killing something. Lets be honest here. 
Post 187: Sorry but I do not need to read a report to know that hunting with hounds is predominantly for the sport and fun of chasing a live animal (liked by 10 readers) 

Posts including 376 from a poster that suddenly joined the discussion with some rather uninformed but extreme views – posts too many to list... 
Post 691 If they aren't driven by bloodlust, why do they attack livestock, cats and even pet dogs? 

Post 810 Which is why it is alarming and disturbing when you see hunters getting a THRILL out of seeing an animal in fear, being torn to shreds. Surely that type of person would also beat their wife and hit their kids? 

And others too...


----------



## Sandstone1 (26 January 2021)

As you have quoted some of my posts I will reply.  I am not a sab.  I have in the past been hunting pre ban.  It was not for me.    I am anti illegal fox hunting.  Not trail hunting.  Sadly a lot of trail hunting is actually fox hunting.  Thats a fact like it or not.  I have no problem with trail hunting but mostly it is just a smokescreen for fox hunting. Most people know this.
Fox hunting is illegal and if you go fox hunting there can be no other excuse than you just like killing things.  
You keep on and on. Going round in circles.  The fact is like it or not fox hunting is illegal,  the ban will never be overturned and if you think it will you are deluded.  Hunts that do continue to hunt fox are coming under close scrutiny now and do themselves no favours by the way they behave.  By the way its not a offence to be anti hunting!  It is a offence to hunt foxes!!!!
It is against the law.  The way you go on its as if you think its the other way round.


----------



## Tiddlypom (26 January 2021)

Palo, those quotes you found are referring to fox/hare/stag hunting, not trail hunting. And just because some people find fox hunting abhorrent does not necessarily mean that they are active sabs.

So where are the posts condemning genuine legal trail hunting?

I didn’t bother to look for the obviously troll posts.


Sandstone1 said:



			They just like killing things.  Pure and simple.   Also some of them are not good enough riders for drag hunting as its faster and has less stopping and starting and hanging around than fox hunting.
		
Click to expand...




Sandstone1 said:



			Fox hunting is not about controlling fox numbers.  Its about the thrill of the chase.   Its about a day out riding across the countryside and killing something.  Lets be honest here.
		
Click to expand...




Sandstone1 said:



			Sorry but I do not need to read a report to know that hunting with hounds is predominantly for the sport and fun of chasing a live animal.  Call it what you like, make as many reasons as as you like.  The majority of people are against hunting.   I do not need a study to tell me about the disruption and distress hunting causes.  I have seen the state of other animals after the hunt passes through, the damage they do to land, not to mention once again that it is illegal but continues to take place.
		
Click to expand...




Miss_Millie said:



			I think the 'born as hunters' is a silly comparison tbh.

The only hunters I have respect for are indiginous peoples - their entire way of living is about treading as lightly as possible on the earth. They hunt to survive and have complete respect for the landscape and the animals they kill for sustenance. They live outside of the capitalist, consumer-driven world that the rest of us live in.

Those who hunt fox and stag on the other hand, also drive around is their gass-guzzling 4x4s, tear up the landscape, and going by the video above, couldn't give an eff whether or not the animal is distressed, in pain, suffering. Then probably go home to their posh houses and have champagne in the bath!

When it comes to meat eaters being hypocrites/having double standards, that is fair enough to say, but there is some cognative dissonance at play there. If most people had to kill an animal before they ate it, they probably wouldn't do it, because most people love animals and have empathy for them.

Which is why it is alarming and disturbing when you see hunters getting a THRILL out of seeing an animal in fear, being torn to shreds. Surely that type of person would also beat their wife and hit their kids?

It grosses me out on so many levels.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Sandstone1 (26 January 2021)

I will put it as clearly as I can...  1 I am not a sab.  2 I am not against genuine trail or drag hunting 3 I am against illegal fox hunting.


----------



## Tiddlypom (26 January 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			I will put it as clearly as I can...  1 I am not a sab.  2 I am not against genuine trail or drag hunting 3 I am against illegal fox hunting.
		
Click to expand...

I’ve always read your posts as meaning exactly that, Sandstone .


----------



## BeckyFlowers (26 January 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			I will put it as clearly as I can...  1 I am not a sab.  2 I am not against genuine trail or drag hunting 3 I am against illegal fox hunting.
		
Click to expand...

Same!


----------



## Sandstone1 (26 January 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			I’ve always read your posts as meaning exactly that, Sandstone .
		
Click to expand...

Thank you, Im pretty angry right now, to be honest.


----------



## Sandstone1 (26 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			There are several posts that sound alarmingly like real, back to basics Sabs to me...

Post 9: They just like killing things. Pure and simple. Also some of them are not good enough riders for drag hunting as its faster and has less stopping and starting and hanging around than fox hunting.

Post 21 (liked by 11 readers) Fox hunting is not about controlling fox numbers. Its about the thrill of the chase. Its about a day out riding across the countryside and killing something. Lets be honest here.
Post 187: Sorry but I do not need to read a report to know that hunting with hounds is predominantly for the sport and fun of chasing a live animal (liked by 10 readers)

Posts including 376 from a poster that suddenly joined the discussion with some rather uninformed but extreme views – posts too many to list...
Post 691 If they aren't driven by bloodlust, why do they attack livestock, cats and even pet dogs?

Post 810 Which is why it is alarming and disturbing when you see hunters getting a THRILL out of seeing an animal in fear, being torn to shreds. Surely that type of person would also beat their wife and hit their kids?

And others too...
		
Click to expand...

Since when is  being against a illegal activity " alarming "  I fully stand by the posts you quoted.   I am anti illegal fox hunting but that does not make me a sab.   I am not against genuine trail or drag hunting.  You cant seem to get it in to your head.  I am pretty angry about being called a sab.  Fox hunting is illegal, Get used to it!


----------



## Orangehorse (26 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			I didn't realise that @Clodagh! (about needing to cull hedge-pigs). I have to say that perfectly demonstrates that nuance and facts are very much needed in any discussion. We do have hedgehogs here and also badgers but increasingly rare curlews and other ground nesters.
		
Click to expand...

I think the hedgehogs were removed, not killed.


----------



## Sandstone1 (27 January 2021)

Palo1,  Please could you try to get it in to your head once and for all.  Trail hunting follows a pre set trail, Clue is in the name here TRAIL, Fox hunting hunts and kills foxes.  This is illegal and has been for years.  Now we know that often fox hunting does go on under the guise of trail hunting argue all you like on this but Im sorry it does go on.
Now for the bit you seem to find difficult to grasp,  I will make it as simple as I can for you because you really seem to struggle with this bit.  I am not against trail hunting, Ok so far?   I am against fox hunting, which is illegal and anyone who does this on purpose is breaking the law.  I am only against trail hunting when it is used as a excuse to hunt foxes and try and get round the law.  I am not against proper trail or drag hunting.  Got that?
You seem to think being against hunting foxes is something to be ashamed of!  That does not make me a sab or whatever you want to call me.   I do think people who go fox hunting do so because they like killing things, why else go?  Note here that I said FOX, not TRAIL.   
You keep on and on going round in circles on this subject, if you are going to continue to do so at least get your facts straight please.


----------



## palo1 (27 January 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			Palo1,  Please could you try to get it in to your head once and for all.  Trail hunting follows a pre set trail, Clue is in the name here TRAIL, Fox hunting hunts and kills foxes.  This is illegal and has been for years.  Now we know that often fox hunting does go on under the guise of trail hunting argue all you like on this but Im sorry it does go on.
Now for the bit you seem to find difficult to grasp,  I will make it as simple as I can for you because you really seem to struggle with this bit.  I am not against trail hunting, Ok so far?   I am against fox hunting, which is illegal and anyone who does this on purpose is breaking the law.  I am only against trail hunting when it is used as a excuse to hunt foxes and try and get round the law.  I am not against proper trail or drag hunting.  Got that?
You seem to think being against hunting foxes is something to be ashamed of!  That does not make me a sab or whatever you want to call me.   I do think people who go fox hunting do so because they like killing things, why else go?  Note here that I said FOX, not TRAIL.  
You keep on and on going round in circles on this subject, if you are going to continue to do so at least get your facts straight please.
		
Click to expand...

@Sandstone1 - I have never expressed support for illegal hunting and this thread has been about trail hunting. We have almost entirely opposing views on this; you believe that almost all trailhunting is fox-hunting; I believe that this is not so.  YI understand your anger - I too have felt absolutely misrepresented on this thread.  I was careful not to identify the posters on the quotes I pulled up because I didn't feel it necessary to single out individuals but you have responded to my post directly.  I don't know you at all in person (as far as I know!) but the language you have used about hunting (trail hunting and illegal hunting) is absolutely idiomatic of the language of more extreme antis/sabs.  That is the reason I have interpreted your posts as such and responded to @ycbm's query as to whether I felt any posts on this thread might come from that direction.   I have never called anyone posting here, directly or personally 'a sab' in fact.  Throughout the discussion you just haven't engaged in any of the issues other than to regularly re-iterate that hunting is all about 'the thrill of killing' etc etc.  That doesn't to me suggest a particularly informed or balanced view of trail hunting or in fact, pre-ban fox hunting but thankfully we live in a free country where we can all express our opinion...

I am not deluded about the Hunting Act nor do I find it difficult to 'grasp' the arguments involved in the discussion on this thread or about hunting matters more widely. I am certainly not purely informed by those that support hunting - I am aware of many of the contradictions and different approaches to the subject.  It is something I am really interested in for a number of reasons.


----------



## Sandstone1 (27 January 2021)

palo1 said:



@Sandstone1 - I have never expressed support for illegal hunting and this thread has been about trail hunting. We have almost entirely opposing views on this; you believe that almost all trailhunting is fox-hunting; I believe that this is not so.  YI understand your anger - I too have felt absolutely misrepresented on this thread.  I was careful not to identify the posters on the quotes I pulled up because I didn't feel it necessary to single out individuals but you have responded to my post directly.  I don't know you at all in person (as far as I know!) but the language you have used about hunting (trail hunting and illegal hunting) is absolutely idiomatic of the language of more extreme antis/sabs.  That is the reason I have interpreted your posts as such and responded to @ycbm's query as to whether I felt any posts on this thread might come from that direction.   I have never called anyone posting here, directly or personally 'a sab' in fact.  Throughout the discussion you just haven't engaged in any of the issues other than to regularly re-iterate that hunting is all about 'the thrill of killing' etc etc.  That doesn't to me suggest a particularly informed or balanced view of trail hunting or in fact, pre-ban fox hunting but thankfully we live in a free country where we can all express our opinion...

I am not deluded about the Hunting Act nor do I find it difficult to 'grasp' the arguments involved in the discussion on this thread or about hunting matters more widely. I am certainly not purely informed by those that support hunting - I am aware of many of the contradictions and different approaches to the subject.  It is something I am really interested in for a number of reasons.
		
Click to expand...

I give up, You clearly do find it difficult to grasp.    I think you will find this thread is about illegal fox hunting in the guise of trail hunting,  Did you watch the webinars?   I have as I have said before been hunting pre ban.  That experience did show me that hunting is not for me and yes, it did prove to me that a lot of people do go for the kill
 Yes we can all express a opinion .... Something you need to remember I feel.
You pretty much have called me a sab in your reply.   You can be anti illegal hunting without being a sab!
I am anti hunting and not ashamed to be.
I am leaving this thread because we will not agree and its going round in circles,  making me stressed and angry too!and yes when I say I am leaving the thread I really am unlike some.....


----------



## Tiddlypom (27 January 2021)

palo1 said:



			There are certainly opinions expressed on here that suggest that the only reason anyone would want to trail hunt is to break the law and because they are full of 'bloodlust' - whatever that is!!
		
Click to expand...




Tiddlypom said:



			Can you find any posts on here that suggest that?
		
Click to expand...

Still waiting...

Palo, is someone pulling your strings behind the scenes? It can hardly be a shock that many people find bloodsports (NOT legal trail hunting) to be abhorrent. That does not mean that they go out and sab hunts. Sandstone was clearly referring to illegal fox hunting, not trail hunting (and I do not know Sandstone off HHO either).

You keep interchanging trail hunting/fox hunting as if they are the same. Which is interesting, as that brings us full circle, doesn’t it - fox hunting going on under the guise of trail hunting, with the Hunting Office webinars advising on how to create smokescreens and doubt to facilitate that.


----------



## palo1 (27 January 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			Still waiting...

Palo, is someone pulling your strings behind the scenes? It can hardly be a shock that many people find bloodsports (NOT legal trail hunting) to be abhorrent. That does not mean that they go out and sab hunts. Sandstone was clearly referring to illegal fox hunting, not trail hunting (and I do not know Sandstone off HHO either).

You keep interchanging trail hunting/fox hunting as if they are the same. Which is interesting, as that brings us full circle, doesn’t it - fox hunting going on under the guise of trail hunting, with the Hunting Office webinars advising on how to create smokescreens and doubt to facilitate that.
		
Click to expand...

Umm, I don't keep interchanging trail hunting and fox hunting; you and some others have done that but I think I have been pretty clear in most of my posts that I am either talking specifically about Trail hunting or pre-ban fox hunting which was the activity that preceded it.  One of the issues I have tried to clarify is exactly where some posters have lumped the two together!   I completely understand about people finding bloodsports abhorrent and I understand about the tension between trail hunting and illegal fox hunting too; both of which attract sabs. I haven't discussed the webinars at all...

Like Sandstone1 I think this probably is a good time to leave the thread - it is not a discussion involving a large number of posters and positions are pretty polarised as usual.  There isn't likely to be any resolution or change in those positions either so it is pretty pointless to continue I think.


----------



## Miss_Millie (27 January 2021)

Having a little chuckle at being called an extremist/sab/ill-informed all at once!


----------



## Clodagh (3 February 2021)

Now this will be unpopular, but it has really made me laugh.

_An attempt to ‘ban trail hunting’ on land owned by Bolsover District Council has ground to a halt, after it was confirmed at a full meeting of the council that they had no land in which hunts could use, even if they had wanted to. _

You really do think that people need to use their grey matter sometimes?


----------



## Tiddlypom (12 February 2021)

Following on from the infamous webinars:-

Hunting webinar: Man from Sherborne charged https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-56048669

Mark Hankinson (MFHA Director) of Sherborne, Dorset, is accused of intentionally encouraging or assisting others to commit an offence under the Hunting Act 2004.


----------



## Tiddlypom (13 February 2021)

Interesting choice of guest commentator today on the This is Hunting UK FB page. (TiHUK seems to set out to be the ‘acceptable’ face of hunting, with lots of cute pictures of hounds.)

The guest was other than the Head of Hunting at the Countryside Alliance, who hunts with the infamous Kimblewick Hunt 🤔. No mention of anything of substance, let alone the major revelation from the previous day that the Director of the MFHA has been charged with ‘intentionally encouraging or assisting others to commit an offence under the Hunting Act 2004.’

The only comment so far, a mildly critical but fair one, was rapidly pulled, I see. Here’s a screenshot of it. Wonder why it was pulled.



Pro hunt planning on hunkering down and fronting it out? Pretend that it’s not happening?


----------



## Koweyka (14 February 2021)

Come on now, you know you can only post scenic photos of hounds on that page, even a raised eyebrow emoji is classed as serious abuse .....


----------



## Tiddlypom (20 February 2021)

A mention in the current H&H mag re the charge faced by Mark Hankinson.



Plus more about it on line in the News section, but it is behind a paywall on H&H Plus. This is the bit I can see.




ETA There is more, mostly summed up as:-

_Lord Mancroft said the charge is part of a “political attack on us by the anti-hunting movement”.

He said: “We all need to be clear that this prosecution will fail because Mark has done nothing wrong, and that this is part of a political attack on us by the anti-hunting movement._


----------



## ycbm (21 February 2021)

A political attack?

He's been charged by the Devon and Cornwall police after a CPS assessment that there is either a greater than 50% chance of conviction or that this is in the public interest, or (likely imo) both.

When are the heads of hunting going to wake up to the fact that it is this kind of denial that is currently doing them the greatest damage and causing the highest risk to the continuation of ANY trail hunting,  legal or otherwise?


----------



## Wishfilly (21 February 2021)

I agree it's pretty unlikely the prosecution would go ahead if the CPS thought it would fail. 

I also agree those sorts of statements make the speaker sound out of touch. I think most people who are aware of the webinars who aren't associated with hunting were quite shocked that people were essentially openly discussing breaking the law. 

I think a lot of people feel that it's one rule for "the rich" (I accept not all those who hunt are especially wealthy) and another for the rest of us at the moment, so the idea of hunts getting away with breaking the law is quite unpopular.


----------



## Koweyka (21 February 2021)

For the CPS to charge someone, the likelihood of prosecution has to be 80% plus, so this political witch hunt from the anti’s statement is ridiculous.

The most surprising aspect of this is that more people weren’t charged, it was as clear as day what they were alluding to.


----------



## Wishfilly (21 February 2021)

I wonder if there are more prosecutions to come as lots of police forces may be involved? But equally, some of the speakers were ex-police/ex-crime commissioners, which shouldn't make a difference but probably will.


----------



## Koweyka (21 February 2021)

Devon and Cornwall police wrote to the Hunting Office several years ago, raising concerns about the increasing amount of footage showing foxes being killed and also reminded them of the hunting law.....so when you have ex copper Phil Davies stating “I hope no police officers are watching” it’s not only two fingers up at the public, it was two fingers up at the police and CPS.


----------



## Steerpike (21 February 2021)

It just seems a certain group in the hunting community think they are beyond law and will carry on regardless, by now surely they should know they need to be and look squeaky clean to the general public otherwise it will be another nail in the coffin for hunting.


----------



## Apizz2019 (21 February 2021)

This is such an emotive subject with so many views, none right and none wrong - each and every one has a valid point and argument to make.

Hunting is steeped in tradition and has been the way of living for many, for many years.
Yes, there have been many hunts who have carried on regardless since the ban. I attended one myself in 2010 and I'll admit, I was a little horrified that it became blatantly obvious very quickly  what we were doing and what the outcome would possibly be.

There are on the other hand many others who have abided by the law and adapted meets to ensure they don't fall foul of the law. 

Hunts provide a valuable service to fallen livestock and most hunting families I know are genuinely the nicest people you will ever meet.

But the ban is here and has been for many years and nobody is above the law. The law on this was passed many years ago and my view is, whether pro or anti (I'm a fence sitter), the law must be adhered to. No ifs or buts. 

Someone mentioned earlier (can't remember who) that bird shooting needs to be banned - I don't agree with shooting a bird and then it's neck being broken by the retrieving dog. 
I'm not sure how correct that is though, I could be wrong, but my understanding with retrieving dogs is that they don't break the skin of the birds so I'm not sure how they break their necks without doing so. Don't shoot me down, as I've already said I don't know, so am just stating my understanding. 

Many of these 'sports' are with conservation in mind, for example Grouse shooting is manged carefully to preserve the peat moors.

That doesn't make it any more palatable to some of us. 

I have a close friend who is a sab monitor and from what he's told me, I don't think some of the sabs even know what they're doing at meets. 
There does seem to be an element of organised thuggery with some of the anti groups, which detracts and devalues their argument, but equally there has been thuggery on the part of hunts that hasn't shone them in the best light.

I think, sadly, from what has surfaced here, even hunts abiding by the law will soon find themselves facing the end of life as they know it.


----------



## Koweyka (21 February 2021)

The hunts that possibly were abiding by the law knew exactly what some of the more notorious hunts were getting up to, that makes them complicit, they could have spoken out but they didn’t, equally the field could voice their disapproval but they don’t, even seeing the disembowelled fox bodies doesn’t make them grow a conscious and they still go out week in week out.


----------



## ycbm (21 February 2021)

Apizz2019 said:



			Someone mentioned earlier (can't remember who) that bird shooting needs to be banned - I don't agree with shooting a bird and then it's neck being broken by the retrieving dog.
I'm not sure how correct that is though, I could be wrong, but my understanding with retrieving dogs is that they don't break the skin of the birds so I'm not sure how they break their necks without doing so. Don't shoot me down, as I've already said I don't know, so am just stating my understanding.
		
Click to expand...

That was me but that's not what I wrote. The dog retrieves the bird so a human can wring the bird's neck.  It would actually be more humane if the dog could do it instead of picking it up and carrying it to a human.


----------



## Tiddlypom (21 February 2021)

From post #850, posted a month ago.

_‘I certainly think that improved governance and discipline are in the pipeline - there is a great deal of anger about the disrepute some hunts are bringing the whole of hunting into. There are definately changes afoot in the 'management' of hunting and hopefully these will be clarified soon.’_

I don’t know what changes may have been afoot in the management of hunting, but the old guard are evidently still at the helm, and the rhetoric is unchanged.

_Lord Mancroft said the charge _(Mark Hankinson)_ is part of a “political attack on us by the anti-hunting movement”._


----------



## Apizz2019 (21 February 2021)

ycbm said:



			That was me but that's not what I wrote. The dog retrieves the bird so a human can wring the bird's neck.  It would actually be more humane if the dog could do it instead of picking it up and carrying it to a human.
		
Click to expand...

Ahh sorry, my fault. Brutal either way, pity a clean shot can't be guaranteed but I know that's almost impossible.


----------



## rextherobber (21 February 2021)

Apizz2019 said:



			Ahh sorry, my fault. Brutal either way, pity a clean shot can't be guaranteed but I know that's almost impossible.
		
Click to expand...

Shot isn't like a bullet, it's like little ballbearings, it is pure luck where/if the bird gets hit and in the majority of cases, it won't be instantaneous death. Also wondering about "sab monitors", not a term I've heard before - do we have hunt monitors monitoring the hunts, and sab monitors monitoring the sabs? It's positively bristling with people, by the sound of it, before you even count the field...No wonder I can't get my bloody car through them all to get to work!


----------



## Apizz2019 (21 February 2021)

rextherobber said:



			Shot isn't like a bullet, it's like little ballbearings, it is pure luck where/if the bird gets hit and in the majority of cases, it won't be instantaneous death. Also wondering about "sab monitors", not a term I've heard before - do we have hunt monitors monitoring the hunts, and sab monitors monitoring the sabs? It's positively bristling with people, by the sound of it, before you even count the field...No wonder I can't get my bloody car through them all to get to work!
		
Click to expand...

I didn't realise they used ballbearings! 😔

I believe it's something most hunts have though might be known by a different moniker. I've never paid much attention to it if I'm honest, as you can guess by my uneducated response. My attention to detail isn't something to noteworthy 😜


----------



## Wishfilly (21 February 2021)

Apizz2019 said:



			This is such an emotive subject with so many views, none right and none wrong - each and every one has a valid point and argument to make.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I don't think when people are condoning breaking the law you can say there are "no wrong views" on a subject. 

The behaviour of sabs does not justify the illegal activities of hunts, but it's fairly clear that if illegal hunting stops, the sabs tend to drift away. 

Monitors are a separate type of person- they tend to obey the law and focus on recording the activities of the hunt, usually with the aim of securing prosecution. Obviously many hunts dislike this, and/or are wary, so there can still be altercations between monitors and hunts. 

And of course, the line does get blurred between who is a sab and who is a monitor, and some sabs may be monitors instead on some occasions. But there is generally a clear distinction in aims. The monitors are aiming for prosecution, whereas the sabs are aiming to stop the hunt from killing foxes through more immediate means. And most people involved in such activities will identify themselves as one or the other.


----------



## paddy555 (21 February 2021)

rextherobber said:



			It's positively bristling with people, by the sound of it, before you even count the field...No wonder I can't get my bloody car through them all to get to work!
		
Click to expand...

you made me laugh!


----------



## Caol Ila (22 February 2021)

Apizz2019 said:



			Many of these 'sports' are with conservation in mind, for example Grouse shooting is manged carefully to preserve the peat moors.
		
Click to expand...

LOL. Swap the sentence around and you've got it right. The peat moors are managed carefully to preserve grouse shooting.

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled thread.


----------



## Apizz2019 (22 February 2021)

Wishfilly said:



			Sorry, but I don't think when people are condoning breaking the law you can say there are "no wrong views" on a subject. 

The behaviour of sabs does not justify the illegal activities of hunts, but it's fairly clear that if illegal hunting stops, the sabs tend to drift away. 

Monitors are a separate type of person- they tend to obey the law and focus on recording the activities of the hunt, usually with the aim of securing prosecution. Obviously many hunts dislike this, and/or are wary, so there can still be altercations between monitors and hunts. 

And of course, the line does get blurred between who is a sab and who is a monitor, and some sabs may be monitors instead on some occasions. But there is generally a clear distinction in aims. The monitors are aiming for prosecution, whereas the sabs are aiming to stop the hunt from killing foxes through more immediate means. And most people involved in such activities will identify themselves as one or the other.
		
Click to expand...

I meant views on hunting, not condoning breaking the law. I'm on the fence, neither pro or anti, but don't condone breaking the law in any way, shape or form.

From my understanding the sab monitors are with the hunt, making sure the sabs don't cross the line and the sabs aim is to stop the hunt killing foxes.


----------



## Tiddlypom (22 February 2021)

There isn’t such a thing as a sab monitor. There are anti hunt sabs, and also anti hunt monitors. They are two different groups. Sabs actively disrupt a hunt, whilst monitors just film and observe it.

Some pro hunt types, particularly those associated with naughty hunts, like to lump the two groups, who operate differently, into one catch-all term - the ‘sab monitor’.

ETA Pro hunt did employ some security heavies round here, but there were problems with their lack of correct licensing and tbh they didn’t seem to be much use. They had no more power than any other member of the public.


----------



## Apizz2019 (22 February 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			There isn’t such a thing as a sab monitor. There are anti hunt sabs, and also anti hunt monitors. They are two different groups. Sabs actively disrupt a hunt, whilst monitors just film and observe it.

Some pro hunt types, particularly those associated with naughty hunts, like to lump the two groups, who operate differently, into one catch-all term - the ‘sab monitor’.
		
Click to expand...

Like I said previously, monikers given may be different but the gentleman I know accompanies the hunt and is known as the sab monitor. He watches what the sabs are doing and monitors activity, wrong doing etc. 

I'm quite sure it's not an official job title as he's a volunteer but he's called and known as the sab monitor.


----------



## Tiddlypom (22 February 2021)

If he wants to be called the sab monitor, that’s fine, but it is also a commonly used derogatory term by pro hunt referring to antis.


----------



## Apizz2019 (22 February 2021)

Gosh, so confusing isn't it! 😂


----------



## ycbm (22 February 2021)

Caol Ila said:



			LOL. Swap the sentence around and you've got it right. The peat moors are managed carefully to preserve grouse shooting.

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled thread.
		
Click to expand...

I live on the moorline of a beautiful heather moor. Some parts are used to raise birds,  some parts aren't.  The parts that aren't are wonderful natural moorland.  The parts that are used for the birds are an ugly man-made patchwork of shaved rectangles cut to allow the birds to eat more. 

Visually,  it's a mess.  When I think of what's going to happen to those thousands of birds later in the year I dislike it even more. 
.


----------



## Indy (22 February 2021)

Apizz2019 said:



			Like I said previously, monikers given may be different but the gentleman I know accompanies the hunt and is known as the sab monitor. He watches what the sabs are doing and monitors activity, wrong doing etc.

I'm quite sure it's not an official job title as he's a volunteer but he's called and known as the sab monitor.
		
Click to expand...

I think they're most likely hunt support


----------



## Apizz2019 (22 February 2021)

Indy said:



			I think they're most likely hunt support
		
Click to expand...

Yes, he is supporting the hunt. 
Confusing who is called what though!


----------



## Wishfilly (22 February 2021)

Apizz2019 said:



			I meant views on hunting, not condoning breaking the law. I'm on the fence, neither pro or anti, but don't condone breaking the law in any way, shape or form.

From my understanding the sab monitors are with the hunt, making sure the sabs don't cross the line and the sabs aim is to stop the hunt killing foxes.
		
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. So, not exactly an unbiased opinion when it comes to sabs?

Pretty sure some sabs would call illegal hunts organised animal cruelty. 

I don't condone the way some sabs behave, but I can understand getting increasingly frustrated with illegal activity when nothing is being done about it.


----------



## Apizz2019 (22 February 2021)

Wishfilly said:



			Ah, I see. So, not exactly an unbiased opinion when it comes to sabs?

Pretty sure some sabs would call illegal hunts organised animal cruelty. 

I don't condone the way some sabs behave, but I can understand getting increasingly frustrated with illegal activity when nothing is being done about it.
		
Click to expand...

I'm absolutely unbiased! 

Regardless of being on the fence, I'm absolutely against any hunt, hunt supporters or sabs breaking the law!

Not one is above the other, regardless of argument for or against. 

I merely stated that I know somebody who is with a hunt and monitors sabs activity.


----------



## Tiddlypom (22 February 2021)

I need to post a corrective update re sab monitors. 

Looking back, some pro hunt commentators do indeed lump sabs and monitors together, but they call them sabs/monitors, or monitors/sabs.

So the presence (or absence) of a hyphen may well be of interest and relevance in describing who is who .


----------



## Apizz2019 (22 February 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			I need to post a corrective update re sab monitors. 

Looking back, some pro hunt commentators do indeed lump sabs and monitors together, but they call them sabs/monitors, or monitors/sabs.

So the presence (or absence) of a hyphen may well be of interest and relevance in describing who is who .
		
Click to expand...

That's my bad I think, I've caused the confusion. 

The chap I know is a sab monitor for the hunt - so is a hunt monitor who watches the sabs.

What do I call him? 😂😂


----------



## Caol Ila (22 February 2021)

ycbm said:



			I live on the moorline of a beautiful heather moor. Some parts are used to raise birds,  some parts aren't.  The parts that aren't are wonderful natural moorland.  The parts that are used for the birds are an ugly man-made patchwork of shaved rectangles cut to allow the birds to eat more.

Visually,  it's a mess.  When I think of what's going to happen to those thousands of birds later in the year I dislike it even more.
.
		
Click to expand...

Aye, there's a lot of upland in Scotland that's managed for grouse shooting. Don't quite get how Cairngorms National Park gets to be a national park when large swathes of it are grouse moors that are kept as grouse monocultures, but what do I know? National parks in the UK are an odd entity, quite different from national parks elsewhere in the world. When you're on heavily managed grouse moors, all you see are grouse, whereas areas managed for conservation have far more biodiversity of flora and fauna.


----------



## Tiddlypom (26 February 2021)

The case against Mark Hankinson is now due to be heard on March 9 at Westminster Magistrates Court.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1365325382585643008


----------



## Wishfilly (7 March 2021)

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/pet-cat-huntsman-cornwall-video-5081648

Not sure when this is from, but it's less than edifying from the hunt. 

I'm interested that the police are investigating, as I always thought cats had no/very little legal status. Regardless it's very poor of the hunt to allow their hounds into a private garden and to kill someone's pet, and then to throw said pet over the garden wall is very callous.


----------



## palo1 (7 March 2021)

Wishfilly said:



https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/pet-cat-huntsman-cornwall-video-5081648

Not sure when this is from, but it's less than edifying from the hunt.

I'm interested that the police are investigating, as I always thought cats had no/very little legal status. Regardless it's very poor of the hunt to allow their hounds into a private garden and to kill someone's pet, and then to throw said pet over the garden wall is very callous.
		
Click to expand...

It is dire.  Whoever was 'in charge' of those hounds clearly wasnt  Not to mention trying to get rid of the cat - he absolutely should have knocked on the nearerst house door and faced the owner.


----------



## Rumtytum (7 March 2021)

Wishfilly said:



https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/pet-cat-huntsman-cornwall-video-5081648

Not sure when this is from, but it's less than edifying from the hunt. 


I'm interested that the police are investigating, as I always thought cats had no/very little legal status. Regardless it's very poor of the hunt to allow their hounds into a private garden and to kill someone's pet, and then to throw said pet over the garden wall is very callous.
		
Click to expand...

Caught on camera the huntsman is going to find it tricky to dodge this one.


----------



## Wishfilly (7 March 2021)

palo1 said:



			It is dire.  Whoever was 'in charge' of those hounds clearly wasnt 

Click to expand...

I'm not 100% sure, but I think it is the same local hunt who let their hounds run out onto a busy A road this autumn. I honestly think sadly one or more of those hounds will end up dead because the hunt is not properly in control of them around roads, and worse they may cause a serious accident.


----------



## Wishfilly (7 March 2021)

Rumtytum said:



			Caught on camera the huntsman is going to find it tricky to dodge this one.
		
Click to expand...

Not to defend him at all, but I'm not sure a crime has been committed as such? My understanding that a dog under your control killing a cat is unfortunately not a crime in UK law. If people felt threatened by the hounds then it might come under the dangerous dogs act? Although the police are apparently investigating something so if there is a crime, I agree he will find it hard to dodge.


----------



## Tiddlypom (7 March 2021)

Also maybe the cat was not dead when he threw her over the fence, maybe she could have been saved.


Yet another p1ss poor show of hound control. All hounds that took part in the attack must be removed from the pack immediately.


Exercising a group of off lead dogs in a residential steeet with no control .


----------



## BeckyFlowers (7 March 2021)

Awful, poor Mini.  Disgusting behaviour from the hunt.


----------



## Tiddlypom (7 March 2021)

The hunt has been ID’d by antis as the Western Hunt.


----------



## Wishfilly (7 March 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			The hunt has been ID’d by antis as the Western Hunt.
		
Click to expand...

That's who I suspected also, and were the ones with out of control hounds on an A-road. Locally, they have a bit of a reputation for having poor control of their hounds. There's a bit more I'd like to say but I'm not sure if it's fair as it's just hearsay.


----------



## Sandstone1 (7 March 2021)

Where are all the pro hunters to defend this then?


----------



## ycbm (7 March 2021)

Wishfilly said:



			Not to defend him at all, but I'm not sure a crime has been committed as such? My understanding that a dog under your control killing a cat is unfortunately not a crime in UK law. If people felt threatened by the hounds then it might come under the dangerous dogs act? Although the police are apparently investigating something so if there is a crime, I agree he will find it hard to dodge.
		
Click to expand...

It's probably criminal damage of someone else's "property" if it can be proven the hounds were not under control. It's a piddling charge for killing someone's pet,  but at least it's a charge.


----------



## Wishfilly (7 March 2021)

ycbm said:



			It's probably criminal damage of someone else's "property" if it can be proven the hounds were not under control. It's a piddling charge for killing someone's pet,  but at least it's a charge.
		
Click to expand...

Oh, interesting. I hope they are able to get him on that.


----------



## Tiddlypom (7 March 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			Where are all the pro hunters to defend this then?
		
Click to expand...

They won’t defend it, because it is indefensible.

There will be the usual ‘most unfortunate‘ mumble mumble ‘hounds are so well trained‘ mumble mumble ‘very rare type of incident’ mumble mumble pretences that this is unusual. Except, as we know, nowadays it keeps happening.

It‘s not long (December) since the High Peak Hunt killed another pet cat when on hound exercise.

This poor hound control never used to happen. What on earth are they teaching new hunt staff when training them? Best concentrate on how to control a pack of hounds rather than on how to create a smokescreen.




Tiddlypom said:



			And now another pet cat killing incident - the 2 year old cat being on her owner’s property in Bakewell. Hounds broke into the owner’s yard when on hound exercise, dragged the cat out from under a car where she had run to hide, and killed her.

The High Peak Hunt again, where almost the whole pack recently rioted onto a calf and chased that calf across several fields.

https://forums.horseandhound.co.uk/threads/hounds-riot-onto-calf.797034/

First rioting onto livestock, now domestic pets. What the freeking heck is going on? Time to disband, I think. The High Peak are not denying the incident.

_The hunt has been in contact with the cat owner and apologised unreservedly for the distress this has caused. _

RIP Spider



Spoiler




View attachment 62244




https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...cBhA8KX4rNq0ya1ewLxxNUnq7L1llrrAzHlm3CJqVwoNM

Click to expand...


----------



## Tiddlypom (7 March 2021)

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/western-hunt-statement-pet-cat-5082489

_Today, March 7, Western Hunt has issued a statement to address the events of yesterday afternoon.

A spokesperson from the Western Hunt, said: “The Hunt is aware of events that took place on Saturday, 6th March, while the hounds were being exercised in an area where they are taken routinely, without incident, by officials of the hunt.

The hunt has been in contact with the cat owner to apologise unreservedly for the distress this has caused and is also helping the police with their enquiries.

"Incidents of this nature involving hounds are incredibly rare due to the professionalism with which the hounds are managed, however the hunt has taken this matter very seriously and is reviewing their procedures to prevent any reoccurrence.”

Devon and Cornwall Police said: "No arrests have been made but enquiries are ongoing"_


----------



## suestowford (7 March 2021)

I know that hunts would say they are hounds not dogs but maybe this law would apply here?
https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public


----------



## ycbm (7 March 2021)

suestowford said:



			I know that hunts would say they are hounds not dogs but maybe this law would apply here?
https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public

Click to expand...

Hounds are dogs and I think that law will apply as long as hunts do not have an exemption.  
.


----------



## Tiddlypom (8 March 2021)

From the Hunting Leaks website, WH hounds seem to have a cat killing habit. This is just not good enough, is it . 
_
Yesterday we heard of the distressing news that a companion cat had been killed by the Western Hunt, a quick google and we quickly learnt that they have a long history of attacking cats. 
In 1995 a 12 year old called “Tikkidew” was killed in their own rear garden. 
2009 a 15 year old cat called “Molly” was killed, like Tikkidew, she was in her own back garden.
2017 and the Western Hunt hounds are again trespassing and attacking cats, this time the cat survived, but with part of their face missing.
2021 “Mini” is killed by the hounds and the huntsman throws her corpse over a neighbours fence._


----------



## Crazy_cat_lady (8 March 2021)

Absolute scum how they're ripping up people's pet cats, hope they're banned, I'd want to rip them up in the same way if they did that to my cat.

Fortunately I have indoor cats and aren't in the path of any of them, but why should people have to fear for their cat's safety, then have to deal with the distress of seeing their much loved cat/ pet (as I'd imagine they'd go for small dogs too) being ripped apart/ killed in what should be the safety of their own home. What is the purpose of this hunt, why aren't they being banned when this keeps happening?

Can the owners not pursue them for costs?

Makes you wonder if they're using cats to make the hounds more aggressive given their keenness to go for them....


----------



## palo1 (8 March 2021)

This incident is grim and should never have happened.  In the interest of balance though, dog attacks on cats, other dogs, sheep and horses are happening increasingly regularly.  It is NOT just hunts that are unable to effectively 'manage' their animals though it is definately something that needs addressing.   As is the number of cats which predate on songbirds.  It isn't acceptable; dogs and hounds should be controlled or removed from those who can't control them. Cats should be contained enough or have some form of mitigation against the kind of killing of songbirds that is rarely even acknowledged.


----------



## CanteringCarrot (8 March 2021)

WTAF.

Killing the cat was wrong, period. If you're going to exercise your hounds in a residential area, you better damn well have control over them. It's not a one off either. 

You don't just toss it over the fence! You ring the doorbell and own up to it and profusely apologize and accept any and all consequence to your actions.


----------



## CanteringCarrot (8 March 2021)

palo1 said:



			This incident is grim and should never have happened.  In the interest of balance though, dog attacks on cats, other dogs, sheep and horses are happening increasingly regularly.  It is NOT just hunts that are unable to effectively 'manage' their animals though it is definately something that needs addressing.   As is the number of cats which predate on songbirds.  It isn't acceptable; dogs and hounds should be controlled or removed from those who can't control them. Cats should be contained enough or have some form of mitigation against the kind of killing of songbirds that is rarely even acknowledged.
		
Click to expand...

Everyone knows that it is not just hunts. However, a certain level of professionalism is expected from hunts. As I mentioned previously, you don't just toss the cat over the fence. Clearly fox hunting already has "image problems" and this did not help with the matter.

As for cats and songbirds...Do you have proof that this significantly damages and impacts the song bird population? I'm not sure about this, and I keep my cat indoors anyway. But if it is a significant issue, then I can understand, but I'm just ignorant on the matter. Is there also an argument about cats and the local rodent population? 

Idk, I'm still struggling to see what purpose fox hunting in this style serves nowadays...aside from fun and tradition. Which is fine, if it weren't for the damages and behaviors that seem to be more than "one offs"


----------



## ycbm (8 March 2021)

palo1 said:



			This incident is grim and should never have happened.  In the interest of balance though, dog attacks on cats, other dogs, sheep and horses are happening increasingly regularly.  It is NOT just hunts that are unable to effectively 'manage' their animals though it is definately something that needs addressing.   As is the number of cats which predate on songbirds.  It isn't acceptable; dogs and hounds should be controlled or removed from those who can't control them. Cats should be contained enough or have some form of mitigation against the kind of killing of songbirds that is rarely even acknowledged.
		
Click to expand...

What has any of that argument actually got to do with the disgusting spectacle of an organised hunt with paid employees and subscribers who finance them having out of control dogs in a public space,  killing someone's pet and then rushing to chuck the warm carcass out of view over a fence to hide what happened? 

This attempt to "balance" people's view of hunting actually reinforces the view that hunting folk don't care what problems they cause as long as their sport can can continue.
.


----------



## alibali (8 March 2021)

Wishfilly said:



			Not to defend him at all, but I'm not sure a crime has been committed as such? My understanding that a dog under your control killing a cat is unfortunately not a crime in UK law. If people felt threatened by the hounds then it might come under the dangerous dogs act? Although the police are apparently investigating something so if there is a crime, I agree he will find it hard to dodge.
		
Click to expand...

For the avoidance of any doubt having a dog dangerously out of control in a public place is an offence. This includes allowing your dog to attack another animal not just a human. Think it's very important to ensure dog owners everywhere, including hunts and pet owners realise they are legally responsible for their dogs actions.

https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public#:~:text=It's against the law to,in the owner's home


----------



## palo1 (8 March 2021)

CanteringCarrot said:



			Everyone knows that it is not just hunts. However, a certain level of professionalism is expected from hunts. As I mentioned previously, you don't just toss the cat over the fence. Clearly fox hunting already has "image problems" and this did not help with the matter.

As for cats and songbirds...Do you have proof that this significantly damages and impacts the song bird population? I'm not sure about this, and I keep my cat indoors anyway. But if it is a significant issue, then I can understand, but I'm just ignorant on the matter. Is there also an argument about cats and the local rodent population?

Idk, I'm still struggling to see what purpose fox hunting in this style serves nowadays...aside from fun and tradition. Which is fine, if it weren't for the damages and behaviors that seem to be more than "one offs"
		
Click to expand...

Yes, sadly cats (and uncontrolled dogs) are a real problem and threat to wildlife (rats and mice are not threatened by cats as they are so numerous) but other small animals and especially birds are.  This is what the organisation Songbird Survival and others have to say on that: Domestic and feral cats | Research (songbird-survival.org.uk) 

Cats killing huge numbers of British birds, Sir David Attenborough warns | Birds | The Guardian 

Domestic Cats (Felis catus) and European Nature Conservation Law—Applying the EU Birds and Habitats Directives to a Significant but Neglected Threat to Wildlife | Journal of Environmental Law | Oxford Academic (oup.com) 

The RSPB contest some of these figures - which is interesting.  It may be because something like 80% of the members of the RSPB own cats (I think that was the information a local wildlife trust officer gave me fairly recently).  I accept that this is a bit 'off topic' and I know that some posters will howl that I am relating hounds killing a pet cat (which is undoubtedly appalling from every angle) to this subject but the fact is that animal owners in the UK contribute to other animal deaths through their action/inaction etc all the time.  It does not excuse this incident or other incidents of dogs out of control in other situations in any way but it is part of the pattern that we have here in the UK of a complete imbalance in the way that domestic and wild animals are managed and or safeguarded in my opinion.

In relation to trail hunting - one of the benefits of trail hunting is that the presence of hounds in the countryside disturbs and disrupts foxes in a sustainable way that the existing ecosystem more widely can cope with naturally.  More vulnerable wildlife can cope better with this kind of disruption than the very 'hands on' management of other ways potentially. There is so much evidence that trophic cascades are healthy and beneficial but the only way we could achieve a true trophic cascade here in the UK is through the continued presence of packs of hounds in the countryside.  Wolves a la Yellowstone park are not realistic and the limited impact of say, Lynx would be pretty small.   We really need to learn from what others have found about ecosystems even if that conflicts with what we want to see here and I do understand how very contested all this is. It is just my opinion and understanding.


----------



## Wishfilly (8 March 2021)

alibali said:



			For the avoidance of any doubt having a dog dangerously out of control in a public place is an offence. This includes allowing your dog to attack another animal not just a human. Think it's very important to ensure dog owners everywhere, including hunts and pet owners realise they are legally responsible for their dogs actions.

https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public#:~:text=It's against the law to,in the owner's home

Click to expand...

What about a load of dogs running onto an A road and posing a risk to human life? 



palo1 said:



			Yes, sadly cats (and uncontrolled dogs) are a real problem and threat to wildlife (rats and mice are not threatened by cats as they are so numerous) but other small animals and especially birds are.  This is what the organisation Songbird Survival and others have to say on that: Domestic and feral cats | Research (songbird-survival.org.uk) 

Cats killing huge numbers of British birds, Sir David Attenborough warns | Birds | The Guardian

Domestic Cats (Felis catus) and European Nature Conservation Law—Applying the EU Birds and Habitats Directives to a Significant but Neglected Threat to Wildlife | Journal of Environmental Law | Oxford Academic (oup.com)

The RSPB contest some of these figures - which is interesting.  It may be because something like 80% of the members of the RSPB own cats (I think that was the information a local wildlife trust officer gave me fairly recently).  I accept that this is a bit 'off topic' and I know that some posters will howl that I am relating hounds killing a pet cat (which is undoubtedly appalling from every angle) to this subject but the fact is that animal owners in the UK contribute to other animal deaths through their action/inaction etc all the time.  It does not excuse this incident or other incidents of dogs out of control in other situations in any way but it is part of the pattern that we have here in the UK of a complete imbalance in the way that domestic and wild animals are managed and or safeguarded in my opinion.

In relation to trail hunting - one of the benefits of trail hunting is that the presence of hounds in the countryside disturbs and disrupts foxes in a sustainable way that the existing ecosystem more widely can cope with naturally.  More vulnerable wildlife can cope better with this kind of disruption than the very 'hands on' management of other ways potentially. There is so much evidence that trophic cascades are healthy and beneficial but the only way we could achieve a true trophic cascade here in the UK is through the continued presence of packs of hounds in the countryside.  Wolves a la Yellowstone park are not realistic and the limited impact of say, Lynx would be pretty small.   We really need to learn from what others have found about ecosystems even if that conflicts with what we want to see here and I do understand how very contested all this is. It is just my opinion and understanding.
		
Click to expand...

FWIW I agree that cats left to roam free are a menace to wildlife. 

However, I don't think it's hugely relevant to this thread. I live near where the western hunt operate, and their lack of control over their hounds is a real cause for concern to me. 

For balance, I used to live in a different part of Cornwall, and the local hunt (East Cornwall) to that area never caused issues of this kind. They also, AFIAK hunt within the law, whereas the Western hunt don't (according to rumour). I have a few friends who have hunted/hunt with the East Cornwall, and one of them actually said to me they feel the Western are giving all hunts in the county a bad name. They'd never say this publicly, though.

I think possibly, instead of defending all hunts, those who want hunting to continue in its current form, hunts need to start policing their own.


----------



## alibali (8 March 2021)

[*QUOTE="Wishfilly, post: 14564543, member: 125094"]What about a load of dogs running onto an A road and posing a risk to human life? QUOTE]*

Not sure if you're being rhetorical?

FWIW the examples on the government website I posted a link to are unlikely to be exhaustive so other circumstances might be considered an infringement of the law.

At the end of the day it would be for a court to determine whether particular circumstances constituted an offence. I could see in some circumstances there might be sufficient for the Crown to pursue a case for example hounds allowed to run riot with no control on a national speed limit road where the topography would not allow drivers sufficient time to take evasive action and in other circumstances for example a well marshalled group of hounds crossing at a safe place but not on a leash might be unlikely to constitute an offence. Where on that spectrum each set of circumstances would sit would need to be tested in court.

So in short the answer to your question is well above my pay grade 😂 Nonetheless the owners of the dog are legally responsible for their dogs actions in both sets of circumstances which was the point I was originally trying to make. Too many people fail to take responsibility for their dogs behaviour.

Edited coz the quote went wonky!


----------



## Wishfilly (8 March 2021)

alibali said:



			[*QUOTE="Wishfilly, post: 14564543, member: 125094"]What about a load of dogs running onto an A road and posing a risk to human life? QUOTE]*

Not sure if you're being rhetorical?

FWIW the examples on the government website I posted a link to are unlikely to be exhaustive so other circumstances might be considered an infringement of the law.

At the end of the day it would be for a court to determine whether particular circumstances constituted an offence. I could see in some circumstances there might be sufficient for the Crown to pursue a case for example hounds allowed to run riot with no control on a national speed limit road where the topography would not allow drivers sufficient time to take evasive action and in other circumstances for example a well marshalled group of hounds crossing at a safe place but not on a leash might be unlikely to constitute an offence. Where on that spectrum each set of circumstances would sit would need to be tested in court.

So in short the answer to your question is well above my pay grade 😂 Nonetheless the owners of the dog are legally responsible for their dogs actions in both sets of circumstances which was the point I was originally trying to make. Too many people fail to take responsibility for their dogs behaviour.

Edited coz the quote went wonky!
		
Click to expand...

No it was a serious question. The Western hunt have form for their hounds getting loose onto the A30 (and other A roads)- out of control, not under control, but if anyone knows the A30, they will know it's not a sensible road to be taking horses or hounds on. They're not crossing the road- the hounds are out of control. In one case this autumn the hounds came very close to causing a serious accident. I saw footage on facebook, which if I find again I'll share on the thread.

It is a genuine concern that one day these hounds will cause an accident, and I am genuinely interested to know if something could be done to prevent it from getting to that stage.


----------



## Tiddlypom (9 March 2021)

The Director of the Master of Foxhounds Association, Mark Hankinson, has entered a Not Guilty plea at magistrates‘ court. He now faces trial in September.

He and the hunting fraternity will be sweating over it all summer, then.


----------



## palo1 (10 March 2021)

And the Hunting Leaks twitter account has been suspended.  First account was suspended so the doxxers opened a new one which has also been suspended.  Baily's Hunting Directory fb page says ''Update: Following our conversation with the Twitter legal team the offending account has been suspended. We thank Twitter for its prompt response.''

Sabinder's Sab News puts it succinctly 'Doxing isn't free speech. It's an abuse of it.''


----------



## Tiddlypom (10 March 2021)

Please remind me what doxxing is?

The Hunting Leaks website is still up.


----------



## shortstuff99 (10 March 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			Please remind me what doxxing is?

The Hunting Leaks website is still up.
		
Click to expand...

Where you 'out' someones real name/address/contact details etc online.


----------



## palo1 (10 March 2021)

From Merriam Webster: ''To 'dox' someone is to publicly identify or publish private information about that person—especially as a way of getting revenge. To 'swat' someone is to falsely report a dangerous situation that provokes a police response. Both acts are malicious and harmful.''


----------



## palo1 (11 March 2021)

News today: West Grinstead huntsman cleared of illegal fox hunting - BBC News 

Maybe not quite a case of Sab 'swatting' but of that ilk...


----------



## Koweyka (11 March 2021)

“Crawley & Horsham huntsman, William Bishop, was acquitted of two Hunting Act charges at the court. The first count was thrown out when the bungling CPS failed to send video footage to the defence; the second failed when the judge couldn’t understand why other hunters weren’t in the dock! An acquittal of any kind is a rarity for the Crawley & Horsham: they are Britain’s most convicted hunt, with a host of Hunting Act and public order offences to their name”


----------



## Koweyka (11 March 2021)

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/...KgxFKnq9cU8ssCc09BgqtREq9Tl0gIKOUtZQlK7CZ3C3A


----------



## Koweyka (11 March 2021)

There will be plenty more hunts in the dock and rightly so, the hunting act needs strengthening so the loopholes that are present at the moment are closed. The webinars blew open the trail hunting myth. The days of fox hunting are numbered.


----------



## palo1 (11 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			There will be plenty more hunts in the dock and rightly so, the hunting act needs strengthening so the loopholes that are present at the moment are closed. The webinars blew open the trail hunting myth. The days of fox hunting are numbered.
		
Click to expand...

 Well the CPS and the Judge would contradict you on the case of William Bishop where it was accepted that trails had been laid and that there was no case to answer.

https://www.countryside-alliance.or...liOhe0bX8mhvmSf8yzbPQzCfq01kbrClzD1JbHyiTvBRc ''Despite hunt saboteurs’ assertions that they saw no trails being laid, numerous trails were pre-laid on both dates in the areas visited by the hunt. Evidence of this was supplied to the police prior to charge, and *it was accepted by the CPS at trial that trails had indeed been laid. '' (ergo that trail hunting was in fact being carried out at the time).  *

Clearly this is from the CA who will support trail hunting activities and I am sure that you may feel that this is biased in some way but certainly no more biased than other media coverage.  The 'evidence' provided by sabs and their determination to make a case where there isn't always one is highly questionable as well as wasting police and CPS time.  There is no other situation in the UK where well funded vigilantes get to play games with the law.  Thank goodness for that really too...


----------



## Koweyka (11 March 2021)

Well given the webinars provide a manual on how to circumvent the law.... ie get one in the can ie film a trail so you can use it to cast enough doubt that a trail was laid ....SMOKESCREEN.

Hopefully when Hankinson is found guilty the hunts won’t be able to rely on that particular defence, without cast iron proof as in time stamped and gps located films  ....

I also can’t think of any other incidences of people who set out to deliberately break the law have managed to secure COVID grants from councils ....thank goodness for that too.

To get a hunting case in court the success benchmark is set incredibly high, it isn’t the sabs that tell the police or CPS to take the case to court, that decision is made by the CPS alone, the police know the act is useless and doesn’t protect foxes and want to add several additions, however that is down to the MP’s and until we get a government that actually cares about wildlife that isn’t going to happen. But until it does as much as you will find it distasteful judging from the comments you have made throughout this thread, the monitors and the sabs will not be going anywhere.


----------



## palo1 (11 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Well given the webinars provide a manual on how to circumvent the law.... ie get one in the can ie film a trail so you can use it to cast enough doubt that a trail was laid ....SMOKESCREEN.

Hopefully when Hankinson is found guilty the hunts won’t be able to rely on that particular defence, without cast iron proof as in time stamped and gps located films  ....

I also can’t think of any other incidences of people who set out to deliberately break the law have managed to secure COVID grants from councils ....thank goodness for that too.

To get a hunting case in court the success benchmark is set incredibly high, it isn’t the sabs that tell the police or CPS to take the case to court, that decision is made by the CPS alone, the police know the act is useless and doesn’t protect foxes and want to add several additions, however that is down to the MP’s and until we get a government that actually cares about wildlife that isn’t going to happen. But until it does as much as you will find it distasteful judging from the comments you have made throughout this thread, the monitors and the sabs will not be going anywhere.
		
Click to expand...

Well Hankinson hasn't been found guilty at this point - cast iron proof is often collected by trail hunts in exactly the ways you identify though certainly not with all hunts. Possibly more fool them but there you go.  As for the issue of Covid grants; they are legitimately provided for hunts who have to keep legal and accurate accounts.  However, a number of sab groups 'fund raise' with no accountability for that and with blank refusals to make public their accounts...not to mention the dodgy fund raising in the first place:-

From Sabinder's Sab News: ''Severn Vale Sabs (both of them) demonstrating, as if proof were needed, how sabs are exploiting well-meaning members of the public to fund their lifestyles.  They are looking for donations to renew the insurance on their sab vehicle, even though they haven't been able to sab anyone for the last three months and are unlikely to do so for the next six.  Why is it so important to keep this vehicle on the road right now, rather than SORN it, park it up until it is needed again and save a bit of cash?  That's a rhetorical question: no answer needed.  It must be nice to have the unlimited use of a vehicle with all expenses paid for by someone else: Sabinder wonders whether HMRC benefit in kind rules apply to vehicles run by sab groups. "We hate to ask for money" my arse. Shameless.''






=AZXI6kRMJ1HLIjqF7bmjvee_xgDKezvUx2FLqpaFFZgrMEDrJJ93Jo5QiWJqwNo3_bsG5TYpykTe3fZJXIF3b6a0JCda0H0FpegSgCo07iXslKoNxdOsWgTsTAttIBZu5AGEJyhSuCwmoTMGpGwZkx3V&__tn__=EH-R']
It is pretty low to suggest that all of the sabs in this group (possibly both of them?) are 'essential workers' - that has nothing to do with fundraising for anti-hunt activities but is a cynical statement for sure.  I know many 'essential workers' who have also worked hard during the pandemic but they don't use that to fund raise for their hunts....Funding for LACS is highly suspect too but that is entirely another topic.  And as for safeguarding foxes (or any other animal) they are not really protected under the law and certainly wouldn't be even if any and all trail hunting was banned.  They can be legally shot, gassed, snared, flushed by 2 dogs, hunted by 2 dogs, (not necessarily hounds) etc etc etc.  There are many instances of foxes with horrific injuries, clearly having received veterinary treatment, including amputation being dumped in the countryside by well meaning people...perhaps that is in the name of animal welfare or 'wildlife protection'? I don't know but  if there was a genuine care for wildlife from sab and anti-hunting groups there would be so many other worthwhile ways to go about protecting that and improving the situation of both wildlife and domestic animals. Sadly there is plenty of animal cruelty to go round.


----------



## Koweyka (11 March 2021)

Well if you are quoting Clive/Sabindar to prove a point then you are scraping the barrel ...

You have no idea what sabs do and don’t do to improve the situation of wildlife and domestic animals, though the sabs are currently doing a great job highlighting the case of Mini who was recently killed by a pack of hounds that were clearly out of control, or would you rather incidents like that are kept quiet ? Would you prefer it if all incidences when the hunts kill foxes, domestic pets and other wildlife be brushed under the carpet, simply because it doesn’t fit the narrative the pro hunt like to portray, some of the disingenuous stereotypical comments about sabs and monitors on this thread are eye opening.

As for fundraising, are you trying to dictate where the public give their money ? Its a rather low opinion of the public you have if you think they are stupid enough to donate to a cause they clearly believe in...the public donate because they can’t always get out in the fields to help, only a very small minority of hunts are monitored and the ones that are clearly do themselves no favours do they. 

So you can bang the drum for Fox Hunting to continue Palo, but even a large section of the pro hunt know it’s coming to an end, we always knew it would be the hunts themselves with their arrogance and total disregard for wildlife would orchestrate their own downfall and it can’t come soon enough.


----------



## ycbm (11 March 2021)

palo1 said:



https://www.countryside-alliance.or...liOhe0bX8mhvmSf8yzbPQzCfq01kbrClzD1JbHyiTvBRc ''Despite hunt saboteurs’ assertions that they saw no trails being laid, numerous trails were pre-laid on both dates in the areas visited by the hunt. Evidence of this was supplied to the police prior to charge, and *it was accepted by the CPS at trial that trails had indeed been laid. '' (ergo that trail hunting was in fact being carried out at the time).*

Click to expand...


Is that your own ergo statement inside the brackets,  Palo, or the CA's?


Because there is no "ergo" about it.  It does not follow that trail hunting was being carried out because trails were laid.  It is well known that some hunts lay very weak scented trails so that they can put up exactly that defence in court,  that it was "an accident" that hounds picked up live fox instead.
.


----------



## palo1 (11 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Well if you are quoting Clive/Sabindar to prove a point then you are scraping the barrel ...

You have no idea what sabs do and don’t do to improve the situation of wildlife and domestic animals, though the sabs are currently doing a great job highlighting the case of Mini who was recently killed by a pack of hounds that were clearly out of control, or would you rather incidents like that are kept quiet ? Would you prefer it if all incidences when the hunts kill foxes, domestic pets and other wildlife be brushed under the carpet, simply because it doesn’t fit the narrative the pro hunt like to portray, some of the disingenuous stereotypical comments about sabs and monitors on this thread are eye opening.

As for fundraising, are you trying to dictate where the public give their money ? Its a rather low opinion of the public you have if you think they are stupid enough to donate to a cause they clearly believe in...the public donate because they can’t always get out in the fields to help, only a very small minority of hunts are monitored and the ones that are clearly do themselves no favours do they.

So you can bang the drum for Fox Hunting to continue Palo, but even a large section of the pro hunt know it’s coming to an end, we always knew it would be the hunts themselves with their arrogance and total disregard for wildlife would orchestrate their own downfall and it can’t come soon enough.
		
Click to expand...

I am not banging the drum for fox hunting but for trail hunting.  Sabinder, bless him is as good a source as many too.  Easily as good as some of the monitors but that is just my opinion of course/ as the opposite is yours.  I have never suggested that anything like cat killing or rioting hounds should be swept under the carpet either.


----------



## palo1 (11 March 2021)

ycbm said:



			Is that your own ergo statement inside the brackets,  Palo, or the CA's?


Because there is no "ergo" about it.  It does not follow that trail hunting was being carried out because trails were laid.  It is well known that some hunts lay very weak scented trails so that they can put up exactly that defence in court,  that it was "an accident" that hounds picked up live fox instead.
.
		
Click to expand...

'Tis my 'ergo' ycbm.  I can only respond to you by saying that you would say that though wouldn't you?  

The law states that trails must be laid and that hounds should follow those trails.  How do you expect to prove that one trail is 'too weak' to be legit?  Or that another trail is 'good enough'?  Good enough for you or good enough for hounds to follow?  The idea of hunting is that hounds follow a scent, not the antis.


----------



## Sandstone1 (11 March 2021)

palo1 said:



			'Tis my 'ergo' ycbm.  I can only respond to you by saying that you would say that though wouldn't you? 

The law states that trails must be laid and that hounds should follow those trails.  How do you expect to prove that one trail is 'too weak' to be legit?  Or that another trail is 'good enough'?  Good enough for you or good enough for hounds to follow?  The idea of hunting is that hounds follow a scent, not the antis.
		
Click to expand...

Or a trail is laid to try and fool the general public in to thinking hunts are hunting within the law and following said trail when in fact they are illegally hunting fox?  ie a smokescreen.


----------



## Koweyka (11 March 2021)

palo1 said:



			I am not banging the drum for fox hunting but for trail hunting.  Sabinder, bless him is as good a source as many too.  Easily as good as some of the monitors but that is just my opinion of course/ as the opposite is yours.  I have never suggested that anything like cat killing or rioting hounds should be swept under the carpet either.
		
Click to expand...

Earlier in this thread you posted this ....”In relation to trail hunting - one of the benefits of trail hunting is that the presence of hounds in the countryside disturbs and disrupts foxes in a sustainable way that the existing ecosystem more widely can cope with naturally.”

Now this sounds awfully like you are talking about cubbing, another dirty secret we know happens, foxes don’t need hounds to disturb and disrupt and how do you propose they do that exactly.... by chasing them ?

A pack of hounds should not be allowed in the countryside to follow a trial made of fox urine, or fox stew .....have you ever smelt a fox when it’s been ripped open by hounds ? The smell stays with you, it would drive hounds trained on fox to an absolute frenzy, the first whiff of fox and they are on it.  They should also not be pulling a trail anywhere a fox could live, this “mimicking” where a fox will run to make it authentic....so they lay a trail in copses and undergrowth....errr why unless you want to pick up the scent of a live fox, which hunts do frequently and ultimately many foxes die, this is the smokescreen and this is why trail hunting needs to end.

Why cant you be satisfied riding your horse around countryside that would normally be off limits, why do you think that risking the life of sentient creatures is no cause of concern and not as important than you getting your kicks ?


----------



## palo1 (11 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Earlier in this thread you posted this ....”In relation to trail hunting - one of the benefits of trail hunting is that the presence of hounds in the countryside disturbs and disrupts foxes in a sustainable way that the existing ecosystem more widely can cope with naturally.”

Now this sounds awfully like you are talking about cubbing, another dirty secret we know happens, foxes don’t need hounds to disturb and disrupt and how do you propose they do that exactly.... by chasing them ?

A pack of hounds should not be allowed in the countryside to follow a trial made of fox urine, or fox stew .....have you ever smelt a fox when it’s been ripped open by hounds ? The smell stays with you, it would drive hounds trained on fox to an absolute frenzy, the first whiff of fox and they are on it.  They should also not be pulling a trail anywhere a fox could live, this “mimicking” where a fox will run to make it authentic....so they lay a trail in copses and undergrowth....errr why unless you want to pick up the scent of a live fox, which hunts do frequently and ultimately many foxes die, this is the smokescreen and this is why trail hunting needs to end.

Why cant you be satisfied riding your horse around countryside that would normally be off limits, why do you think that risking the life of sentient creatures is no cause of concern and not as important than you getting your kicks ?
		
Click to expand...

I haven't got time to reply fully but that is just nonsense and you can have no idea at all what I think or how I feel without knowing me. But anyway...You believe hounds shouldn't be allowed in the countryside at all - that is your opinion.  Mine is different, not least in part because of research like this:-  

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10698: *Fear of large carnivores causes a trophic cascade*

That isn't research based here in the UK but it is very pertinent.  Trophic cascades are very much considered to be important , by ecologists and biodiversity experts in ways that we may redress some of the loss of balance and health in our ecosystems.  I didn't always believe in the benefits of traditional fox hunting but over time I have understood that far more and have held those beliefs for some time. I am far from stupid nor, I hope arrogant or ignorant so I like to read widely and understand what the place of traditional activities may or may not have in the present and future.  I have not a little academic training to assess and evaluate information too.  I love riding my horse in the countryside and enjoy amazing experiences in nature as a result; trail hunting is just part of that.

I am not interested in smokescreens but I am passionately interested in ecosystems, biodiversity and nature.


----------



## ycbm (11 March 2021)

palo1 said:



			The law states that trails must be laid and that hounds should follow those trails.  How do you expect to prove that one trail is 'too weak' to be legit?  Or that another trail is 'good enough'?  Good enough for you or good enough for hounds to follow?  The idea of hunting is that hounds follow a scent, not the antis.
		
Click to expand...


Thats the point!  The exploitation of the  lack of ability to define "strong enough" scent is the main thing which has allowed illegal fox hunting to continue and is directly responsible, imo,  for the resurgence of disruptive sabbing. 
.


----------



## Koweyka (11 March 2021)

Nonsense hmmm and yet you are doing again what you have done throughout this thread and post links to this and that and deflecting from the discussion at hand and that is trail hunting is a myth and inherently cruel and costs foxes their lives in the most repugnant way.

At least you have finally admitted after some wishy washy statements throughout this thread about not supporting fox hunting that you do actually believe in it, tell me have you ever looked into the eyes of a fox after it’s been disembowelled, please don’t spout the swift nip to a neck rubbish again that’s another myth fox killers like to spin.

I find your statement about being passionate about about nature and believing foxes should be hunted to death an oxymoron of almost biblical magnitude.


----------



## Koweyka (11 March 2021)

ycbm said:



			Thats the point!  The exploitation of the  lack of ability to define "strong enough" scent is the main thing which has allowed illegal fox hunting to continue and is directly responsible, imo,  for the resurgence of disruptive sabbing.
.
		
Click to expand...

I have seen and filmed a rag being dragged one way and the hounds going totally the opposite direction and the mass panic of the huntsman and whips trying to stop them because they were being filmed. If it wasn’t so serious you would liken it to a carry on film.


----------



## palo1 (11 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Nonsense hmmm and yet you are doing again what you have done throughout this thread and post links to this and that and deflecting from the discussion at hand and that is trail hunting is a myth and inherently cruel and costs foxes their lives in the most repugnant way.

At least you have finally admitted after some wishy washy statements throughout this thread about not supporting fox hunting that you do actually believe in it, tell me have you ever looked into the eyes of a fox after it’s been disembowelled, please don’t spout the swift nip to a neck rubbish again that’s another myth fox killers like to spin.

I find your statement about being passionate about about nature and believing foxes should be hunted to death an oxymoron of almost biblical magnitude.
		
Click to expand...

I think this thread has already covered that ground tbh but I am certainly not alone in my beliefs and others who feel the same include a wide variety of folk including vets, ecologists, environmentalists etc etc.  I feel equally that your view is appallingly limited, anthropomorphic to the point of detriment to wildlife, oxymoronic, ignorant and intolerant but we live in a country where both those positions are free thankfully.


----------



## Koweyka (11 March 2021)

Can somebody tell me where the laughing emoji is please, your response is certainly worthy of it...

It’s clear you derive some sort of pleasure in fox hunting, it’s been evident throughout this thread, however you dodge direct questions and you deflect, thankfully the vets, the ecologists and environmentalists I work with and are present in the fields have the polar opposite to you views to you and your ilk You are in the minority. Your hobby is dying on its feet and it’s about time, no fox, hare, deer, stag, pet cat or dog should ever lose its life because of an outdated pass time.

You have to stop the killing, it’s as simple as that.


----------



## Amirah (12 March 2021)

Well goodness me.  How is it in any way anthropomorphic to suggest that an animal chased and ripped apart by a pack of dogs feels terror?


----------



## Koweyka (12 March 2021)

Amirah said:



			Well goodness me.  How is it in any way anthropomorphic to suggest that an animal chased and ripped apart by a pack of dogs feels terror?
		
Click to expand...

I have heard fox hunters try and justify what they do by saying the foxes enjoy being chased by hounds.....


----------



## palo1 (12 March 2021)

Amirah said:



			Well goodness me.  How is it in any way anthropomorphic to suggest that an animal chased and ripped apart by a pack of dogs feels terror?
		
Click to expand...

There is a great deal of research around what happens when one animal is hunted by another; I suggest you look that up.  There is also a great deal of research about the importance of trophic cascades in ecosystem and species health - that is easily found too. 

I have certainly never suggested that one animal 'enjoys' being hunted by another and whilst I supported fox hunting before the ban I have, since the ban hunted with trail hound packs that hunt within the law.  The law itself is dire and has had no benefit whatsoever to foxes or other animals but that is not what is being discussed here. 

I know that anti-hunters feel incredibly strongly about this issue but very rarely do any of them produce any research which is professional, peer reviewed or in any way scientifically validated to demonstrate that trail hunting has no benefit. The issue which is raised is regarding the Animal Welfare laws where the individual animal is always the priority.  Where individual foxes are concerned, if they are killed by illegal hunting that is certainly an issue because of the illegality of that act.  I have never contested that at all.

What I have argued, absolutely consistently is that hunting within the law is beneficial to our ecosystem in a number of ways (which can be referenced and demonstrated by independent scientific research) AND that pre-ban fox hunting cannot be proved, scientifically to have been more cruel than any other form of fox management; this was clearly the position taken by the Burns report at the time of the Hunting Act.  Prior to the Act fox hunting had demonstrable species wide and ecosystem benefits.   There are many, many types of hunting carried out globally and ecologists and environmentalists have a wide range of views about them but the form of hunting with hounds in this country pre the Hunting Act replicated an entirely 'natural' form of hunting albeit controlled to a degree because of the constraints of agriculture etc in the UK countryside.  That form of hunting or predation is very widely understood to have species and ecosystems benefits and work is being carried out to try to restore those systems which allow for that in order to improve the ecological health of important natural systems.

Most of the alternative methods of fox control remain in place in the UK today in spite of real, provable concerns about the welfare implications of those methods - the vast majority of which are entirely ignored by anti-hunters because of the extraordinary inability to accept the hypocrisy of that position where it is ok to snare, gas, shoot, trap or poison a fox at any time of year regardless of their health, age or breeding status, yet not ok to use hounds where that method has not been proven more cruel and which also utilised the natural method of hunting to effectively 'target' old, weak or sick animals outside the breeding season. 

It is accepted that foxes need to be controlled and that usually this involves a method intended to be lethal.  Of course, some animal welfare activists would contest that but it is not generally widely contested and lethal fox control is NOT a legal issue (as long as it is not through hunting with more than 2 dogs/hounds).

I am appalled by that situation - for the sake of wildlife generally which has had no favours done for it whatsoever. A specific, calculable example of this would be problems faced by curlew for example - so incredibly close to extinction in this country and which face their most significant threat from predation by foxes: see this: ''Predators are having a major impact. Curlew eggs and chicks are predated by mammals and birds. This is a natural process, but some of these predators – such as foxes and crows - are more abundant in the UK than anywhere else in Europe and there’s simply too much predation for the curlew population to sustain.''  Eurasian curlew recovery | WWT .  The Hunting Act has done nothing for the health of foxes in the UK either; as an iconic mammal in this country that is very, very sad and indicative, to me of a total disconnect and disengagement from understanding this amazing creature.  I also have great concerns about where this approach to wildlife management is likely to lead and so continue to support the benefits that Trail Hunting has. 

I would be really interested to see the research or evidence for your position though I have heard ad nauseam the anthropomorphising about 'How would you feel to be chased to death' arguments which reveal a considerable level of ignorance about how foxes and other species are naturally evolved to cope with that and about both Trail hunting and pre-ban fox hunting.


----------



## Tiddlypom (12 March 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			Or a trail is laid to try and fool the general public in to thinking hunts are hunting within the law and following said trail when in fact they are illegally hunting fox?  ie a smokescreen.
		
Click to expand...

From the Director of the Master of Foxhounds himself, as spoken on one of the infamous training webinars aimed at masters.

_‘Some people say well, what’s the point in laying trails, well I think it’s fairly self explanatory, if you haven’t laid a trail on a daily basis you’re not going to be covered by the insurance.’_

Laying trails is all about the insurance cover, folks. And here were some of us naively presuming that trails were laid post ban so that hounds had a legal scent to follow...


----------



## palo1 (12 March 2021)

Well the more you comment on this case @Tiddlypom the less likely there is to be a legal outcome but what you have quoted is taken from a much larger body of words that contextualises that statement of course.  Again, you don't address any of the issues I have raised but that is not surprising really and there is room and time for that on another post of course.


----------



## Sandstone1 (12 March 2021)

palo1 said:



			There is a great deal of research around what happens when one animal is hunted by another; I suggest you look that up.  There is also a great deal of research about the importance of trophic cascades in ecosystem and species health - that is easily found too.

I have certainly never suggested that one animal 'enjoys' being hunted by another and whilst I supported fox hunting before the ban I have, since the ban hunted with trail hound packs that hunt within the law.  The law itself is dire and has had no benefit whatsoever to foxes or other animals but that is not what is being discussed here.

I know that anti-hunters feel incredibly strongly about this issue but very rarely do any of them produce any research which is professional, peer reviewed or in any way scientifically validated to demonstrate that trail hunting has no benefit. The issue which is raised is regarding the Animal Welfare laws where the individual animal is always the priority.  Where individual foxes are concerned, if they are killed by illegal hunting that is certainly an issue because of the illegality of that act.  I have never contested that at all.

What I have argued, absolutely consistently is that hunting within the law is beneficial to our ecosystem in a number of ways (which can be referenced and demonstrated by independent scientific research) AND that pre-ban fox hunting cannot be proved, scientifically to have been more cruel than any other form of fox management; this was clearly the position taken by the Burns report at the time of the Hunting Act.  Prior to the Act fox hunting had demonstrable species wide and ecosystem benefits.   There are many, many types of hunting carried out globally and ecologists and environmentalists have a wide range of views about them but the form of hunting with hounds in this country pre the Hunting Act replicated an entirely 'natural' form of hunting albeit controlled to a degree because of the constraints of agriculture etc in the UK countryside.  That form of hunting or predation is very widely understood to have species and ecosystems benefits and work is being carried out to try to restore those systems which allow for that in order to improve the ecological health of important natural systems.

Most of the alternative methods of fox control remain in place in the UK today in spite of real, provable concerns about the welfare implications of those methods - the vast majority of which are entirely ignored by anti-hunters because of the extraordinary inability to accept the hypocrisy of that position where it is ok to snare, gas, shoot, trap or poison a fox at any time of year regardless of their health, age or breeding status, yet not ok to use hounds where that method has not been proven more cruel and which also utilised the natural method of hunting to effectively 'target' old, weak or sick animals outside the breeding season.

It is accepted that foxes need to be controlled and that usually this involves a method intended to be lethal.  Of course, some animal welfare activists would contest that but it is not generally widely contested and lethal fox control is NOT a legal issue (as long as it is not through hunting with more than 2 dogs/hounds).

I am appalled by that situation - for the sake of wildlife generally which has had no favours done for it whatsoever. A specific, calculable example of this would be problems faced by curlew for example - so incredibly close to extinction in this country and which face their most significant threat from predation by foxes: see this: ''Predators are having a major impact. Curlew eggs and chicks are predated by mammals and birds. This is a natural process, but some of these predators – such as foxes and crows - are more abundant in the UK than anywhere else in Europe and there’s simply too much predation for the curlew population to sustain.''  Eurasian curlew recovery | WWT .  The Hunting Act has done nothing for the health of foxes in the UK either; as an iconic mammal in this country that is very, very sad and indicative, to me of a total disconnect and disengagement from understanding this amazing creature.  I also have great concerns about where this approach to wildlife management is likely to lead and so continue to support the benefits that Trail Hunting has.

I would be really interested to see the research or evidence for your position though I have heard ad nauseam the anthropomorphising about 'How would you feel to be chased to death' arguments which reveal a considerable level of ignorance about how foxes and other species are naturally evolved to cope with that and about both Trail hunting and pre-ban fox hunting.
		
Click to expand...

Can you just get your head round the fact that hunting foxes with hounds is illegal?
It has been so for years, just because many hunts bend the rules does not make it right, you can spout as much **** as you like. Its a fact.
Like it or not fox hunting has had its day.  Its not going to come back.  Trail hunting will also go and you can blame the hunts that bend and break the law for that.


----------



## Koweyka (12 March 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			Can you just get your head round the fact that hunting foxes with hounds is illegal?
It has been so for years, just because many hunts bend the rules does not make it right, you can spout as much **** as you like. Its a fact.
Like it or not fox hunting has had its day.  Its not going to come back.  Trail hunting will also go and you can blame the hunts that bend and break the law for that.
		
Click to expand...

Hallelujah !


----------



## Koweyka (12 March 2021)

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/feb/17/hunting.ruralaffairs?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

I watched a fox running for it’s life from a so called trail hunt, his mouth was hanging open his eyes were bulging, he was six feet away from a safe haven in a badger sett when the lead hound caught him, the second hound got him around the throat, they played tug of war with him until his neck/spine snapped and his torso twisted, the huntsman was watching it all unfold and did nothing to call them off.....that’s how he got away with a conviction because he didn’t encourage them on, he didn’t need to, the hounds were on the “trail”, it’s another facet to the smokescreen. By the time the body was recovered the huntsman had legged it, I have a photo of this poor foxes face and the terror is there for all to see. He wasn’t an old, sickly fox he was young and in his prime according to the post mortem.

The photo is far too graphic to show, but I don’t need any studies to tell me this fox was terrified and you trying to claim otherwise by linking studies trying to claim otherwise, it shows just out of touch hunters are.


----------



## palo1 (12 March 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			Can you just get your head round the fact that hunting foxes with hounds is illegal?
It has been so for years, just because many hunts bend the rules does not make it right, you can spout as much **** as you like. Its a fact.
Like it or not fox hunting has had its day.  Its not going to come back.  Trail hunting will also go and you can blame the hunts that bend and break the law for that.
		
Click to expand...

Clearly you haven't read what I have written.  I have made it perfectly clear on numerous occasions that I am totally aware of the Hunting Act and that hunting foxes with a pack of hounds is illegal.


----------



## palo1 (12 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/feb/17/hunting.ruralaffairs?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

I watched a fox running for it’s life from a so called trail hunt, his mouth was hanging open his eyes were bulging, he was six feet away from a safe haven in a badger sett when the lead hound caught him, the second hound got him around the throat, they played tug of war with him until his neck/spine snapped and his torso twisted, the huntsman was watching it all unfold and did nothing to call them off.....that’s how he got away with a conviction because he didn’t encourage them on, he didn’t need to, the hounds were on the “trail”, it’s another facet to the smokescreen. By the time the body was recovered the huntsman had legged it, I have a photo of this poor foxes face and the terror is there for all to see. He wasn’t an old, sickly fox he was young and in his prime according to the post mortem.

The photo is far too graphic to show, but I don’t need any studies to tell me this fox was terrified and you trying to claim otherwise by linking studies trying to claim otherwise, it shows just out of touch hunters are.
		
Click to expand...

If what you describe is exactly as you describe it then it wasn't illegal in any case; you are allowed to hunt a fox with 2 hounds or dogs.  That is pretty dire in fact exactly for the reasons you have stated, where a pack of hounds would despatch a fox far more quickly and humanely if that was legal which is not. 

In response to the article you have posted - which was produced in 1999, more recent peer reviewed research explores the fear response in animals in more depth here: Current Biology (2019) Ecology of fear - ScienceDirect   and also here: Journal of Applied Ecology (2020) Hunting for fear: Innovating management of human-wildlife conflicts | Request PDF (researchgate.net)

There is of course a very large body of work on this subject if you are truly interested in that.


----------



## Kipper's Dick (12 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Can somebody tell me where the laughing emoji is please, your response is certainly worthy of it...

It’s clear you derive some sort of pleasure in fox hunting, it’s been evident throughout this thread, however you dodge direct questions and you deflect, thankfully the vets, the ecologists and environmentalists I work with and are present in the fields have the polar opposite to you views to you and your ilk You are in the minority. Your hobby is dying on its feet and it’s about time, no fox, hare, deer, stag, pet cat or dog should ever lose its life because of an outdated pass time.

You have to stop the killing, it’s as simple as that.
		
Click to expand...

There is no law against the killing of this species.  Are you happy with the methods currently being used?  They can be killed by shooting, they can be caught in snares, culled at cubbing earths and they can be killed by terriers.  There is no closed season and no requirement to keep records.  Since the hunting ban, a higher number of foxes are now likely to be shot (and not always accurately).  Are you in agreement with these methods of fox control?


----------



## Koweyka (12 March 2021)

palo1 said:



			If what you describe is exactly as you describe it then it wasn't illegal in any case; you are allowed to hunt a fox with 2 hounds or dogs.  That is pretty dire in fact exactly for the reasons you have stated, where a pack of hounds would despatch a fox far more quickly and humanely if that was legal which is not.

In response to the article you have posted - which was produced in 1999, more recent peer reviewed research explores the fear response in animals in more depth here: Current Biology (2019) Ecology of fear - ScienceDirect   and also here: Journal of Applied Ecology (2020) Hunting for fear: Innovating management of human-wildlife conflicts | Request PDF (researchgate.net)

There is of course a very large body of work on this subject if you are truly interested in that.
		
Click to expand...


Sigh, it was a pack of hounds, a very well known pack they were investigated by the police and for reasons I explained and you clearly ignored the hunt got away with it.

I joined this thread because of you, because you were so clearly trying to defend the indefensible, you do not come across well, your arguments are flawed, you clearly believe that killing sentient creatures is acceptable, and judging by some other comments in response to you the majority of people have you pretty well worked out. 

You twist arguments for your own narrative, bringing up Curlews, their decline is primarily loss of habitat, however when you flood what is their natural habitat with game species for the equally vile shooting brigade to draw in more so called “predators” 

You pretend to be concerned about conservation to justify the destruction of another native species.

Maybe some of these ”peers” you constantly quote would actually like to come out with monitors and sabs and witness what we see happening, then they can look us in the eye and tell us these creatures feel no fear.

In fact why don’t you come out ”with the other side” and see what goes on, I am sure it can be arranged and then and only then will you be qualified to preach to people that see the myth of trail hunting for what is indeed a smokescreen.


----------



## Koweyka (12 March 2021)

Kipper's Dick said:



			There is no law against the killing of this species.  Are you happy with the methods currently being used?  They can be killed by shooting, they can be caught in snares, culled at cubbing earths and they can be killed by terriers.  There is no closed season and no requirement to keep records.  Since the hunting ban, a higher number of foxes are now likely to be shot (and not always accurately).  Are you in agreement with these methods of fox control?
		
Click to expand...

Snares should be banned immediately, not only do targeted species suffer horribly, none targeted species suffer immeasurably as well, in the last few months alone several cats, a dog, an owl and birds of prey have been found in snares, how many other animals have died that haven’t been discovered by members of the public. 

Culled at cubbing earths WTAF everything you stated there is revolting.

Far too many gun happy (insert your own expletive) get a kick out of lamping etc it’s utterly repugnant and as you say has no closed season, I know some MP’s are actively looking into this very issue.

I know many many farmers who don’t want to kill foxes, they understand the value foxes have to the ecosystem, the way the fox population is plummeting especially in the countryside it will come that foxes have protected status and that can’t come soon enough, that will really throw a spanner in the works for hunting/shooting and snaring then.


----------



## palo1 (12 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Snares should be banned immediately, not only do targeted species suffer horribly, none targeted species suffer immeasurably as well, in the last few months alone several cats, a dog, an owl and birds of prey have been found in snares, how many other animals have died that haven’t been discovered by members of the public.

Culled at cubbing earths WTAF everything you stated there is revolting.

Far too many gun happy (insert your own expletive) get a kick out of lamping etc it’s utterly repugnant and as you say has no closed season, I know some MP’s are actively looking into this very issue.

I know many many farmers who don’t want to kill foxes, they understand the value foxes have to the ecosystem, the way the fox population is plummeting especially in the countryside it will come that foxes have protected status and that can’t come soon enough, that will really throw a spanner in the works for hunting/shooting and snaring then.
		
Click to expand...

What means would you advise for fox control Kowyka?  What do you think that a complete ban on trail hunting would achieve in animal welfare terms?  How much impact would that have on wild animal welfare? Do you have any numbers to support your view?  How would you deal with the issue of fox control if all means of killing foxes were made illegal (which is what I think you would prefer/advocate)? 

I have been anti-hunting in the past and have had friends that were active sabs (at University many years ago).  I haven't had direct contact with sabs for many years and would not wish to do that now but thank you for the offer, if that was genuine.   I don't think I am 'pretending' anything; I try really hard to be honest in all fairness.  The peers I refer to are not people I know but independent scientists and scientific journals - of which I have no knowledge of their views about hunting.  Like anyone will in a debate I acknowledge that there is some information that is contested but at the same time I am able to produce independent , mainstream and very well respected research to back up my own views.  I never see anything really that contradicts that information from anti-hunters/sabs. 

I am aware that curlews are suffering hugely from habitat loss - particularly since the 1970s. They were healthy in number at that time, along with fox hunting but the two are not necessarily directly linked and I wouldn't suggest that.  However, foxes absolutely are responsible in part for predation on curlews; do you advocate that curlews should be allowed to suffer unlimited fox predation which increasingly threatens their survival so that foxes are not deliberately killed even though foxes are very numerous and the law does not prevent them from being killed by many means?  That is what I have understood from you in relation to the lethal control of foxes; if that does not happen (which I think is your preference) then a number of vulnerable species would suffer.  I am confused about your logic and values on that.

ETA - in relation to traps (not snares) those also kill and trap a variety of other animals and Chris Packham, a leading anti hunt campaigner has also been associated with their use by the RSPB which he is closely associated with.


----------



## palo1 (12 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Sigh, it was a pack of hounds, a very well known pack they were investigated by the police and for reasons I explained and you clearly ignored the hunt got away with it.

I joined this thread because of you, because you were so clearly trying to defend the indefensible, you do not come across well, your arguments are flawed, you clearly believe that killing sentient creatures is acceptable, and judging by some other comments in response to you the majority of people have you pretty well worked out.

You twist arguments for your own narrative, bringing up Curlews, their decline is primarily loss of habitat, however when you flood what is their natural habitat with game species for the equally vile shooting brigade to draw in more so called “predators”

You pretend to be concerned about conservation to justify the destruction of another native species.

Maybe some of these ”peers” you constantly quote would actually like to come out with monitors and sabs and witness what we see happening, then they can look us in the eye and tell us these creatures feel no fear.

In fact why don’t you come out ”with the other side” and see what goes on, I am sure it can be arranged and then and only then will you be qualified to preach to people that see the myth of trail hunting for what is indeed a smokescreen.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry I didn't include this in my first reply but no-one is suggesting that hunted animals don't feel fear.  Have you read those articles?  Those scientists are exploring what the role of fear is in the wider ecosystem and how animals adapt as a species and individually to living with fear.  Animals that are hunted by any predator feel fear of course.  Do you plan to stop foxes predating on rabbits and mice so that they don't feel fear or experience death by direct predation?  I suspect that you feel that humans should not have any role to play in animal death but sadly that is impossible on any level; even as the very strictest vegan you would be responsible for the effects of being part of the ecosystem and that would involve, at some point, negative effects on other animals.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (12 March 2021)

Did I honestly just read a poster above me genuinely suggest that a pack of domestic dogs can effectively take the place of our extinct megafauna? 

That is proper cloud-cuckoo land stuff.


----------



## ycbm (12 March 2021)

palo1 said:



			Sorry I didn't include this in my first reply but no-one is suggesting that hunted animals don't feel fear.
		
Click to expand...


It's a very short leap from denying that foxes can feel human notions of fear,  as you did earlier in this thread (see below)  to believing that fox fear is somehow lesser than human fear. 



palo1 said:



			But the document doesn't say that foxes are not capable of feeling fear at all...the document says that foxes don't experience human notions of fear. The two are different.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Koweyka (12 March 2021)

Why do you think fox numbers need controlling ? I am getting confused that you say trail hunting controls their numbers....how is that if you are following a trail ...

As for the fox scaring rabbits when he hunts for survival how can you even compare that to a pack of hounds and 40 odd horses chasing him relentlessly until his heart bursts or the hounds rip him apart when he is still alive....


----------



## palo1 (12 March 2021)

CrunchieBoi said:



			Did I honestly just read a poster above me genuinely suggest that a pack of domestic dogs can effectively take the place of our extinct megafauna?

That is proper cloud-cuckoo land stuff.
		
Click to expand...

Er - no?!!  But hounds have fulfilled that role in part for several centuries.


----------



## palo1 (12 March 2021)

ycbm said:



			It's a very short leap from denying that foxes can feel human notions of fear,  as you did earlier in this thread (see below)  to believing that fox fear is somehow lesser than human fear.
		
Click to expand...

But no one has made that leap and I haven't expressed personal opinons about hounds/hunting and/or the fear of foxes - just presented scientific information about the nature of and role of fear in animal's lives.  Just stop anthropomorphising for a moment...


----------



## palo1 (12 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Why do you think fox numbers need controlling ? I am getting confused that you say trail hunting controls their numbers....how is that if you are following a trail ...

As for the fox scaring rabbits when he hunts for survival how can you even compare that to a pack of hounds and 40 odd horses chasing him relentlessly until his heart bursts or the hounds rip him apart when he is still alive....
		
Click to expand...

I never said trail hunting controls fox numbers.  As for the hunting scenario you have presented, it suggests that you have never actually been near a fox hunted by hounds. Enough said, for me at least!!


----------



## Koweyka (12 March 2021)

palo1 said:



			I never said trail hunting controls fox numbers.  As for the hunting scenario you have presented, it suggests that you have never actually been near a fox hunted by hounds. Enough said, for me at least!! 

Click to expand...

You have now utterly lost the plot.


----------



## ycbm (12 March 2021)

palo1 said:



			But no one has made that leap and I haven't expressed personal opinons about hounds/hunting and/or the fear of foxes - just presented scientific information about the nature of and role of fear in animal's lives.  Just stop anthropomorphising for a moment...
		
Click to expand...


How about you stop ignoring the fundamental fact that the hormones which create fear in a fox are the same ones as create fear,  using exactly the same mechanism,  as in a human?

The more research that is done into domestic animals the more obvious it is to me that all mammals share a great deal of the ability to feel emotion that a human has,  they just lack the ability to express it in a way that humans can't ignore.

I've seen a fox running for its life as a pack closed in.  It looked scared to me and I have absolutely no reason to assume that it wasn't.
.


----------



## Koweyka (12 March 2021)

A “Few” posts ago you stated this ....

In relation to trail hunting - one of the benefits of trail hunting is that the presence of hounds in the countryside disturbs and disrupts foxes in a sustainable way that the existing ecosystem more widely can cope with naturally.

So what do you mean by this ? Katy Perry could write a song about you ...we kill then we don’t ....we chase then we won’t....it wrong yes we know, but we’ll pretend we don’t know....

You literally contradict yourself in every post, I think ....but probably won’t have more respect for you if you admitted that you enjoy foxes being killed by packs of hounds, however considering you don’t recognise my description of hunting I am actually wondering now if you are just a sad old lady living in a total fantasy land and that’s why you come out with such piffle.

Trail hunting for the majority of packs is a myth, an excuse to kill, there is a reason drag packs don’t get sabbed, we actually get invited to come and watch the drag pack operate. But that doesn’t fit the pro hunt narrative does it.


----------



## palo1 (12 March 2021)

ycbm said:



			How about you stop ignoring the fundamental fact that the hormones which create fear in a fox are the same ones as create fear,  using exactly the same mechanism,  as in a human?

The more research that is done into domestic animals the more obvious it is to me that all mammals share a great deal of the ability to feel emotion as a human,  they just lack the ability to express it in a way that humans can't ignore.

I've seen a fox running for its life as a pack closed in.  It looked scared to me and I have absolutely no reason to assume that it wasn't.
.
		
Click to expand...

I am not ignoring that ycbm and I am aware of the hormones and response in the amygdyla of the mammalian brain. What scientists are saying is that fear has an important role to play in the life and health of individual animals and the species, that predated animals are evolved to cope with that response and that positive impacts on the species and ecosystem as a whole result from fear-influenced behaviour.   I am not trying to get away from the fact that an individual animal feels fear at all however well they are adapted to that.  I don't want my pet animals to feel fear and do what I can to avoid that but the situation with control of or our impact on wild animals is a different scenario and where do our attempts to reduce fear in wild animal individuals stop?  Do we try to stop all predators from causing fear in all predated animals?  That is not possible. Foxes who are shot or injured by other means will not only feel fear but also pain and great distress - I find it hard to stomach that that is a preferable risk/outcome than the entirely binary outcome of a hunted fox (pre ban hunted with hounds).  I am certainly not convinced that a fox hunted and killed by 2 dogs is humane as there is a higher risk of that fox having a more prolonged death.  There is certainly an evidenced and higher risk of injury and suffering from shooting, gassing and other currently legal method of fox killing.


----------



## Koweyka (12 March 2021)

Here is a really random thought, how about we as humans stop hunting animals full stop.

I and I am sure many more are struggling with what you are saying, you are expressing regret at foxes being killed by shooting and two dogs, incidentally the fox has to be shot instantly it is flushed out, the dogs cannot pursue....you think this is not humane but pursuing a fox with a pack of horses and hounds is humane ? You aren’t hunting for food, you aren’t hunting to survive you are hunting for fun. You make no sense.


----------



## Kipper's Dick (12 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Snares should be banned immediately, not only do targeted species suffer horribly, none targeted species suffer immeasurably as well, in the last few months alone several cats, a dog, an owl and birds of prey have been found in snares, how many other animals have died that haven’t been discovered by members of the public. 

Culled at cubbing earths WTAF everything you stated there is revolting.

Far too many gun happy (insert your own expletive) get a kick out of lamping etc it’s utterly repugnant and as you say has no closed season, I know some MP’s are actively looking into this very issue.

I know many many farmers who don’t want to kill foxes, they understand the value foxes have to the ecosystem, the way the fox population is plummeting especially in the countryside it will come that foxes have protected status and that can’t come soon enough, that will really throw a spanner in the works for hunting/shooting and snaring then.
		
Click to expand...

I have huge issues with these methods, too.  But is the fox population plummeting?  Do you have references for this? 

 In a survey of Welsh farmers in 2013, 96% said that predation on lambs had an impact on their income.  Seventy-five per cent said that they had lost more lambs to foxes since the hunting ban in 2005.  Going back further, in 1999, according to one estimate, foxes cost sheep producers approx. £9.4 million.  This is obviously counter-balanced by the benefits of having a healthy fox population, rabbit control for example.  But, if farmers perceive a problem with foxes attacking livestock, they will take matters into their own hands. I can see farmers absolutely up in arms if they are restricted in this matter, and  I can't see any government who would pass such a law in the near future.  If they did, then fox control, and the methods used, would simply slide out of sight, in the privacy of farms and fields and woodland.  Much like it is now, really.


----------



## Dizzy socks (12 March 2021)

palo1 said:



			But no one has made that leap and I haven't expressed personal opinons about hounds/hunting and/or the fear of foxes - just presented scientific information about the nature of and role of fear in animal's lives.  Just stop anthropomorphising for a moment...
		
Click to expand...

Would you mind presenting the scientific information again please - I can't seem to find it?

From my perspective, I don't see how a fox perspective of fear could be any less unpleasant than a human's perspective? The very purpose of fear *is* to be unpleasant, so as to essentially drive mechanisms to escape the danger. I also don't see how, if as you are suggesting, foxes feel fear differently, scientists could ever have measured that, either?

Througout history, people have criminally underestimated the emotional capacities of animals - this is undisputable. I feel that, on the back of that, perhaps instead of always assuming that animals lack emotions in a way which makes crueltly more palatable to us as people, we should perhaps start assuming the converse. It seems a far safer starting point to limit cruelty.

I just want to note I'm not currently adding anything to the debate of fox hunting as a whole, just the justification that foxes feel pain differently.


----------



## palo1 (12 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Here is a really random thought, how about we as humans stop hunting animals full stop.

I and I am sure many more are struggling with what you are saying, you are expressing regret at foxes being killed by shooting and two dogs, incidentally the fox has to be shot instantly it is flushed out, the dogs cannot pursue....you think this is not humane but pursuing a fox with a pack of horses and hounds is humane ? You aren’t hunting for food, you aren’t hunting to survive you are hunting for fun. You make no sense.
		
Click to expand...

Sadly, when a fox is flushed to 2 dogs, it is not always simply shot instantly.  The dogs certainly should not pursue but dogs can legally kill foxes in other ways although clearly there are ways that are legal under the Hunting Act that may be illegal under the Animal Welfare act.  How on earth can many of those situations be enforced?    I didn't quite mean to suggest that a fox flushed to guns would be pursued by those dogs. Legally you can take 2 lurchers for example and hunt a fox.  That is not what I would care for but a farmer or landowner who had that opportunity and wanted rid of a fox, he can do that.  

The Burns report - and I know you will be enraged by this, but it is primary report in this particular argument, did not conclude that hunting with hounds was any more cruel than any other method and there is a very clear and binary outcome to that method.  Unlike many other methods of fox control.  It is not realistic to assert that foxes dont' need controlling. The impact of no control of foxes would be pretty grim for them and for other wildlife and you should, if you care, be aware of that.


----------



## Koweyka (12 March 2021)

In 2013 Defra estimated that there were around 430,000 foxes in the UK however in 2018 this estimate had dropped to around 350,000, however at the rate the lampers all over the country are killing foxes and posing with 20 plus foxes they have killed in one night it’s a wonder there is any left. It has to be regulated, they aren’t professional marksmen and they probably maim and cause immense suffering. 

Defra also put the levels of lambs killed by foxes at just 1% foxes may take sick lambs that have been abandoned, but rare to take a healthy one, they may also be seen to carry a dead one ....they have to eat. There was a study in Scotland that backed this up.

If the countryside if there are that many foxes in the countryside, why do hunts breed them .....why do they feed live Cubs to hounds, why do they have artificial earths .....


----------



## littleshetland (12 March 2021)

Kipper's Dick said:



			I have huge issues with these methods, too.  But is the fox population plummeting?  Do you have references for this?

In a survey of Welsh farmers in 2013, 96% said that predation on lambs had an impact on their income.  Seventy-five per cent said that they had lost more lambs to foxes since the hunting ban in 2005.  Going back further, in 1999, according to one estimate, foxes cost sheep producers approx. £9.4 million.  This is obviously counter-balanced by the benefits of having a healthy fox population, rabbit control for example.  But, if farmers perceive a problem with foxes attacking livestock, they will take matters into their own hands. I can see farmers absolutely up in arms if they are restricted in this matter, and  I can't see any government who would pass such a law in the near future.  If they did, then fox control, and the methods used, would simply slide out of sight, in the privacy of farms and fields and woodland.  Much like it is now, really.
		
Click to expand...

Round here in very rural somerset, the biggest threat to lambs is people 'walking' their out of control dogs...


----------



## Koweyka (12 March 2021)

The Burns report didn’t state it wasn’t cruel though did it.


----------



## Koweyka (12 March 2021)

littleshetland said:



			Round here in very rural somerset, the biggest threat to lambs is people 'walking' their out of control dogs...
		
Click to expand...

Did you know hunting hounds could chase a whole flock of sheep, or cows and even llamas have been chased and they are totally exempt from whatever damage they cause. It’s madness.


----------



## Sandstone1 (12 March 2021)

palo1 said:



			Clearly you haven't read what I have written.  I have made it perfectly clear on numerous occasions that I am totally aware of the Hunting Act and that hunting foxes with a pack of hounds is illegal.
		
Click to expand...

I have read what you have written and you seem very confused between trail hunting and fox hunting.  For someone who supposedly is aware that fox hunting is and will remain against the law you seem to be very much in favor of it.  We continue to go round in circles here, the fact remains, it is against the law and in my opinion trail hunting soon will be too.  That is completely due to people constantly and blatantly breaking the law.  Im not wasting anymore of my time on this as you clearly cant see it.


----------



## Dizzy socks (12 March 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			I have read what you have written and you seem very confused between trail hunting and fox hunting.  For someone who supposedly is aware that fox hunting is and will remain against the law you seem to be very much in favor of it.  We continue to go round in circles here, the fact remains, it is against the law and in my opinion trail hunting soon will be too.  That is completely due to people constantly and blatantly breaking the law.  Im not wasting anymore of my time on this as you clearly cant see it.
		
Click to expand...

I think you can be in favor of something which is illegal though, whilst also recognising that it is illegal and not doing it as a result.

Personally I'm against fox hunting, but I do think Palo can logically argue that it should be legal whilst also being aware that it isn't.

I'm not commenting currently on the wider issue of hunts flouting the ban - I *think* everyone agrees that it's disgraceful, the disagreement lies in how prevalent illegal hunting is. Palo thinks its rare, others think it's far too common. Personally I agree with Sandstone that unless the hunts which are acting within the law make it very obvious that they distance themselves from those which have acted illegally, trail hunting will have had its day soon too. A good start would probably be not training hounds on fox scent.


----------



## blitznbobs (12 March 2021)

Dizzy socks said:



			I think you can be in favor of something which is illegal though, whilst also recognising that it is illegal and not doing it as a result.

.
		
Click to expand...

This is a very true statement - if it wasn’t there would be no people campaigning to change the law - civil rights in the states and gay rights/ marriage laws everywhere spring to mind. There are many laws that I think should be changed but I will observe them til they are


----------



## Sandstone1 (12 March 2021)

blitznbobs said:



			This is a very true statement - if it wasn’t there would be no people campaigning to change the law - civil rights in the states and gay rights/ marriage laws everywhere spring to mind. There are many laws that I think should be changed but I will observe them til they are
		
Click to expand...

I agree but Palo  constantly goes back and forth between trail hunting and fox hunting and confusing the two.   This thread is about fox hunting.


----------



## The Fuzzy Furry (12 March 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			This thread is about fox hunting.
		
Click to expand...

In that case, it ought to be locked now as fox hunting is historical.

Or, perhaps the pointed postings from some uneducated posters who seem to perpetually keep posting that hunts are all hunting fox and not *trail, clean boot or drag*, need to accept that the highlighted ones ARE legal and ARE permitted to go ahead.


----------



## Sandstone1 (12 March 2021)

The Fuzzy Furry said:



			In that case, it ought to be locked now as fox hunting is historical.

Or, perhaps the pointed postings from some uneducated posters who seem to perpetually keep posting that hunts are all hunting fox and not *trail, clean boot or drag*, need to accept that the highlighted ones ARE legal and ARE permitted to go ahead.[/QUOTE
As far as I am aware this thread is about hunts that break the law.  As in using trail hunting as a smokescreen.  Genuine trail or drag hunting is of course legal.  If only fox hunting was really historical there would be no problem would there?
		
Click to expand...


----------



## palo1 (13 March 2021)

And this is the same group that feel they are informed enough about wildlife matters....I would like to say though that I don't particularly see the need to bring vegans/veganism into the discussion so apologies for that from the original poster.  At the same time it is kind of relevant that these hunt sabs who want to dictate what goes on in the countryside in all manner of ways clearly have no clue about some quite important things about conservation. 

From fb - of course.  

Mink: where animal liberation and wildlife conservation collide head-on.  Sabs really are as thick as (vegan) mince if they think a wildlife trust is just trapping mink for fun.


----------



## Koweyka (13 March 2021)

The Fuzzy Furry said:



			In that case, it ought to be locked now as fox hunting is historical.

Or, perhaps the pointed postings from some uneducated posters who seem to perpetually keep posting that hunts are all hunting fox and not *trail, clean boot or drag*, need to accept that the highlighted ones ARE legal and ARE permitted to go ahead.
		
Click to expand...

You won’t find monitors or sabs at clean boot or drag, unless we have been invited which we often are, they are open and transparent, advertise their meets and their routes.....no terrier boys. Perhaps some of the posters on this thread need to get their heads out of their nether regions and concede that not all trail hunts are operating legally and that’s why all trail hunts get tarred with the same brush.

All hunts know that some hunts openly hunt fox but have they tried to get their house in order ? No they haven’t, as long as they weren’t getting monitored or sabbed they ignored it, now the whole thing has blown up in the trail hunts faces it’s panic stations.


----------



## Kipper's Dick (13 March 2021)

palo1 said:



			And this is the same group that feel they are informed enough about wildlife matters....I would like to say though that I don't particularly see the need to bring vegans/veganism into the discussion so apologies for that from the original poster.  At the same time it is kind of relevant that these hunt sabs who want to dictate what goes on in the countryside in all manner of ways clearly have no clue about some quite important things about conservation. 

From fb - of course.  

Mink: where animal liberation and wildlife conservation collide head-on.  Sabs really are as thick as (vegan) mince if they think a wildlife trust is just trapping mink for fun.















Click to expand...





Oh good grief, you couldn't make it up. What an appalling and unforgivable level of ignorance. 
The "SES pixies" could start educating themselves by googling predation by mink in the UK.


----------



## Upthecreek (13 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Snares should be banned immediately, not only do targeted species suffer horribly, none targeted species suffer immeasurably as well, in the last few months alone several cats, a dog, an owl and birds of prey have been found in snares, how many other animals have died that haven’t been discovered by members of the public.

Culled at cubbing earths WTAF everything you stated there is revolting.

Far too many gun happy (insert your own expletive) get a kick out of lamping etc it’s utterly repugnant and as you say has no closed season, I know some MP’s are actively looking into this very issue.

I know many many farmers who don’t want to kill foxes, they understand the value foxes have to the ecosystem, the way the fox population is plummeting especially in the countryside it will come that foxes have protected status and that can’t come soon enough, that will really throw a spanner in the works for hunting/shooting and snaring then.
		
Click to expand...

Slightly off topic, but are you saying that numbers of all animals which have no natural predators (e.g. foxes, badgers, deer) should be uncontrolled by man? If so what do they eat when their numbers get so high that their natural food source cannot sustain them?

Badgers were protected for years, but mass culling has had to be introduced over the last few years to control numbers due to increased cases of TB in cattle. Deer in large numbers can decimate huge areas of crops within a couple of days. Foxes kill lambs, chickens, ducks etc. They don’t just eat wild rabbits. How would you manage all of this if you think we shouldn’t kill any animals at all? (I am not saying they should be hunted by hounds by the way).


----------



## Koweyka (13 March 2021)

Upthecreek said:



			Slightly off topic, but are you saying that numbers of all animals which have no natural predators (e.g. foxes, badgers, deer) should be uncontrolled by man? If so what do they eat when their numbers get so high that their natural food source cannot sustain them?

Badgers were protected for years, but mass culling has had to be introduced over the last few years to control numbers due to increased cases of TB in cattle. Deer in large numbers can decimate huge areas of crops within a couple of days. Foxes kill lambs, chickens, ducks etc. They don’t just eat wild rabbits. How would you manage all of this if you think we shouldn’t kill any animals at all? (I am not saying they should be hunted by hounds by the way).
		
Click to expand...

They have no natural predators because they have all been hunted to extinction....

The badger population is overestimated, there has just been a study saying the population is between 250k-400k that’s a huge variation, in the cull they use a formula based on guesswork of how many badgers live in a square kilometre, if You take the higher number then it will lead to local extinctions, just because a sett has 10 entrances it doesn’t follow there are at least ten badgers. This is why every year they have had to extend the cull duration and revise minimum numbers down. Badgers are now extinct in many areas of the UK, I know of a sett on a horse stud farm, there are references to this sett going back 400 years regarding it, no cattle nearby all the badgers are dead all culled. I don’t want to get into the ins and outs of the cull, clearly I don’t agree with it, the infections are in the herd and until that’s eradicated badgers will be the innocent scapegoats, every badger could be killed in the UK and you will still have TB. More badgers were killed in the last cull than cattle. The farmers have been let down as much as the badgers have by a testing regime that misses infections.

I believe in this country there is a kill first think of alternatives later, killing is the easy alternative, this is why the UK is one of the most wildlife depleted countries in the world. I feel sorry for future generations, who won’t get to see some of the wildlife we have now.

As I have mentioned before, the gangs of people going out lamping need to be regulated and licensed, they don’t do it for control they do it for fun, if there needs to be control then it has to be carried out in a humane, sympathetic and controlled way only after all other alternatives have been considered.

The cruelty inflicted on our wildlife is on a scale you probably can’t imagine.


----------



## Upthecreek (13 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			They have no natural predators because they have all been hunted to extinction....

The badger population is overestimated, there has just been a study saying the population is between 250k-400k that’s a huge variation, in the cull they use a formula based on guesswork of how many badgers live in a square kilometre, if You take the higher number then it will lead to local extinctions, just because a sett has 10 entrances it doesn’t follow there are at least ten badgers. This is why every year they have had to extend the cull duration and revise minimum numbers down. Badgers are now extinct in many areas of the UK, I know of a sett on a horse stud farm, there are references to this sett going back 400 years regarding it, no cattle nearby all the badgers are dead all culled. I don’t want to get into the ins and outs of the cull, clearly I don’t agree with it, the infections are in the herd and until that’s eradicated badgers will be the innocent scapegoats, every badger could be killed in the UK and you will still have TB. More badgers were killed in the last cull than cattle. The farmers have been let down as much as the badgers have by a testing regime that misses infections.

I believe in this country there is a kill first think of alternatives later, killing is the easy alternative, this is why the UK is one of the most wildlife depleted countries in the world. I feel sorry for future generations, who won’t get to see some of the wildlife we have now.

As I have mentioned before, the gangs of people going out lamping need to be regulated and licensed, they don’t do it for control they do it for fun, if there needs to be control then it has to be carried out in a humane, sympathetic and controlled way only after all other alternatives have been considered.

The cruelty inflicted on our wildlife is on a scale you probably can’t imagine.
		
Click to expand...

You haven’t answered my questions though. I did not ask whether the badger cull was right or wrong. I used it as an example in my post of a species that has been protected and the consequence of not controlling numbers at all over the years is the implementation of a mass culling programme.

So I say again if you are saying that numbers of animals with no natural predators should not been controlled by man how do you think they will survive when there are too many to be sustained in their environment? They will starve. Hardly humane. 

The “gangs of people going out lamping” you refer to are poachers. Poaching is illegal. Anyone going out lamping to control foxes must have the permission of the landowner and a firearms license. Why do you assume anyone that kills animals does so for fun?


----------



## Koweyka (13 March 2021)

You are wrong in your assumption that lampers always have the permission of the landowner, they don’t poach foxes or badgers or hares and you are being rather naive if you think the vast majority don’t do it for fun.

Explain fox hunting to me, why go out with the intention to hunt and kill foxes ? Do you think that’s humane ? Stag hunting, how do you feel about that, do you think that’s an acceptable exercise in population control ? Hare coursing ? A kind way of stopping hares eating grass and crops ? What are your thoughts on that ? 

If some claims are to be believed foxes are killing thousands of lambs chickens and ducks and have stockpiles to last 30 years.

I answered your question “if there needs to be control then it has to be carried out in a humane, sympathetic and controlled way only after all other alternatives have been considered” you chose to ignore it for your own narrative.


----------



## Clodagh (13 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			I answered your question “if there needs to be control then it has to be carried out in a humane, sympathetic and controlled way only after all other alternatives have been considered” you chose to ignore it for your own narrative.
		
Click to expand...

So what way would you recommend? Shooting foxes with rifles is undoubtedly the quickest and most humane method. Whether or not the individual enjoys it is irrelevant to the fox.

And trespassers with guns tend to be frowned upon by both landowners and the police.


----------



## Koweyka (13 March 2021)

Am I in the Twilight Zone here, because it feels like it.....or is it ground hog day.

The police and landowners have to catch them first.


----------



## Upthecreek (13 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			You are wrong in your assumption that lampers always have the permission of the landowner, they don’t poach foxes or badgers or hares and you are being rather naive if you think the vast majority don’t do it for fun.

Explain fox hunting to me, why go out with the intention to hunt and kill foxes ? Do you think that’s humane ? Stag hunting, how do you feel about that, do you think that’s an acceptable exercise in population control ? Hare coursing ? A kind way of stopping hares eating grass and crops ? What are your thoughts on that ?

If some claims are to be believed foxes are killing thousands of lambs chickens and ducks and have stockpiles to last 30 years.

I answered your question “if there needs to be control then it has to be carried out in a humane, sympathetic and controlled way only after all other alternatives have been considered” you chose to ignore it for your own narrative.
		
Click to expand...

If lampers don’t have permission of landowners they are trespassing. And they most definitely do poach hare and deer. I was not talking about people doing it illegally for sport/fun. I was talking about people lamping with permission of the landowner with a licensed firearm for the purpose of population control.

Why are you asking me about fox hunting? My post had nothing to do with that. Actually I don’t think hunting is an effective method of controlling numbers of any species. Neither do I think that numbers should be uncontrolled.

I’m not sure what you think my narrative is. I just find it ridiculous when people say animals shouldn’t be killed full stop but have no answer about how you manage species that don’t have natural predators and the consequences of their numbers getting out of control. There are far worse things than dying and killing doesn’t have to be cruel.


----------



## Koweyka (13 March 2021)

I think you have a narrative because you are deliberately ignoring what I stated and you have done it again.

Honestly it’s like banging your head against a brick wall, I don’t actually believe that some of you know what happens to wildlife in the countryside, a farmer giving permission is totally different to the gangs going out, I certainly didn’t give permission when lampers came on my land. Oh wait....we according to some drivel on here we are all unwashed, uneducated, jobless layabouts engaged in a class war aren’t we, its utter rubbish and there will never be any class in anyone who hunts for fun or sport.

This thread was about Hunting, but as frequently happens any discussion around fox hunting turns into .... well what about this and what about that and deviates from the discussion at hand.


----------



## palo1 (13 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Did you know hunting hounds could chase a whole flock of sheep, or cows and even llamas have been chased and they are totally exempt from whatever damage they cause. It’s madness.
		
Click to expand...

Hunts are not exempt from any damage they cause at all; that is one of the reasons that they have insurance; a hunt cannot function without that in place.  Your statement simply isn't true.


----------



## Koweyka (13 March 2021)

You are wrong, hounds are exempt from incidents involving livestock, if they chase sheep they cannot be shot a pet dog can be. Another shocking loophole in the hunting act.

The hunts I deal with don’t involve insurance in most occasions they try pay people off, a pony was killed at a hunt I monitor, chased by the hounds and broke a leg, the owner was an employee they threatened her with the sack if she complained. We are the agents for many landowners who suffer from trespass, one of them is still waiting for repairs to her fencing months after the ginger trail went through her property.

But you don’t want to hear that do you.


----------



## Koweyka (13 March 2021)

I take my hat off to some of the regular posters on here, that have called out trail hunting for what it is, you have the patience of saints you really do.


----------



## palo1 (13 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			I think you have a narrative because you are deliberately ignoring what I stated and you have done it again.

Honestly it’s like banging your head against a brick wall, I don’t actually believe that some of you know what happens to wildlife in the countryside, a farmer giving permission is totally different to the gangs going out, I certainly didn’t give permission when lampers came on my land. Oh wait....we according to some drivel on here we are all unwashed, uneducated, jobless layabouts engaged in a class war aren’t we, its utter rubbish and there will never be any class in anyone who hunts for fun or sport.

This thread was about Hunting, but as frequently happens any discussion around fox hunting turns into .... well what about this and what about that and deviates from the discussion at hand.
		
Click to expand...

But...you also completely ignore what other people say and refuse to accept or engage with any of the ideas or challenges to your opinion. For you, contributions to the thread appear to be about repeatedly stating a single view - not entering into a discussion at all!    That is often what happens with highly polarised issues I know.  That is why, often, it helps to have facts rather than opinions.  Why do you feel that your knowledge of wildlife and the countryside is perhaps more informed or more 'correct' than other people?  I don't mean that rudely, but do you have particular qualifications or knowledge that justifies that position?  I have the experience of living in the countryside, keeping sheep, chickens and cattle as well as having a long standing relationship with my particular community and with hunting activities. I also have a very long standing interest and committment to wildlife and to the protection of nature and feel that is hugely important in my life.    I  have academic skills and experience so feel able to identify resources and information that are impartial and produced by people who have a serious level of knowledge about and approach to particular aspects of their subject.  I try to keep contributions within the context of knowledge and values that I am confident about.

I do understand that some values are based strongly on feelings and we all have different interpretations of things - thankfully we live in a free society where expressions of those differences are tolerated.

ETA - it is very easy these days to live in an echo chamber - where both good and bad resonate repeatedly.  I think that happens a lot with any debate around hunting (trail, drag and bloodhounding).


----------



## palo1 (13 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			You are wrong, hounds are exempt from incidents involving livestock, if they chase sheep they cannot be shot a pet dog can be. Another shocking loophole in the hunting act.

The hunts I deal with don’t involve insurance in most occasions they try pay people off, a pony was killed at a hunt I monitor, chased by the hounds and broke a leg, the owner was an employee they threatened her with the sack if she complained. We are the agents for many landowners who suffer from trespass, one of them is still waiting for repairs to her fencing months after the ginger trail went through her property.

But you don’t want to hear that do you.
		
Click to expand...

Well unless you are involved in the running of a hunt you probably wouldn't know the details of their insurance.  What you are saying is just completely alien to my experience to be honest.


----------



## Upthecreek (13 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			I think you have a narrative because you are deliberately ignoring what I stated and you have done it again.

Honestly it’s like banging your head against a brick wall, I don’t actually believe that some of you know what happens to wildlife in the countryside, a farmer giving permission is totally different to the gangs going out, I certainly didn’t give permission when lampers came on my land. Oh wait....we according to some drivel on here we are all unwashed, uneducated, jobless layabouts engaged in a class war aren’t we, its utter rubbish and there will never be any class in anyone who hunts for fun or sport.

This thread was about Hunting, but as frequently happens any discussion around fox hunting turns into .... well what about this and what about that and deviates from the discussion at hand.
		
Click to expand...

I haven’t ignored anything you stated. You are making lots of assumptions about people and your tone is rude.


----------



## palo1 (13 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			You won’t find monitors or sabs at clean boot or drag, unless we have been invited which we often are, they are open and transparent, advertise their meets and their routes.....no terrier boys. Perhaps some of the posters on this thread need to get their heads out of their nether regions and concede that not all trail hunts are operating legally and that’s why all trail hunts get tarred with the same brush.

All hunts know that some hunts openly hunt fox but have they tried to get their house in order ? No they haven’t, as long as they weren’t getting monitored or sabbed they ignored it, now the whole thing has blown up in the trail hunts faces it’s panic stations.[/QUOTE

But only very recently sabs advised their supporters to get after a bloodhound hunt; they produced a poster for one of the National Parks, artfully splashed with fake blood demanding that the National Park ban all hunting; yet bloodhounds are recognised as absolutely 'safe' ; even Brian May tells everyone to go bloodhounding!!   Here you go:-












Click to expand...


----------



## Koweyka (13 March 2021)

An unfortunate choice of photograph using bloodhounds, no sab or monitor I know would sab a bloodhound pack, perhaps they should have featured this fox killed by the Holderness Hunt, more fitting wouldn’t you say.


----------



## palo1 (13 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			You are wrong, hounds are exempt from incidents involving livestock, if they chase sheep they cannot be shot a pet dog can be. Another shocking loophole in the hunting act.

The hunts I deal with don’t involve insurance in most occasions they try pay people off, a pony was killed at a hunt I monitor, chased by the hounds and broke a leg, the owner was an employee they threatened her with the sack if she complained. We are the agents for many landowners who suffer from trespass, one of them is still waiting for repairs to her fencing months after the ginger trail went through her property.

But you don’t want to hear that do you.
		
Click to expand...

I have just looked at both Forestry England and the MOD and both of those organisations clearly require sight of current insurance before annual agreements for trail hunting are confirmed.  I know that insurance is in place too as I attend the hunt AGMs and listen to the cost of it every year.


----------



## palo1 (13 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			An unfortunate choice of photograph using bloodhounds, no sab or monitor I know would sab a bloodhound pack, perhaps they should have featured this fox killed by the Holderness Hunt, more fitting wouldn’t you say.
	View attachment 67691

Click to expand...

I just can't be drawn into agreeing that a picture of a dead fox is evidence of any particular death tbh and I don't think that just using a picture of a dead fox would be particularly 'convincing' but the picture I posted is perfectly clear and yes, unfortunate, particularly because it reflects a level of ignorance that makes a nonsense of the 'message' and the claim of anti-hunters and sabs that they 'know and understand' about hunting.


----------



## Koweyka (13 March 2021)

I am talking about they are excempt from being prosecuted from livestock worrying.

Hunt AGM’s what wonderful nuggets of information they have proven to be....

Forestry England isn’t really an issue as trail hunting has been banned from there, MOD will follow.


----------



## Koweyka (13 March 2021)

palo1 said:



			I just can't be drawn into agreeing that a picture of a dead fox is evidence of any particular death tbh and I don't think that just using a picture of a dead fox would be particularly 'convincing' but the picture I posted is perfectly clear and yes, unfortunate, particularly because it reflects a level of ignorance that makes a nonsense of the 'message' and the claim of anti-hunters and sabs that they 'know and understand' about hunting.
		
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true hunter ...unfortunately this site isn’t allowing me to upload many photos....shame as I have some corkers.

Are you also talking about your mink photo ? Another deflection eh


----------



## Koweyka (13 March 2021)

Thought you may find this interesting, though I doubt it wouldnt want to rain on your glee when you first brought this case up...

https://thecitro.substack.com/p/cps...-aI4F005oJMdWM8xw6rJkwTI55wCuR_kEKTZVEzHIynQk


----------



## palo1 (13 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Thought you may find this interesting, though I doubt it wouldnt want to rain on your glee when you first brought this case up...

https://thecitro.substack.com/p/cps...-aI4F005oJMdWM8xw6rJkwTI55wCuR_kEKTZVEzHIynQk

Click to expand...

I am not sure of your point here; are you blaming a hunt for something that Citro say the CPS have or haven't done?  The take that the CA and Citro have are both absolutely predictable - no surprises there at all.


----------



## palo1 (13 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Spoken like a true hunter ...unfortunately this site isn’t allowing me to upload many photos....shame as I have some corkers.

Are you also talking about your mink photo ? Another deflection eh
		
Click to expand...

Well the mink photo also demonstrates a real lack of knowledge about wildlife/conservation etc - I don't think it is deflection to point out that critics of hunting don't appear to know some fairly basic and very important facts.  That is pertinent to pro-hunting people asserting that often critics of hunting activities don't know what they are really talking about and so their argument is weak.


----------



## Koweyka (14 March 2021)

Wow you come out with some real diatribe don’t you.

For pro hunt to perceive having compassion for animals and to wish them no harm as a weak argument shows just how out of touch with reality you are.


----------



## palo1 (14 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Wow you come out with some real diatribe don’t you.

For pro hunt to perceive having compassion for animals and to wish them no harm as a weak argument shows just how out of touch with reality you are.
		
Click to expand...

Oh blimey - my comment was not remotely about compassion for animals but about demonstrating knowledge - real knowledge - of the issues that they are trying to convey.  The two things are not at all the same but if you want to drive the discussion in that direction I would just ask how to you balance the 'harm' of say a mink attacking native fauna (including for the example the young gannet in the photo) with the 'compassion' deployed when those foreign mink were released into the countryside?  How do you also balance the 'harm' of suggesting (by visual inference) that bloodhounds are part of illegal blood-sport with the 'compassion' and 'understanding'  of repeatedly stating (not yourself individually, but that of the anti-hunt lobby) that you have no issue with 'safe', 'wildlife friendly' blood hounding?

How would you also balance the 'harm' that foxes and other predators cause to our rarest ground nesting birds (where predation is very much part of the picture of their decline, alongside significant habitat loss) with the 'compassion' of asserting that no animals should be controlled by lethal means where necessary (I am not talking about illegal hunting here at all).

For me, there is nothing compelling in what you say - you have presented no evidence to support your assertions and much of what you say is just angry and a somewhat lame form of virtue signalling - just words about wildlife, not facing facts at all.


----------



## Koweyka (14 March 2021)

Finally we have something in common....I find absolutely nothing compelling in what you say either.

I am not angry, I feel pity that you continue to demonise animals for your own justification.


----------



## palo1 (14 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Finally we have something in common....I find absolutely nothing compelling in what you say either.

I am not angry, I feel pity that you continue to demonise animals for your own justification.
		
Click to expand...

Common ground is a good start if everyone has the best interest of wildlife and other animals at heart.  I know that there is common ground between hunters and anti-hunting folk though that is never helped nor will it ever contribute to actual improvements to animal welfare whilst any debate remains so incredibly polarised.  I wonder why you say I demonise animals; I don't think I have ever done that or even suggested that; can you suggest why you think that?   What constitutes 'demonising' ? I have certainly never attributed negative characteristics to any animal nor do I blame any animal for being exactly what they are or do what they need to do.  I am fascinated by animals and to my mind, far from demonising them I am astounded, fascinated and pretty much in awe of nature in toto. 

I would hope that I have demonstrated at least some interest in and knowledge about the issues through referencing scientific and other research and by trying to continue engaging in discussion with people that take the opposite viewpoint, even when that is actually frustrating, difficult and sometime offensive? Would you agree that that is at least an attempt to look outside my own viewpoint through continuing to engage in those discussions? 

For me, there are a great many issues which need unpicking on this subject; not only the moral and philosophical issue around hunting/killing animals in any setting but also the social, cultural and political issues which make the waters on this subject very, very murky.  

I get the 'outrage' about 'killing wildlife' that anti-hunters (who wrongly assert that all trail hunting is illegal fox hunting) and animal rights campaigners have; but outrage isn't actually a basis for law nor is it necessarily reasonable in the face of incredibly complex ecological and environmental difficulties.  Outrage is just a feeling; I think we can all feel outraged about things but that doesn't necessarily mean that this should dictate what other people do or that this sense of outrage is justified in relation to other people or nature.


----------



## Sandstone1 (14 March 2021)

I dont think anyone has said that ALL trail hunting is in fact illegal fox hunting.  Some packs do just drag or trail hunt, which I dont have a problem with  BUT quite a lot of trail hunting is just a smokescreen for illegal hunting as admitted very clearly in the recent webinars.    Sadly for the genuine trail and drag hunts this will tar them all with the same brush as it were.   They know who to blame for this!  A lot of hunts have a awful attitude, holding up traffic, trespassing,  upsetting livestock and other animals and killing pets shall I go on?
Huntings time is past and a lot of it is their own fault.


----------



## Tiddlypom (14 March 2021)

palo1 said:



			I get the 'outrage' about 'killing wildlife' that anti-hunters (who wrongly assert that all trail hunting is illegal fox hunting)
		
Click to expand...

*Some* anti-hunters assert that all trail hunting is illegal fox hunting.

Not *all* anti-hunters do this, though I can quite see why antis currently find it difficult to believe anything presented to them by the pro hunt lobby.

The local antis are keeping a watchful eye on the local now legit hunt (or they were before hunting was stopped due to Covid) and as long as they continue to demonstrably trail hunt, they are allowing them to continue. There is no love lost between the pros and the antis, for sure, but a way forward seems to have been found.


----------



## Koweyka (14 March 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



*Some* anti-hunters assert that all trail hunting is illegal fox hunting.

Not *all* anti-hunters do this, though I can quite see why antis currently find it difficult to believe anything presented to them by the pro hunt lobby.

The local antis are keeping a watchful eye on the local now legit hunt (or they were before hunting was stopped due to Covid) and as long as they continue to demonstrably trail hunt, they are allowing them to continue. There is no love lost between the pros and the antis, for sure, but a way forward seems to have been found.
		
Click to expand...

I am aware the hunt you are referring too and yes they did demonstrably trail hunt that single season, but they were openly hunting foxes until then, they had to bow to pressure,  but they were monitored and not, they haven’t been quite so on it this season though unfortunately.

If all trail hunts operated this way then a way forward has been found, but they don’t and it’s that is why we are where we are. Around the country out of something 210 hunts only 30 or so are regularly monitored, these unmonitored hunts knew exactly what was going on, so why should we believe all these unmonitored hunts are not hunting foxes ? Especially after the webinars.


----------



## palo1 (14 March 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



*Some* anti-hunters assert that all trail hunting is illegal fox hunting.

Not *all* anti-hunters do this, though I can quite see why antis currently find it difficult to believe anything presented to them by the pro hunt lobby.

The local antis are keeping a watchful eye on the local now legit hunt (or they were before hunting was stopped due to Covid) and as long as they continue to demonstrably trail hunt, they are allowing them to continue. There is no love lost between the pros and the antis, for sure, but a way forward seems to have been found.
		
Click to expand...

Fair cop - you are right; not all anti-hunters assert that all trail hunting is illegal fox hunting.  Apologies for that generalisation. It just feels like that a lot of the time I guess.  I can't personally see how drag hunting could ever really be mistaken for trail hunting or illegal fox hunting as the two are very different in a number of ways.  (Not the point you were making I know. )


----------



## palo1 (14 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			I am aware the hunt you are referring too and yes they did demonstrably trail hunt that single season, but they were openly hunting foxes until then, they had to bow to pressure,  but they were monitored and not, they haven’t been quite so on it this season though unfortunately.

If all trail hunts operated this way then a way forward has been found, but they don’t and it’s that is why we are where we are. Around the country out of something 210 hunts only 30 or so are regularly monitored, these unmonitored hunts knew exactly what was going on, so why should we believe all these unmonitored hunts are not hunting foxes ? Especially after the webinars.
		
Click to expand...

Can you explain why you stated that I demonise animals?  Or respond to my latest post directly?


----------



## Koweyka (14 March 2021)

You have a kill everything first consider alternatives second mentality and frankly we are polar opposites in our views and I simply cannot see the point dragging this discussion out any further, we will never agree on anything.


----------



## palo1 (14 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			You have a kill everything first consider alternatives second mentality and frankly we are polar opposites in our views and I simply cannot see the point dragging this discussion out any further, we will never agree on anything.
		
Click to expand...

Gosh that is a bit of a statement @Koweyka; where on earth have I ever indicated that I have a 'kill first, consider alternatives second' mentality? How did you glean this from anything that I have posted?  If you knew/know me in person (which I don't think you do) what about my actions makes you think this?  I think that you don't see the point in continuing the discussion because you can't answer the questions I have asked and don't want to accept that, nor can you provide any facts or anything else to support your views.  

I certainly don't agree that you and I would never agree on anything as clearly we are both engaged in a discussion about animal welfare which we have both said we think is important. I think we would both agree that we are in a time of environmental and natural crisis too and that more needs to be done to support nature.  We differ on what we demonstrate, have read and potentially understand about the facts of those things and also the best way to address those problems.  We may well differ philosophically, culturally, religiously and in other ways too but I can't be certain of any of those as they haven't really been discussed on this thread.


----------



## Koweyka (14 March 2021)

Well that’s your opinion but the truth is no I actually I don’t see the point. I could post a link about mink, how they became to be living in the wild 40 years before any activist release, I could say you single out one species to cull but ignore all the other species and reasoning that also play a part in declining species....so does that mean all these other species should also be culled, birds of prey eat water voles, should they be culled, cats aren’t native to the UK should they all be culled.....where does it end ? You are going to disagree with me and the circle begins again and detracts from the point of this thread.

I simply believe that there should always be an alternative consideration before culling/killing is undertaken and if culling or killing is necessary then it is done with dignity and consideration and you know what if that makes you think I am an “angry anti” then so be it. I have witnessed so much animal cruelty in my life that I abhor taking the life of anything be it insect, arachnids, feathered, scaled or furred creatures. I have spent over 40 years fighting for animal welfare, not just foxes but many species so I while I may not be a professor or have a string of letters after my name, write papers or theories,  I have years of first hand experience on the ground on the suffering endured particularly by wild animals, but fox hunting is something I hate, something I won’t even pretend to understand ....


----------



## Amirah (14 March 2021)

Koweyka, while I admire your efforts to persuade Palo that hunting is indefensible/cruel/outdated etc etc I can tell you with complete certainty that it is a futile endeavour, which is why most of us threw in the towel pages ago (unless you enjoy being called ignorant and hearing about trophic cascades and her qualifications to speak as an authority on the subject).  Hunting whether fox or trail is clearly her Very Favourite Thing, and, to borrow a phrase, I highly doubt there is any argument you could make, rhetorical strategy, plea, invocation, supplication, or vetoomus that you could employ that would convince her to reconsider.

Hearing of others experiences of the hunt has made me dislike it even more than I did at the beginning of this thread despite reading every one of Palos's lengthy  posts and even some of the many links. Our local hunt has trespassed, killed a cat in its garden and was out with the terrier men just before the last lockdown, they don't even bother with a smokescreen and to the best of my knowledge never been stabbed or monitored. They used to drive my horses nuts but I am very happy to have moved away (and sad for my friends that still have to tolerate them).


----------



## palo1 (14 March 2021)

Ok - that is fair enough if you don't want to engage in discussion. I completely agree with you about killing or culls being done with understanding, dignity and compassion. It is very sad that you have been so personally at the sharp end of animal cruelty for so many years.  I would find that enormously difficult.    I am just a bit mystified about why you say I have demonised animals and that I have a 'kill first, consider alternatives second mentality' when I really don't think I have ever suggested that is my approach.  I guess that because I support trail hunting and have openly said that I think fox hunting, now illegal, *was,* in fact an appropriate way of controlling foxes for a number of reasons,  you are making assumptions about my beliefs around welfare issues more widely. That is your right to make those assumptions thankfully but I would say you are wrong.   Fox hunting, as it was, is not the same as trail hunting but perhaps if you don't even want to try or 'pretend' to understand the issues involved in either or both of those things it might be better to focus on other aspects of animal welfare tbh.  Understanding the argument/reasons/motivations/facts around a practice you want to contest is quite important in making that voice heard effectively.


----------



## palo1 (14 March 2021)

Amirah said:



			Koweyka, while I admire your efforts to persuade Palo that hunting is indefensible/cruel/outdated etc etc I can tell you with complete certainty that it is a futile endeavour, which is why most of us threw in the towel pages ago (unless you enjoy being called ignorant and hearing about trophic cascades and her qualifications to speak as an authority on the subject).  Hunting whether fox or trail is clearly her Very Favourite Thing, and, to borrow a phrase, I highly doubt there is any argument you could make, rhetorical strategy, plea, invocation, supplication, or vetoomus that you could employ that would convince her to reconsider.

Hearing of others experiences of the hunt has made me dislike it even more than I did at the beginning of this thread despite reading every one of Palos's lengthy  posts and even some of the many links. Our local hunt has trespassed, killed a cat in its garden and was out with the terrier men just before the last lockdown, they don't even bother with a smokescreen and to the best of my knowledge never been stabbed or monitored. They used to drive my horses nuts but I am very happy to have moved away (and sad for my friends that still have to tolerate them).
		
Click to expand...

Blimey.  I don't think I have set out my qualifications to act as an authority on the subject of trail hunting though I do know a bit about some other stuff mentioned.  Trail hunting is not indefensible, cruel or outdated. I just think if you are going to enter into a debate, it kind of helps to be informed and to share facts and information.  But if you don't want to, you don't have to of course.  I am not sure whether to be pleased or not that most folk threw in the towel discussing this issue some time ago tbh!!  But hey, that has made me laugh...


----------



## Koweyka (14 March 2021)

palo1 said:



			Ok - that is fair enough if you don't want to engage in discussion. I completely agree with you about killing or culls being done with understanding, dignity and compassion. It is very sad that you have been so personally at the sharp end of animal cruelty for so many years.  I would find that enormously difficult.    I am just a bit mystified about why you say I have demonised animals and that I have a 'kill first, consider alternatives second mentality' when I really don't think I have ever suggested that is my approach.  I guess that because I support trail hunting and have openly said that I think fox hunting, now illegal, *was,* in fact an appropriate way of controlling foxes for a number of reasons,  you are making assumptions about my beliefs around welfare issues more widely. That is your right to make those assumptions thankfully but I would say you are wrong.   Fox hunting, as it was, is not the same as trail hunting but perhaps if you don't even want to try or 'pretend' to understand the issues involved in either or both of those things it might be better to focus on other aspects of animal welfare tbh.  Understanding the argument/reasons/motivations/facts around a practice you want to contest is quite important in making that voice heard effectively.
		
Click to expand...

I have seen fox hunting before and after the ban and I can say with a great deal of conviction that the hunts I go to, not a lot has changed, foxes are hunted and die, badger setts are filled in causing huge distress to badgers, terrier boys are still present, they are filmed forcing foxes out of artifice earths in front of the hounds, hiding fox bodies the list is endless.

If your pack is so well behaved and trailing properly and you absolutely have nothing to hide, tell me which pack it is and I will personally come and monitor it and report back to everyone here.


----------



## Koweyka (14 March 2021)

Amirah said:



			Koweyka, while I admire your efforts to persuade Palo that hunting is indefensible/cruel/outdated etc etc I can tell you with complete certainty that it is a futile endeavour, which is why most of us threw in the towel pages ago (unless you enjoy being called ignorant and hearing about trophic cascades and her qualifications to speak as an authority on the subject).  Hunting whether fox or trail is clearly her Very Favourite Thing, and, to borrow a phrase, I highly doubt there is any argument you could make, rhetorical strategy, plea, invocation, supplication, or vetoomus that you could employ that would convince her to reconsider.

Hearing of others experiences of the hunt has made me dislike it even more than I did at the beginning of this thread despite reading every one of Palos's lengthy  posts and even some of the many links. Our local hunt has trespassed, killed a cat in its garden and was out with the terrier men just before the last lockdown, they don't even bother with a smokescreen and to the best of my knowledge never been stabbed or monitored. They used to drive my horses nuts but I am very happy to have moved away (and sad for my friends that still have to tolerate them).
		
Click to expand...

Thank you also for trying ! I have just offered to go and monitor her hunt, so she can put her money where her mouth is, I think my offer will be declined though....

if you do get advance notice of any meets and this goes for any people reading who see trail hunting for what it is, you can message me on here and I will contact any relevant groups nearby.

I feel sorry for your friends, hunts should be clearing the areas and notifying horse and landowners they will be in the area, but they don’t because they think the anti’s will be tipped off.


----------



## palo1 (14 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			I have seen fox hunting before and after the ban and I can say with a great deal of conviction that the hunts I go to, not a lot has changed, foxes are hunted and die, badger setts are filled in causing huge distress to badgers, terrier boys are still present, they are filmed forcing foxes out of artifice earths in front of the hounds, hiding fox bodies the list is endless.

If your pack is so well behaved and trailing properly and you absolutely have nothing to hide, tell me which pack it is and I will personally come and monitor it and report back to everyone here.
		
Click to expand...

Well thank you for that offer.  We have had a couple of monitors previously but haven't seen them for several seasons. I will pm you.


----------



## paddy555 (14 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Thank you also for trying ! I have just offered to go and monitor her hunt, so she can put her money where her mouth is, I think my offer will be declined though....

if you do get advance notice of any meets and this goes for any people reading who see trail hunting for what it is, you can message me on here and I will contact any relevant groups nearby.

I feel sorry for your friends, hunts should be clearing the areas and notifying horse and landowners they will be in the area, but they don’t because they think the anti’s will be tipped off.
		
Click to expand...

in the days of fox hunting meets were advertised in H & H and also in our local paper. Now those who need to know get told. Why the secrecy? If there is nothing to hide no reason for everyone to go along and watch. Palo?


----------



## Sandstone1 (14 March 2021)

paddy555 said:



			in the days of fox hunting meets were advertised in H & H and also in our local paper. Now those who need to know get told. Why the secrecy? If there is nothing to hide no reason for everyone to go along and watch. Palo?
		
Click to expand...

Thats a very good question and one I would like the answer to.  If hunts have nothing to hide why do they worry so much about sabs and why is everything done in secret?


----------



## Koweyka (14 March 2021)

If they were acting within the law and not hunting foxes then there would be no need for monitors/sabs or secrecy.

#trailhuntlies


----------



## Sandstone1 (15 March 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			Thats a very good question and one I would like the answer to.  If hunts have nothing to hide why do they worry so much about sabs and why is everything done in secret?
		
Click to expand...

No answer came the stern reply!


----------



## palo1 (15 March 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			No answer came the stern reply!
		
Click to expand...

I think as you are clearly all fed up with my input on this subject I shouldn't bother and leave the group of you who want to continue your own narrative to do that.  Hunts do publish meet cards but don't distribute them very well because of the guidance that they should do what they can to avoid monitors and anti's arriving on the doorstep of local communities and causing issues. It isn't great.  Hunts do have work to do on that score.  It is well known that anti-hunt groups are classed by the govt and police as potential extremists.  That is probably a good enough reason.


----------



## Sandstone1 (15 March 2021)

palo1 said:



			I think as you are clearly all fed up with my input on this subject I shouldn't bother and leave the group of you who want to continue your own narrative to do that.  Hunts do publish meet cards but don't distribute them very well because of the guidance that they should do what they can to avoid monitors and anti's arriving on the doorstep of local communities and causing issues. It isn't great.  Hunts do have work to do on that score.  It is well known that anti-hunt groups are classed by the govt and police as potential extremists.  That is probably a good enough reason.
		
Click to expand...

I think local communities are more fed up of hunt followers blocking roads, churning up grass, upsetting livestock, trespassing on land they have no right to be including railway lines and delaying trains as well as killing peoples pets than they are of hunt sabs turning up to keep a eye on whats going on with "trail hunting" who turn up with terrier men and birds of prey to follow a scent.


----------



## Upthecreek (15 March 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			No answer came the stern reply!
		
Click to expand...

Clearly most hunts would far rather be able to get on with their day without the presence/interference of sabs/monitors whether they have anything to hide or not. For some it will undoubtedly be so that they can hunt illegally. For others who have no intention of doing that it will simply be that their day is more enjoyable without them.


----------



## paddy555 (15 March 2021)

palo1 said:



			I think as you are clearly all fed up with my input on this subject I shouldn't bother and leave the group of you who want to continue your own narrative to do that.  Hunts do publish meet cards but don't distribute them very well because of the guidance that they should do what they can to avoid monitors and anti's arriving on the doorstep of local communities and causing issues. It isn't great.  Hunts do have work to do on that score.  It is well known that anti-hunt groups are classed by the govt and police as potential extremists.  That is probably a good enough reason.
		
Click to expand...

but what about letting local non hunting  people know? No one can get their cat/horse in if they don't know it is going to happen? or perhaps local people don't matter to them. To build good relations they need to consider their effect on the population where they are hunting. Not everyone agrees with trail or any other form of hunting. No good to someone whose cat gets eaten who will think "if  only I had been told" 
I am afraid "arrogance" and "s0d everyone else" comes to mind too often.


----------



## Koweyka (15 March 2021)

palo1 said:



			I think as you are clearly all fed up with my input on this subject I shouldn't bother and leave the group of you who want to continue your own narrative to do that.  Hunts do publish meet cards but don't distribute them very well because of the guidance that they should do what they can to avoid monitors and anti's arriving on the doorstep of local communities and causing issues. It isn't great.  Hunts do have work to do on that score.  It is well known that anti-hunt groups are classed by the govt and police as potential extremists.  That is probably a good enough reason.
		
Click to expand...

The public and communities are very supportive of us, it’s the hunts they hate...hunts descend on communities whether they want them there or not, the hunts don’t advise them they are coming, people aren’t given the chance to prepare their animals, surely you have seen how distressed horses can get when the hunt is about, is that acceptable to you ? Would you want your horses put at risk of injury because of the deliberate actions of others ? Do you have a cat ? If so would you risk letting your cat out in front of the hounds ? Rabbits, would you let your pet rabbit for a play in the garden knowing the hunt are around and hounds don’t respect gardens when they chase a fox. You get to have that choice, but many families don’t and their animals suffer and die so you can get your kicks. It’s pure arrogance and a self serving attitude on huntings part and sod everyone else.

There is a huge sea of change now as communities are banding together, I am aware of communities buying land to stop the hunts terrorising the local wildlife, more and more farmers and landowners in my area have banned the hunt, I have seen locals banding together to keep hunts away from areas foxes live. Why do you think meet cards get leaked to the anti’s ? Because people don’t want hunting in their villages and their wildlife terrorised, their pets killed, their gardens invaded.


----------



## Amirah (15 March 2021)

Palo, I find it quite incredible how much research you've done and how deep you have dug to find any small piece of evidence, however tenuous, that convinces you that the cruelty you condoned and were party to before the ban, and maybe since, by an unfortunate (mumble mumble) "accident" is justified.

I think that deep in your heart there is a small place of disquiet and guilt regarding your beloved "hobby", otherwise why bother to go to such lengths?


----------



## littleshetland (15 March 2021)

Palo, you lost me pages ago on this thread....you wax lyrical about how special it is to watch hounds following the scent of fox urine, how special it is and how it enhances your whole experience of following the hounds, and really, no other scent is quite like it.  How lovely for you and all your hunting chums....however, the fact that the chances of foxes getting ripped to shreds because the scent of fox is really quite like no other....  This just speaks volumes.  It really is a case of 'sod everyone else' isn't it.


----------



## Upthecreek (15 March 2021)

paddy555 said:



			but what about letting local non hunting  people know? No one can get their cat/horse in if they don't know it is going to happen? or perhaps local people don't matter to them. To build good relations they need to consider their effect on the population where they are hunting. Not everyone agrees with trail or any other form of hunting. No good to someone whose cat gets eaten who will think "if  only I had been told"
I am afraid "arrogance" and "s0d everyone else" comes to mind too often.
		
Click to expand...

I completely agree. Whether people support hunting, don’t support it or don’t have an opinion either way, many hunts have done themselves no favours due to their arrogant attitude in not caring how what they do affects others. My experience is they don’t care about building good relations, they do what they want and say sorry afterwards if they have to. Because of that hunting is banned by many landowners where I live, but somehow they still often ‘accidentally’ run on to land where they have no permission to be.


----------



## Kipper's Dick (15 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Well that’s your opinion but the truth is no I actually I don’t see the point. I could post a link about mink, how they became to be living in the wild 40 years before any activist release, I could say you single out one species to cull but ignore all the other species and reasoning that also play a part in declining species....so does that mean all these other species should also be culled, birds of prey eat water voles, should they be culled, cats aren’t native to the UK should they all be culled.....where does it end ? You are going to disagree with me and the circle begins again and detracts from the point of this thread.

I simply believe that there should always be an alternative consideration before culling/killing is undertaken and if culling or killing is necessary then it is done with dignity and consideration and you know what if that makes you think I am an “angry anti” then so be it. I have witnessed so much animal cruelty in my life that I abhor taking the life of anything be it insect, arachnids, feathered, scaled or furred creatures. I have spent over 40 years fighting for animal welfare, not just foxes but many species so I while I may not be a professor or have a string of letters after my name, write papers or theories,  I have years of first hand experience on the ground on the suffering endured particularly by wild animals, but fox hunting is something I hate, something I won’t even pretend to understand ....
		
Click to expand...

It would seem that you are as capable of picking and choosing your facts as much as you accuse Palo of doing the same. Are you seriously saying that mink numbers should not be controlled?  There is no place for such a predatory introduced species in the UK, and I find your intimation that there is, quite bizarre. Such a 'head in the sand attitude' makes me very relieved that our wildlife conservation and management is in the hands of people who know what the threats are and take pro-active steps to deal with them.

American mink (the clue is in the name) is a non-indigenous species.  They were brought to the UK to be bred in fur farms in the 1920s. It is accidental escapes from these farms that established the wild population, although there were deliberate releases as well.  They are voracious killers that have played havoc with UK wildlife in the last 50 years.  

They can devastate entire populations of ground-nesting birds, who have no defence against them. When mink established themselves on North Uist in the Outer Hebrides (one of my favourite places and I go there regularly), the population of ground-nesting birds was at great risk. A determined effort was made to eradicate them and now they have been eliminated from the island. If they had been unsuccessful in this, the ensuing carnage doesn't bear thinking about.

Water voles are in desperate decline, and the introduction of American Mink has been the greatest single driver of this. Humane mink control is an essential tool in water vole conservation within the National Species Action Plan. There were 9 million water voles in  the UK, now down to 1 million and that is down to mink.  If nothing is done to control mink, then there is the possibility that water voles will become extinct in England. They also hunt water birds and have been filmed, by the BBC, taking all 6 chicks from a kingfisher's nest. They have decimated populations of lapwings in Wales. A seven-year study in Poland of the nesting success of lapwing, redshank and black-tailed godwit showed that mink control led to increases in daily survival rates of nests and to the overall nesting success of all three species.

I truly agree with you that there should always be alternative consideration before culling/killing is undertaken, and I abhor cruelty and persecution of wildlife. But what alternative is there here?


----------



## Koweyka (15 March 2021)

Kipper's Dick said:



			It would seem that you are as capable of picking and choosing your facts as much as you accuse Palo of doing the same. Are you seriously saying that mink numbers should not be controlled?  There is no place for such a predatory introduced species in the UK, and I find your intimation that there is, quite bizarre. Such a 'head in the sand attitude' makes me very relieved that our wildlife conservation and management is in the hands of people who know what the threats are and take pro-active steps to deal with them.

American mink (the clue is in the name) is a non-indigenous species.  They were brought to the UK to be bred in fur farms in the 1920s. It is accidental escapes from these farms that established the wild population, although there were deliberate releases as well.  They are voracious killers that have played havoc with UK wildlife in the last 50 years.

They can devastate entire populations of ground-nesting birds, who have no defence against them. When mink established themselves on North Uist in the Outer Hebrides (one of my favourite places and I go there regularly), the population of ground-nesting birds was at great risk. A determined effort was made to eradicate them and now they have been eliminated from the island. If they had been unsuccessful in this, the ensuing carnage doesn't bear thinking about.

Water voles are in desperate decline, and the introduction of American Mink has been the greatest single driver of this. Humane mink control is an essential tool in water vole conservation within the National Species Action Plan. There were 9 million water voles in  the UK, now down to 1 million and that is down to mink.  If nothing is done to control mink, then there is the possibility that water voles will become extinct in England. They also hunt water birds and have been filmed, by the BBC, taking all 6 chicks from a kingfisher's nest. They have decimated populations of lapwings in Wales. A seven-year study in Poland of the nesting success of lapwing, redshank and black-tailed godwit showed that mink control led to increases in daily survival rates of nests and to the overall nesting success of all three species.

I truly agree with you that there should always be alternative consideration before culling/killing is undertaken, and I abhor cruelty and persecution of wildlife. But what alternative is there here?
		
Click to expand...

^Sigh^ you have clearly been to the Palo school of selectively choosing to misconstrue what I have said, but you have missed tropic cascade out and numerous links she will not be pleased about that......

Its not purely down to mink the decline of the water vole, they play a part though  of course they do but I never said they shouldn’t be culled humanely as a last resort and I said there should be always be alternative consideration before killing/culling, so you agree with me on that point yet you are still arguing with me.

Clearly my think first, consider all options and act accordingly doesn’t sit right with you, if that’s a burying my head in the sand attitude I will take that and own it. I would rather be that than feet first kill everything type of person....

Please stay away from paper bags, it appears you could start a fight with yourself in one.


----------



## paddy555 (15 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			I said there should be always be alternative consideration before killing/culling, so you agree with me on that point yet you are still arguing with me.

Clearly my think first, consider all options and act accordingly doesn’t sit right with you, if that’s a burying my head in the sand attitude I will take that and own it.
		
Click to expand...

what options do you see for mink control? have you had experience of mink?


----------



## Kipper's Dick (15 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			^Sigh^ you have clearly been to the Palo school of selectively choosing to misconstrue what I have said, but you have missed tropic cascade out and numerous links she will not be pleased about that......

Its not purely down to mink the decline of the water vole, they play a part though  of course they do but I never said they shouldn’t be culled humanely as a last resort and I said there should be always be alternative consideration before killing/culling, so you agree with me on that point yet you are still arguing with me.

Clearly my think first, consider all options and act accordingly doesn’t sit right with you, if that’s a burying my head in the sand attitude I will take that and own it. I would rather be that than feet first kill everything type of person....

Please stay away from paper bags, it appears you could start a fight with yourself in one.
		
Click to expand...

I made it absolutely clear in my post, in the last paragraph, that there should always be alternative consideration before killing/culling wildlife.  Which is making it clear that thinking first, considering options and acting accordingly certainly does 'sit right' with me. I also said that I abhor cruelty and persecution of wildlife. Couldn't make it clearer than that. But I feel that your post rather glossed over the facts concerning predation by mink, and its devastating consequences in the UK. I stand by what I said. The facts need to be known, even if that does mean I have to be on the lookout for a suitable paper bag to get into.

With regard to the decline in water vole populations, there is much information online about this. The biggest factor in the declining numbers of water voles is predation by mink.


----------



## Koweyka (15 March 2021)

I have never set any free if that’s what you are asking...

Personally I would like to see more otters reintroduced, hunting decimated their population, but observations show that where otters are present mink populations reduce as does their territory, though all these other species including foxes, otters, stoats, weasels, owls, herons, marsh harriers, pike, brown rats, Golden Eagles up in Scotland and cats also predate on water voles, is it wrong to totally single out one species and demonise them, but would you advocate killing all these other species ?

River management and water pollution needs to be addressed as well. It’s not just a kill all mink solution and water voles will make a comeback, as I tried to say there are more factors at play here. Beavers have been successfully reintroduced with safe habitats, could the same be done for water voles ? I don’t know what else you want me to say to be honest.


----------



## Koweyka (15 March 2021)

Kipper's Dick said:



			I made it absolutely clear in my post, in the last paragraph, that there should always be alternative consideration before killing/culling wildlife.  Which is making it clear that thinking first, considering options and acting accordingly certainly does 'sit right' with me. I also said that I abhor cruelty and persecution of wildlife. Couldn't make it clearer than that. But I feel that your post rather glossed over the facts concerning predation by mink, and its devastating consequences in the UK. I stand by what I said. The facts need to be known, even if that does mean I have to be on the lookout for a suitable paper bag to get into.

With regard to the decline in water vole populations, there is much information online about this. The biggest factor in the declining numbers of water voles is predation by mink.
		
Click to expand...

So basically we agree with each other ....other than you think I glossed over mink and I think you glossed over the other reasons for water vole decline .....I am off to build a sandcastle.


----------



## paddy555 (15 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			So basically we agree with each other ....other than you think I glossed over mink and I think you glossed over the other reasons for water vole decline .....I am off to build a sandcastle.
		
Click to expand...

you have glossed over mink control. What would you do? (other than never setting any free) how  much experience do you have of mink damage?


----------



## Koweyka (15 March 2021)

paddy555 said:



			you have glossed over mink control. What would you do? (other than never setting any free) how  much experience do you have of mink damage?
		
Click to expand...

Put your paper bag down for one second .... in a post above I explained what I would do if I was omnipotent, you will probably disagree just for the sake of it to be honest, you have also glossed over and made no proposals yourself about how you would deal with the habitat loss issue. 

I have seen mink eat fishing stock and I have also seen remains of birds they have eaten, but mink didn’t ask for the hand they were dealt did they, they didn’t book a trip to UK they were brought here by humans for fur and it was those breeders that were finally called out for the disgusting treatment of them and the drop in demand for fur that resulted in the breeders setting them free.

Humans are ultimately responsible for the decline of all native species, but rather than admit that there is always something else to blame.


----------



## Clodagh (15 March 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			Thats a very good question and one I would like the answer to.  If hunts have nothing to hide why do they worry so much about sabs and why is everything done in secret?
		
Click to expand...

I can only answer for myself, as someone who stopped hunting a year or so after the ban. I freely admit I'm a wuss but sabs are terrifying! Masked up, bridle grabbing, aggressive, swearing. Grabbing horses and mocking small children. I certainly would not want them to come along to anything and for me to be harassed and intimidated.


----------



## Clodagh (15 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Humans are ultimately responsible for the decline of all native species, but rather than admit that there is always something else to blame.
		
Click to expand...

Culling humans is probably never going to take off. 

This thread, though, has strayed far from it's origins, as they are wont to do. An anti and a pro are probably never going to agree on hunting. On the whole it has been amazingly civil, far more so than in RL!


----------



## Koweyka (15 March 2021)

Clodagh said:



			I can only answer for myself, as someone who stopped hunting a year or so after the ban. I freely admit I'm a wuss but sabs are terrifying! Masked up, bridle grabbing, aggressive, swearing. Grabbing horses and mocking small children. I certainly would not want them to come along to anything and for me to be harassed and intimidated.
		
Click to expand...

You see, I see it from the other side...I don’t mask up (apart from Covid) but I wish I had from the start. I monitor and I have had my lip split, teeth knocked out, fingers broke when terrier boys have tried to grab incriminating footage off a camera, a broken rib when I was thrown against a fence and ridden into frequently, property stolen and cameras damaged. I have had people shoot at my home, poison thrown in my garden for my animals to ingest, I ended up moving house and I now have a police marker on my address. My colleagues have woken up to dead foxes left on their cars, we have dead foxes and birds thrown at us from the hunt supporters. There is the incident where an elderly couple had their house and car smashed up and were terrorised, because they moved into a house a sab previously lived at.

Sabs have been killed and seriously injured (broken necks and backs) I honestly haven’t said this to argue, but there are two sides to this and we frequently come off worse for wear.

I don’t condone violence from either side, I hate it but I stand up for what I believe is the right thing to do even if it does get me some bruises along the way.


----------



## littleshetland (15 March 2021)

Clodagh said:



			I can only answer for myself, as someone who stopped hunting a year or so after the ban. I freely admit I'm a wuss but sabs are terrifying! Masked up, bridle grabbing, aggressive, swearing. Grabbing horses and mocking small children. I certainly would not want them to come along to anything and for me to be harassed and intimidated.
		
Click to expand...

2 winters ago a friend of mine , innocently standing next to some antis, who were quietly protesting on our village green where the hunt were meeting on boxing day.  My friend, a resident of the village was, was doing nothing, just watching.  she didn't know the antis who were next to her, but they were standing quietly, holding some placards.  Apropo of nothing at all, a hunt follower marched up to them, started shouting and swearing and chucked a  load of fox pi** all over her. This is just one incident that I have personal experience of, I know there are many others.  1/2 dozen of one...6 of the other?


----------



## Amirah (15 March 2021)

From what I have seen the antis seem to come off worse in any confrontation. The hunters have the high ground, have whips, ride people down...  Seems to be more like six of one and several dozen of the other.

I only know personally of one confrontation between an irate landowner and the hunt and the landowner was hit when he ordered them off his land.  Kept his teeth thank goodness, but the entitlement and arrogance is breathtaking.  Their attitude is that they will go where they like, do what they want and if a cat is killed take it with them hoping to get away with it. I am so sorry that you have suffered such dreadful abuse Koweyka, absolutely disgusting. I am also sorry for the shock and upset your friend suffered littleshetland.


----------



## paddy555 (15 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			, but mink didn’t ask for the hand they were dealt did they,
		
Click to expand...

neither did the 25 hens in my hen house that they slaughtered. I would erradicate them.


----------



## Clodagh (15 March 2021)

All the things that have happened to Koweyka have happened to both huntsmen, gamekeepers and farmers who allow the hunt. Well, maybe not the dead foxes. Death threats and physical attacks are ongoing.
It’s wrong from either side.


----------



## Clodagh (15 March 2021)

paddy555 said:



			neither did the 25 hens in my hen house that they slaughtered. I would erradicate them.
		
Click to expand...

Same, we trap them here. I like weasels and stoats though.


----------



## littleshetland (15 March 2021)

paddy555 said:



			neither did the 25 hens in my hen house that they slaughtered. I would erradicate them.
		
Click to expand...

   it's our responsibility to make sure our chickens are locked away safely in their houses...that means making them fox proof.  If a fox gets in its our fault. Simple as that.  edited to say, if its minks getting in...then make the chicken house mink proof.


----------



## Clodagh (15 March 2021)

littleshetland said:



			it's our responsibility to make sure our chickens are locked away safely in their houses...that means making them fox proof.  If a fox gets in its our fault. Simple as that.
		
Click to expand...

I’m pretty sure Paddy was talking about mink.


----------



## Clodagh (15 March 2021)

littleshetland said:



			edited to say, if its minks  in...then make the chicken house mink proof.
		
Click to expand...

And never let them out? May as well buy battery eggs from a supermarket. I shall continue to let mine into my garden and set traps if I see a mink.


----------



## paddy555 (15 March 2021)

littleshetland said:



			it's our responsibility to make sure our chickens are locked away safely in their houses...that means making them fox proof.  If a fox gets in its our fault. Simple as that.  edited to say, if its minks getting in...then make the chicken house mink proof.
		
Click to expand...

thank you for the lecture. When you build your henhouse of granite you sort of think it will resist all invaders.


----------



## littleshetland (15 March 2021)

paddy555 said:



			thank you for the lecture. When you build your henhouse of granite you sort of think it will resist all invaders.
		
Click to expand...

  I fully appreciate how tenacious and vicious the Mustelidae family can be, but they're mink..not Ninjas. Apologies for the rather abrupt tone,  Its been a long day....sorry about your chickens.


----------



## Tiddlypom (15 March 2021)

Interesting post put up today on the Baily's Hunting Directory FB page. Particularly interesting as it was originally posted in 2019, but would seem to be even more relevant today, with a court case pending against  such a major player.




__ https://www.facebook.com/231475331013/posts/10158739289581014



_'If those who claim to be leaders of hunting organisations refuse to lead a proactive campaign of education and promotion of ALL of the positives of hunting and make the changes necessary to satisfy society’s norms in the 21stcentury, rather than years long past, then the sad truth is that there will come a time when there is nothing left for them to lead. It will be their own apathy or intransigence that will have been the most significant factor in doing the damage.  Social media and the rise of the opinion of the ‘Zucker sucker’  isn’t the problem,  it is nothing more than a  mere symptom of a lack of willingness or ability to prepare and encourage hunting’s stakeholders and the wider community to adapt to a new environment.

Transformation is scary, but to be successful it requires as a minimum:- effective governance, sanctions, and leadership. Wouldn’t it be great if we had those in place sooner rather than later? The alternative is to just continue to click ‘like’ on pretty pictures of our friends on horses and cute hounds without any consideration for the wider battles, until the day those pictures stop appearing.'_


----------



## Koweyka (25 March 2021)

Hunting may be putting yet another appearance on the ITV news, they just can’t help themselves .....hunting during lockdown is bad enough but a hunt “trespassing” into another hunts area to do it ....well that’s caused more knicker twisting than anything amongst the ”pro’s”

What utter contempt they have for the “normal” people, can’t say goodbye to a dying relative but the hunts believe they can ride around in red coats chasing foxes.


----------



## palo1 (26 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Hunting may be putting yet another appearance on the ITV news, they just can’t help themselves .....hunting during lockdown is bad enough but a hunt “trespassing” into another hunts area to do it ....well that’s caused more knicker twisting than anything amongst the ”pro’s”

What utter contempt they have for the “normal” people, can’t say goodbye to a dying relative but the hunts believe they can ride around in red coats chasing foxes.
		
Click to expand...

I think it is very clear that this incident is being investigated, that it is nothing at all to do with 'formal' hunt management and that there is a wider sense of fury in the hunting community if this incident is as appears.


----------



## rextherobber (26 March 2021)

Have to say, where I live, the hunt has apparently been respecting lockdown, but with no shoots either,  we are tripping over Pheasants, they are the most common bird at my bird table at the moment (I assume the keepers stopped feeding them when there was no need to keep them in an area in order to shoot them) Which would imply there's no need to control fox numbers, surely? Game birds are thriving...


----------



## Tiddlypom (26 March 2021)

This seems to be the latest hunt incident brought up earlier. I only know what I have seen on the This is Hunting UK FB page, from which this quote below was taken. 

 "_IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM THE HUNTING OFFICE"

This is Hunting UK has been sent the following Statement by the Hunting Office:

"The Hunting Office has received reports that Hounds accompanied by three people on horses were seen in the area of Burley on the Hill Leicestershire on the 18th March. Earlier this week the MFHA initiated an enquiry to investigate the circumstances surrounding these reports and is taking this matter very seriously.

The Hunting Office issued clear guidance to all Hunts about Covid Restrictions and Operations during the lockdown period. The MFHA is investigating if there has been any breach of these regulations and one Master has been suspended pending a conclusion to the inquiry,"_


----------



## Koweyka (26 March 2021)

It’s believed to be much more serious than the statement on TIHUK poor Maurice seems utterly despondent, but has gone to default mode and posted photos of puppies ... kill a fox ...look at a puppy..... describe how we break the law to hunt foxes .... look at a puppy.


----------



## Pointless1 (26 March 2021)

What about otters?  They were hunted and numbers dropped massively, now they are more plentiful and can cause issues. Should they be hunted again?   I certainly don't think so but I'm sure people would if they could.


----------



## Clodagh (26 March 2021)

Possibly out on hound exercise? They might still be on the horses for that? Mind you the MFHA would have known if that was the case.


----------



## ester (26 March 2021)

Even if they were on hound exercise I'm not sure there is any provision for having more than 2 people out at a time? Unless there is something under animal welfare? That you can have as many people as you need to control your animals during exercise?


----------



## Tiddlypom (26 March 2021)

Again from TiHUK, the following statement re the incident from the Cottesmore Hunt. 

"_IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COTTESMORE HUNT"

"Some of you may be aware of reports relating to Hounds and Horses being seen in the vicinity of Burley on the Hill on the 18th March This Message is to make clear that despite the location none of the Cottesmore Hunt Staff, their Hounds or horses were among those present and that the Masters had no prior knowledge of the event whatsoever.

As a result a number of reports received the matter was looked into and was dealt with  between the relevant Masters when our views were made known. We have nothing further to add other than to reinforce the fact that none of the Members of the Cottesmore Hunt were involved.

The Master of Foxhounds Association has independently set up an Inquiry to investigate the circumstances into this matter, on which they will report in due course. This is clearly a very sensetive issue at this time and we would ask those reading this please to respect that. Many thanks"._


----------



## ester (26 March 2021)

curiouser


----------



## Pointless1 (26 March 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			Again from TiHUK, the following statement re the incident from the Cottesmore Hunt.

"_IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COTTESMORE HUNT"_

_"Some of you may be aware of reports relating to Hounds and Horses being seen in the vicinity of Burley on the Hill on the 18th March This Message is to make clear that despite the location none of the Cottesmore Hunt Staff, their Hounds or horses were among those present and that the Masters had no prior knowledge of the event whatsoever._

_As a result a number of reports received the matter was looked into and was dealt with  between the relevant Masters when our views were made known. We have nothing further to add other than to reinforce the fact that none of the Members of the Cottesmore Hunt were involved._

_The Master of Foxhounds Association has independently set up an Inquiry to investigate the circumstances into this matter, on which they will report in due course. This is clearly a very sensetive issue at this time and we would ask those reading this please to respect that. Many thanks"._

Click to expand...

isn't that a bit contradictory?  Masters spoken to and delt with by respective masters but no hunt staff involved?


----------



## Annagain (26 March 2021)

Pointless1 said:



			isn't that a bit contradictory?  Masters spoken to and delt with by respective masters but no hunt staff involved?
		
Click to expand...

From that, I take it that those who were out weren't on their patch but on the Cottesmore's so the Masters of the Cottesmore spoke to the Masters of whichever hunt they were from and 'made their views known' (i.e. gave them a b0!!0((ing  - or had a laugh about it, you decide) The Cottesmore are saying their staff weren't involved, not necessarily no staff of any hunt.


----------



## ester (26 March 2021)

yes, that's what I think it's not the best written statement though. 'Dealt with' makes it sound like they've addressed the problem whereas really they just found out the problem was elsewhere (but still hunt with hounds as MFHA involved)


----------



## Wishfilly (26 March 2021)

ester said:



			Even if they were on hound exercise I'm not sure there is any provision for having more than 2 people out at a time? Unless there is something under animal welfare? That you can have as many people as you need to control your animals during exercise?
		
Click to expand...

If they're working (as in employed by the hunt) then I think they would be allowed as many people as they like. Restrictions only really apply to leisure activities. 

But the statements sound pretty odd.


----------



## palo1 (27 March 2021)

Jim Barrington, formerly head of LACs comment today:-

In all the debates that took place in the Scottish Parliament and later at Westminster over the future of hunting with dogs, there was one obvious aspect of these deliberations that was missing. An absent piece of the puzzle from every debate in these chambers and indeed every other discussion on the subject that has occurred elsewhere whether it be in a front room, a pub, school, college, university or on radio or television.
It’s an omission that all these arguments revolve around and yet finding that missing piece would resolve this dispute once and for all. There are opinions about it, exaggerations about it, pseudo-science about it, absolutely certain claims from people and groups opposed to hunting about it and probably many members of the public and media who feel they are clear about it.
But none of this provides the definitive answer to what is lacking here: sound evidence that proves the hunting of a wild animal with dogs is fundamentally cruel.
There was of course the Bateson study on hunting deer with hounds, but that was research into an entirely new field, the conclusions of which were later revised when other scientists examined the data. Even Professor Bateson himself said that anyone claiming such new research was incontrovertible was “scientifically illiterate”.
Those opposed to hunting have always claimed there is a considerable amount of evidence against hunting with dogs, evidence that never seems to materialise. At the same time, they describe the process in the most graphic terms. Public opinion polls refer to hunting as ‘setting dogs on wild animals to fight or kill them’. Well, no surprise why they get the results they want when hunting is depicted in such a way to a public that’s largely detached from the practice and ignorant of the process.
Never in such polls are the consequences of banning hunting explained, just as questions about the predator/prey relationship are avoided. Pollsters and those who commission them would say how could such detailed questions be framed? And that’s the point; such dodgy polls are a means to gather numbers, not inform. But more importantly, why do polls appear to some to be the basis for law-making when the most central piece of evidence is missing?
Looked at from the dog’s point of view, those opposed to hunting, in particular the LACS, can hardly be regarded as dog-friendly. The Hunting Act itself attempts to curb natural canine instincts and anti-hunt propaganda produced accuses hounds of spreading disease, rioting and trespassing, killing pets and disturbing wildlife. Yes, dogs can be misused, but so can the gun and every other means of control.
Anti-hunting groups turned logic on its head by relying on theologian Professor Andrew Linzey during the Portcullis House Hearings, prior to the Hunting Act. Allowing domestic cats to roam and kill small wild birds and mammals – as they do in considerable numbers, far higher than all hunts put together - is justifiable, as Linzey claims he is “not morally responsible for the activity of my cats”. Yet dogs are targeted by these very same people, their argument relying on humans being in control of hunting dogs, forgetting this must equally apply to cat owners who choose to let their pets out into gardens.
Another odd thing is that those who advocate rewilding, some of whom are LACS supporters, are calling for exactly the same process to occur, but this time without any human involvement, highlighting that the welfare of the hunted animals is not their true focus or concern.
The fact is, dogs hunt naturally just as their wild cousins do and no science has ever shown that to be fundamentally cruel. If you are in favour of rewilding, you cannot in principle be against hunting with hounds.
The Hunting Act, far from being an animal welfare law, is simply a very anti-dog piece of legislation.
.


----------



## shortstuff99 (27 March 2021)

Dogs in the UK have never been part of the natural ecosystem or a predator of foxes, his whole argument is therefore ridiculous.


----------



## Koweyka (27 March 2021)

Oh for gods sake give it a rest, people would probably have more respect for you though probably not if you just came out and admitted publicly that you actually like hunting foxes or deer or hares.

After being banned for so many years why hasn’t the kill instinct been bred out of hunting hounds ? How many generations further on from the hounds hunting pre ban ?  And as for comparing cats hunting to fox hunting ....you will probably be suggesting hunting hounds hunt and kill cats .....oh wait  MINI!


----------



## Clodagh (27 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			After being banned for so many years why hasn’t the kill instinct been bred out of hunting hounds ? !
		
Click to expand...

Why do labradors still carry things in their mouths? Why do lurchers run after things? Why do terriers dog holes? Breeding something for many hundreds of generations to do one thing doesn't just become un done. They need training not to hunt, but you aren't going to breed it out of them any time soon.


----------



## Koweyka (27 March 2021)

So if that’s the case why encourage  that breeding by using fox scent to lay the trail ?


----------



## ycbm (27 March 2021)

Jim Barrington, formerly head of LACs 
The Hunting Act, far from being an animal welfare law, is simply a very anti-dog piece of legislation.
.
		
Click to expand...


🙃🙃🙃

🤣😂🤣


----------



## ycbm (27 March 2021)

shortstuff99 said:



			Dogs in the UK have never been part of the natural ecosystem or a predator of foxes, his whole argument is therefore ridiculous.
		
Click to expand...

Quite.


----------



## palo1 (27 March 2021)

shortstuff99 said:



			Dogs in the UK have never been part of the natural ecosystem or a predator of foxes, his whole argument is therefore ridiculous.
		
Click to expand...

Um, wolves were in fact an important part of the UK and European ecosystem for a very long time, with wolves hanging on in Scotland until the 18th century.  Before their extinction in the UK and since, packs of hounds of varying types have also existed formally through hunting packs and informally via packs of feral dogs which, during the 19th century, caused considerable concern about rabies outbreaks.  Canines have been very much part of our ecosystem, the fox being only one kind.   The reason ecologists and environmental rewilders would like to see the return of wolves is because of that.


----------



## palo1 (27 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Oh for gods sake give it a rest, people would probably have more respect for you though probably not if you just came out and admitted publicly that you actually like hunting foxes or deer or hares.

After being banned for so many years why hasn’t the kill instinct been bred out of hunting hounds ? How many generations further on from the hounds hunting pre ban ?  And as for comparing cats hunting to fox hunting ....you will probably be suggesting hunting hounds hunt and kill cats .....oh wait  MINI!
		
Click to expand...

I know you are sick of someone coming back with a counter-argument to your viewpoint, which is never actually validated by real facts or anything other than slightly inane, simulated 'outrage'  but you have totally ignored elements of the article, simply to take a pop at me and to make statements about me that you simply cannot know are accurate (namely that I want, personally, to hunt deer, fox, hare).  I don't know about stag hunting and I have never hunted hare either; but I have hunted fox when that was legal and I still believe that foxes on the whole were better off under that system.  I do not recognise much of the anti-hunt narrative about what hunting foxes was actually like so we are in totally different places in that sense and we would never agree on that aspect of the debate though I believe we both want what is best for wildlife and for nature.  That may not be the same as what is best for each and every animal.  The law currently favours individual animal welfare over that of an ecosystem or a species and I personally believe that this is damaging to wildlife on a wider and individual level; individual animals cannot thrive where their species and ecosystem has been degraded but that is a slightly separate argument.

I have hunted fox in the past and seen many hunts with a huge variety of outcomes and yes,with the death of foxes under a pack of hounds.  That is not what I am involved with now that fox hunting is banned but it doesn't mean that I don't sincerely believe that system was better in a number of ways.  (Can I also recommend that you listen to the BBC Sounds 'The Jump' from 24th March which is fascinating in terms of hunting from a completely different perspective; definately food for thought).

You haven't responded to Barrington's statement that even Bateson who provided what was felt to be influential data and conclusions in support of the anti-hunting movement, about hunting, later revised his opinions quite conclusively - asserting that these earlier conclusions and those that followed in their wake were 'scientifically illiterate'.  How do you respond to that?  What evidence are you aware of that demonstrates that hunting with dogs,which is practiced in many countries in different ways and has a long and proven history of 'balance' with wildlife, is cruel?  (or crueller than any natural hunt that a predator may engage in with a natural quarry - eg lions and zebra, wild dogs and buffalo, wolves and reindeer/caribou etc) Or difficult or damaging in environmental terms?

Are you aware of any evidence ?(other than your own emotional response to watching one animal kill another which I know is very uncomfortable and can be hugely distressing to empathic human witnesses)  Do you suspect that film crews that bring us documentaries about the natural world actually secretly enjoy watching animals predating on each other?  Is is morally 'difficult' for you to justify us watching this kind of thing or are you able to put that to one side because human beings,which are very much part of the natural world, have no particular part to play in those specific interactions?  Where does that comfort/discomfort boundary lie?  Do you think that our closest living relatives in primates perhaps should not hunt other animals as part of ritualised territorial or cultural activity?  How 'disconnected' or 'different' do you think that human beings should be in this sense?  I am interested to know as it is a very important philosophical perspective to take in relation to nature and our interaction with the natural world.

How do you respond also to the idea that those people that have cats that allow them to roam, knowing that they will kill wildlife, even though they could be contained, are no different to people with dogs allowing them to kill wildlife, or indeed packs of hounds?

In relation to the death of Mini; the loss of control of  hounds was dire - I have never argued otherwise.  I am not sure why you think I might support the hunting of cats but hey, a lot of what you say is just emotive tripe.

How do you respond to the total contradiction in law, practice and our culture around the poisoning and hunting of rats with dogs? If anti-hunting is about animal welfare and is working against animal cruelty why is there no statement about the control of rats from any anti-hunt organisation?  I believe that the best way to deal with rats is with a group of terriers; that is infinitely preferable to me than poisoning, trapping, gassing, flooding etc etc.  Rats are highly social, sentient animals with huge intelligence but are conveniently ignored by the anti-hunt lobby even when these are animals which can be legally hunted by a pack of dogs.  I wonder why anti-hunt protestors don't make anything of this - can you explain that?  Perhaps it is because this is recognised to be the best, most humane method of dealing with this particular 'vermin'; to deal with them on their own ground, with their natural resources and facilities in tact and in relation to a predator that they are hugely well adapted to deal with.  But wait, that sounds like hunting....


----------



## ycbm (27 March 2021)

palo1 said:



			How do you respond also to the idea that those people that have cats that allow them to roam, knowing that they will kill wildlife, even though they could be contained, are no different to people with dogs allowing them to kill wildlife, or indeed packs of hounds?
		
Click to expand...


You've mentioned this several times now as if you think you have some kind of slam dunk defence of fox hunting because people keep pet cats.  I've ignored it up to now,  but here we go. 

I respond to that by saying that I do not make an appointment with fifty or a hundred of my friends to follow our cats on horseback,  causing considerable irritation to others who live and keep animals in the area,  so that we can enjoy watching their skill in killing wildlife.

I respond to that by pointing out that the law requires me to control a dog when it does not currently require me to control a cat. And that it is entirely possible to exercise a dog under control where that is not possible for a cat. I can't, for example,  climb a wooden fence 2 metres high with my cats on a lead and my cats won't retrieve a ball for intense exercise. 

In the case of "farm cats" like my own i respond by saying that they are essential vermin control,  a job which I can only otherwise do effectively with noxious chemicals which would put other scavenging wildlife at risk, either from the poisoned bait or from poisoned carcasses.  

I respond to that by assuring you that I take no pleasure whatsoever in watching the skill with which my cats hunt,  and that whenever I see it,  I frustrate their attempts to kill their prey,  I do not train them to do it,  far less encourage them and enjoy the spectacle. 
.


----------



## Quigleyandme (27 March 2021)

A member of the Quorn dressed as for hunting and took a couple of hounds to a friend’s house to wish him a happy birthday. His friend lives in the Cottesmore country. It was ill-considered. He has been suspended. Nobody was hunting anything. I don’t usually comment on this thread because it gets too emotive and shrill for me but I think Palo1 debates very well.


----------



## Wishfilly (27 March 2021)

There are ecological arguments for and against controlling fox numbers. It's true that foxes lack their natural competitors in the form of wolves- but replacing these with packs of dogs isn't a viable solution. Foxes also play a vital role in controlling rabbit numbers. It's worth bearing in mind that rabbits are actually an invasive species in the UK, and have a huge impact ecologically and financially (on farmers etc.), far more so than foxes do. Reducing fox numbers means rabbits can be basically without predators, which is not good for the ecosystem or the countryside more generally. 

In terms of hunting, all the (peer reviewed) evidence I've seen suggests that it is not effective at controlling fox numbers and causes additional damage to ecosystems, although this is sometimes mitigated by the hunt doing other countryside management work.

If fox numbers need to be managed in a particular area, then targetted, humane culling is the best strategy. And there are huge areas of the UK where this is not needed at all (most often it's needed in urban areas where hunts can't operate). 

A lot of the ecological arguments made by hunts are not backed up by any of the evidence that I've seen.

Many trail hunts also inconvenience the wider community in some way, and some are downright dangerous. And some of them think they are above the law, too.


----------



## shortstuff99 (27 March 2021)

palo1 said:



			Um, wolves were in fact an important part of the UK and European ecosystem for a very long time, with wolves hanging on in Scotland until the 18th century.  Before their extinction in the UK and since, packs of hounds of varying types have also existed formally through hunting packs and informally via packs of feral dogs which, during the 19th century, caused considerable concern about rabies outbreaks.  Canines have been very much part of our ecosystem, the fox being only one kind.   The reason ecologists and environmental rewilders would like to see the return of wolves is because of that.
		
Click to expand...

Feral dogs and wolves hunt in very, very different ways.


----------



## palo1 (27 March 2021)

ycbm said:



			You've mentioned this several times now as if you think you have some kind of slam dunk defence of fox hunting because people keep pet cats.  I've ignored it up to now,  but here we go.

I respond to that by saying that I do not make an appointment with fifty or a hundred of my friends to follow our cats on horseback,  causing considerable irritation to others who live and keep animals in the area,  so that we can enjoy watching their skill in killing wildlife.

I respond to that by pointing out that the law requires me to control a dog when it does not currently require me to control a cat. And that it is entirely possible to exercise a dog under control where that is not possible for a cat. I can't, for example,  climb a wooden fence 2 metres high with my cats on a lead and my cats won't retrieve a ball for intense exercise.

In the case of "farm cats" like my own i respond by saying that they are essential vermin control,  a job which I can only otherwise do effectively with noxious chemicals which would put other scavenging wildlife at risk, either from the poisoned bait or from poisoned carcasses. 

I respond to that by assuring you that I take no pleasure whatsoever in watching the skill with which my cats hunt,  and that whenever I see it,  I frustrate their attempts to kill their prey,  I do not train them to do it,  far less encourage them and enjoy the spectacle.
.
		
Click to expand...

No, I don't think I have a 'slam dunk defence..' in relation to the keeping of cats @ycbm and my comments weren't particularly pointed at you at all.  I am not sure why you would ignore a relevant part of the discussion in any case but you are addressing that now!  Is it not astonishingly illogical it is for one person or group to assert that one domesticated or semi-domesticated animal within the reasonable control of a person killing a wild animal is wrong but another similar animal doing it is fine?  You haven't either answered any of the questions about rats...except that you infer that cats doing essential vermin control is fine. 

Whether or not you take pleasure in your cat's skill is immaterial to the outcome for the animal that the cat is hunting.  I think you are objecting to the presence of witnesses to a hunt - that isn't really related to hunting at all actually.  In relation to the hunting act you do accept that the killing of wild animals by farm cats is 'essential vermin control' - so the hunting of one animal by another for that purpose is acceptable.  I would agree with that but I can't agree that you are unable to control your cat.  I would not keep a cat indoors but I don't keep a cat at all because I can't justify either that or the damage that a cat allowed to simply roam freely as their nature tends to demand, does to the local birdlife/small reptiles/small mammals etc.  That is just my position.  

You say that the law doesn't require you to control your cat; this is true.  But I have always understood your position on hunting matters to be a moral one and not simply a legal one.  I wonder how you might feel if the law required you to control your cat so that it was not able to kill other animals?  I wonder if you can be absolutely certain that your cat wouldn't/hasn't attacked someone else's animals?  How would you feel if your cat killed someone's pet?  Last week a feral cat killed one of my daughter's bantams.  We witnessed it but couldn't get to the poor chook in time to save her.  We know who that feral cat belongs to so we could, if we chose, decide to talk to them about it and ask them to try to keep that cat away/under some control.  I accept that this would be difficult tbh.

I think, with the farm cats, that you are saying that cats hunting rats and mice are performing essential vermin control which is preferable to the use of noxious chemicals; I certainly agree with you on that.  You don't take exception to one animal, maintained fairly loosely by people, predating on other animals and actually more or less without any control or particular focus on that animal's welfare or its behaviour around any other animals.  I think that is a very tricky position to take for someone who also wants to take an anti-hunting position. 

You also say that you don't train your cats to hunt and don't take pleasure in their natural behaviour.  Earlier in this thread though you have said that you encourage your cat to enact it's natural instincts by playing with a laser pen - the cat can chase and hunt the light; that is undoubtedly a form of 'training' or 'encouragement' and I am sure that your cat gets considerable natural fulfillment out of that play.  I personally don't think that is wrong at all and is a great way to admire the skill and athleticism of a puss-cat but it will, without doubt hone your cat's hunting skills and naturally keep awake it's desire to hunt things.  I think the issue is that we see cats and other pets as 'innocent' and largely don't question their nature or our engagement with them. If you feel really strongly about hunting and wildlife perhaps you should think about this though...


----------



## palo1 (27 March 2021)

shortstuff99 said:



			Feral dogs and wolves hunt in very, very different ways.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, that is true but I think I was just answering your point about canines in the British ecosystem.


----------



## shortstuff99 (27 March 2021)

palo1 said:



			Yes, that is true but I think I was just answering your point about canines in the British ecosystem.
		
Click to expand...

Your point was hound being a part of the ecosystem, they are not and wild canids don't hunt or interact with the ecosystem the way hounds do.

I can't see any basis for an ecological argument for hounds.


----------



## palo1 (27 March 2021)

Wishfilly said:



			There are ecological arguments for and against controlling fox numbers. It's true that foxes lack their natural competitors in the form of wolves- but replacing these with packs of dogs isn't a viable solution. Foxes also play a vital role in controlling rabbit numbers. It's worth bearing in mind that rabbits are actually an invasive species in the UK, and have a huge impact ecologically and financially (on farmers etc.), far more so than foxes do. Reducing fox numbers means rabbits can be basically without predators, which is not good for the ecosystem or the countryside more generally.

In terms of hunting, all the (peer reviewed) evidence I've seen suggests that it is not effective at controlling fox numbers and causes additional damage to ecosystems, although this is sometimes mitigated by the hunt doing other countryside management work.

If fox numbers need to be managed in a particular area, then targetted, humane culling is the best strategy. And there are huge areas of the UK where this is not needed at all (most often it's needed in urban areas where hunts can't operate).

A lot of the ecological arguments made by hunts are not backed up by any of the evidence that I've seen.

Many trail hunts also inconvenience the wider community in some way, and some are downright dangerous. And some of them think they are above the law, too.
		
Click to expand...




shortstuff99 said:



			Your point was hound being a part of the ecosystem, they are not and wild canids don't hunt or interact with the ecosystem the way hounds do.

I can't see any basis for an ecological argument for hounds.
		
Click to expand...

Ok - that is fair enough and for sure there is no real consensus on what role a pack of hounds may have or the impact, good or bad.  That is significant though in itself and there is other and emerging evidence around the potential impact that a pack of hounds may have as well as a whole raft of thinking about what impact packs of hounds (not just here in the UK but also much further afield)  have had in the past - particularly in light of new knowledge and thinking about ecosystems and how we might need to move forward to address the dire decline in the health of nature.  It is far, far more complex than the arguments that anti hunters tend to put forward.  How ironic it will be if we remove a 'system' that has been tried and tested for nearly 1000 years here in Britain and replace that with hugely contentious rewilded predators in order to restore a version of the natural order.  I would say I am generally in favour of rewilding in fact but can see that it will be massively difficult for farming communities to accept some of the furthest reaches of that thinking - a pack of hounds which disrupt all sorts of natural processes in a reasonably managed and 'healthy' way is potentially far, far more acceptable and likely to succeed though I get that people find this very odd.  I am also part of that farming community and we have stock that could be vulnerable to those kinds of predators so I do sympathise with some of the concerns raised.  I am certainly not the only person to see this.  I know some posters think I am clearly bonkers for my view on hunting but I haven't arrived at that view in total isolation of facts, reading and discussion in a pretty wide range of settings.


----------



## ycbm (27 March 2021)

palo1 said:



			No, I don't think I have a 'slam dunk defence..' in relation to the keeping of cats @ycbm and my comments weren't particularly pointed at you at all.  I am not sure why you would ignore a relevant part of the discussion in any case but you are addressing that now!  Is it not astonishingly illogical it is for one person or group to assert that one domesticated or semi-domesticated animal within the reasonable control of a person killing a wild animal is wrong but another similar animal doing it is fine?  You haven't either answered any of the questions about rats...except that you infer that cats doing essential vermin control is fine.

Whether or not you take pleasure in your cat's skill is immaterial to the outcome for the animal that the cat is hunting.  I think you are objecting to the presence of witnesses to a hunt - that isn't really related to hunting at all actually.  In relation to the hunting act you do accept that the killing of wild animals by farm cats is 'essential vermin control' - so the hunting of one animal by another for that purpose is acceptable.  I would agree with that but I can't agree that you are unable to control your cat.  I would not keep a cat indoors but I don't keep a cat at all because I can't justify either that or the damage that a cat allowed to simply roam freely as their nature tends to demand, does to the local birdlife/small reptiles/small mammals etc.  That is just my position.

You say that the law doesn't require you to control your cat; this is true.  But I have always understood your position on hunting matters to be a moral one and not simply a legal one.  I wonder how you might feel if the law required you to control your cat so that it was not able to kill other animals?  I wonder if you can be absolutely certain that your cat wouldn't/hasn't attacked someone else's animals?  How would you feel if your cat killed someone's pet?  Last week a feral cat killed one of my daughter's bantams.  We witnessed it but couldn't get to the poor chook in time to save her.  We know who that feral cat belongs to so we could, if we chose, decide to talk to them about it and ask them to try to keep that cat away/under some control.  I accept that this would be difficult tbh.

I think, with the farm cats, that you are saying that cats hunting rats and mice are performing essential vermin control which is preferable to the use of noxious chemicals; I certainly agree with you on that.  You don't take exception to one animal, maintained fairly loosely by people, predating on other animals and actually more or less without any control or particular focus on that animal's welfare or its behaviour around any other animals.  I think that is a very tricky position to take for someone who also wants to take an anti-hunting position.

You also say that you don't train your cats to hunt and don't take pleasure in their natural behaviour.  Earlier in this thread though you have said that you encourage your cat to enact it's natural instincts by playing with a laser pen - the cat can chase and hunt the light; that is undoubtedly a form of 'training' or 'encouragement' and I am sure that your cat gets considerable natural fulfillment out of that play.  I personally don't think that is wrong at all and is a great way to admire the skill and athleticism of a puss-cat but it will, without doubt hone your cat's hunting skills and naturally keep awake it's desire to hunt things.  I think the issue is that we see cats and other pets as 'innocent' and largely don't question their nature or our engagement with them. If you feel really strongly about hunting and wildlife perhaps you should think about this though...
		
Click to expand...

Your continued attempt to link organised hunting of fox with hounds followed by a group of riders on horse back with pet cat owning is doing nothing but reinforce people's negative opinion of supporters of a repeal of the hunting act.

There is no connection.
.


----------



## ester (27 March 2021)

Quigleyandme said:



			A member of the Quorn dressed as for hunting and took a couple of hounds to a friend’s house to wish him a happy birthday. His friend lives in the Cottesmore country. It was ill-considered. He has been suspended. Nobody was hunting anything. I don’t usually comment on this thread because it gets too emotive and shrill for me but I think Palo1 debates very well.
		
Click to expand...

doh! (but thanks for posting the extra info!)


----------



## shortstuff99 (27 March 2021)

Quigleyandme said:



			A member of the Quorn dressed as for hunting and took a couple of hounds to a friend’s house to wish him a happy birthday. His friend lives in the Cottesmore country. It was ill-considered. He has been suspended. Nobody was hunting anything. I don’t usually comment on this thread because it gets too emotive and shrill for me but I think Palo1 debates very well.
		
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it have been better to have said that then the weird press release that was put out?

Hunting really doesn't do itself any favours.


----------



## Wishfilly (27 March 2021)

palo1 said:



			Ok - that is fair enough and for sure there is no real consensus on what role a pack of hounds may have or the impact, good or bad.  That is significant though in itself and there is other and emerging evidence around the potential impact that a pack of hounds may have as well as a whole raft of thinking about what impact packs of hounds (not just here in the UK but also much further afield)  have had in the past - particularly in light of new knowledge and thinking about ecosystems and how we might need to move forward to address the dire decline in the health of nature.  It is far, far more complex than the arguments that anti hunters tend to put forward.  How ironic it will be if we remove a 'system' that has been tried and tested for nearly 1000 years here in Britain and replace that with hugely contentious rewilded predators in order to restore a version of the natural order.  I would say I am generally in favour of rewilding in fact but can see that it will be massively difficult for farming communities to accept some of the furthest reaches of that thinking - a pack of hounds which disrupt all sorts of natural processes in a reasonably managed and 'healthy' way is potentially far, far more acceptable and likely to succeed though I get that people find this very odd.  I am also part of that farming community and we have stock that could be vulnerable to those kinds of predators so I do sympathise with some of the concerns raised.  I am certainly not the only person to see this.  I know some posters think I am clearly bonkers for my view on hunting but I haven't arrived at that view in total isolation of facts, reading and discussion in a pretty wide range of settings.
		
Click to expand...

Have you got any links to peer reviewed papers for this new evidence? I would genuinely be interested in reading. 

I would say that 1000 years is nothing in ecological or evolutionary terms, and you have to think about all the changes that have happened in that time. Population density is much higher than, say, 500 years ago, and the quality of habitat in the UK has markedly declined in the last 2-300 years or so.

There is a lot of evidence to support rewilding in America, for example, but I am sceptical about the success of rewilding predators in the UK. I just don't think the land is there to sustain a viable population and the risks of negative interactions with humans are too high. However, I don't think a comparison with fox hunting as done pre-ban is possible. The presence of e.g. wolves and lynx in the ecosystem would have a lot of impacts that a pack of hounds that are only present in the area a few times a month can never have.

I'm not against human intervention where necessary- for example, I do think red deer culling is important. However, I think these interventions are best done by trained professionals with a specific strategy, and are best done without the involvement of members of the public participating for their own enjoyment.


----------



## palo1 (27 March 2021)

Wishfilly said:



			Have you got any links to peer reviewed papers for this new evidence? I would genuinely be interested in reading.

I would say that 1000 years is nothing in ecological or evolutionary terms, and you have to think about all the changes that have happened in that time. Population density is much higher than, say, 500 years ago, and the quality of habitat in the UK has markedly declined in the last 2-300 years or so.

There is a lot of evidence to support rewilding in America, for example, but I am sceptical about the success of rewilding predators in the UK. I just don't think the land is there to sustain a viable population and the risks of negative interactions with humans are too high. However, I don't think a comparison with fox hunting as done pre-ban is possible. The presence of e.g. wolves and lynx in the ecosystem would have a lot of impacts that a pack of hounds that are only present in the area a few times a month can never have.

I'm not against human intervention where necessary- for example, I do think red deer culling is important. However, I think these interventions are best done by trained professionals with a specific strategy, and are best done without the involvement of members of the public participating for their own enjoyment.
		
Click to expand...

Do you follow the charity Trees for Life (one of George Monbiot's recommended projects lol)?  They have done some work on the benefit of 'mock' predators in young forests - largely in relation to deer and their feeding habits. It is really interesting and thought provoking.  I will get some of the other stuff when I have a moment and post that too. There is much that you have written here that I totally agree with of course and I understand that not everyone would agree that a pack of hounds might have benefits to an ecosystem but what you have said about trained professionals with a specific strategy is relevant.  For me, the issue of spectators is irrelevant but I understand why it can be contentious.  I wonder how that plays out too when we all watch documentaries about wildlife - the comparison feels real to me.


----------



## Wishfilly (27 March 2021)

palo1 said:



			Do you follow the charity Trees for Life (one of George Monbiot's recommended projects lol)?  They have done some work on the benefit of 'mock' predators in young forests - largely in relation to deer and their feeding habits. It is really interesting and thought provoking.  I will get some of the other stuff when I have a moment and post that too. There is much that you have written here that I totally agree with of course and I understand that not everyone would agree that a pack of hounds might have benefits to an ecosystem but what you have said about trained professionals with a specific strategy is relevant.  For me, the issue of spectators is irrelevant but I understand why it can be contentious.  I wonder how that plays out too when we all watch documentaries about wildlife - the comparison feels real to me.
		
Click to expand...

My understanding is that Trees for Life's stuff isn't peer reviewed. I think what they are doing is interesting, but it's not comparable to proper research. 

I wouldn't consider people participating in the hunt "spectators". But I'd argue their presence is actively harmful, in a lot of ways. In some cases, they may also drive the agenda of the hunt. I don't believe all who hunt share your views, and would be happy if it was purely a conservation exercise. 

But I also think hunting with hounds is an unethical (and ineffective) way of controlling the population of foxes. I think all animals should be killed as humanely as is possible.

And I don't think most who hunt share your views. Theoretically, if fox populations were monitored by a centralised body, who decided when and where foxes could be hunted (to provide population control where necessary), that would be better than indiscriminate hunting. But most hunts would object to having their season curtailed or called off if it was felt that the local fox population was of a good size and should not be reduced.


----------



## Koweyka (27 March 2021)

palo1 said:



			I know you are sick of someone coming back with a counter-argument to your viewpoint, which is never actually validated by real facts or anything other than slightly inane, simulated 'outrage'  but you have totally ignored elements of the article, simply to take a pop at me and to make statements about me that you simply cannot know are accurate (namely that I want, personally, to hunt deer, fox, hare).  I don't know about stag hunting and I have never hunted hare either; but I have hunted fox when that was legal and I still believe that foxes on the whole were better off under that system.  I do not recognise much of the anti-hunt narrative about what hunting foxes was actually like so we are in totally different places in that sense and we would never agree on that aspect of the debate though I believe we both want what is best for wildlife and for nature.  That may not be the same as what is best for each and every animal.  The law currently favours individual animal welfare over that of an ecosystem or a species and I personally believe that this is damaging to wildlife on a wider and individual level; individual animals cannot thrive where their species and ecosystem has been degraded but that is a slightly separate argument.

I have hunted fox in the past and seen many hunts with a huge variety of outcomes and yes,with the death of foxes under a pack of hounds.  That is not what I am involved with now that fox hunting is banned but it doesn't mean that I don't sincerely believe that system was better in a number of ways.  (Can I also recommend that you listen to the BBC Sounds 'The Jump' from 24th March which is fascinating in terms of hunting from a completely different perspective; definately food for thought).

You haven't responded to Barrington's statement that even Bateson who provided what was felt to be influential data and conclusions in support of the anti-hunting movement, about hunting, later revised his opinions quite conclusively - asserting that these earlier conclusions and those that followed in their wake were 'scientifically illiterate'.  How do you respond to that?  What evidence are you aware of that demonstrates that hunting with dogs,which is practiced in many countries in different ways and has a long and proven history of 'balance' with wildlife, is cruel?  (or crueller than any natural hunt that a predator may engage in with a natural quarry - eg lions and zebra, wild dogs and buffalo, wolves and reindeer/caribou etc) Or difficult or damaging in environmental terms?

Are you aware of any evidence ?(other than your own emotional response to watching one animal kill another which I know is very uncomfortable and can be hugely distressing to empathic human witnesses)  Do you suspect that film crews that bring us documentaries about the natural world actually secretly enjoy watching animals predating on each other?  Is is morally 'difficult' for you to justify us watching this kind of thing or are you able to put that to one side because human beings,which are very much part of the natural world, have no particular part to play in those specific interactions?  Where does that comfort/discomfort boundary lie?  Do you think that our closest living relatives in primates perhaps should not hunt other animals as part of ritualised territorial or cultural activity?  How 'disconnected' or 'different' do you think that human beings should be in this sense?  I am interested to know as it is a very important philosophical perspective to take in relation to nature and our interaction with the natural world.

How do you respond also to the idea that those people that have cats that allow them to roam, knowing that they will kill wildlife, even though they could be contained, are no different to people with dogs allowing them to kill wildlife, or indeed packs of hounds?

In relation to the death of Mini; the loss of control of  hounds was dire - I have never argued otherwise.  I am not sure why you think I might support the hunting of cats but hey, a lot of what you say is just emotive tripe.

How do you respond to the total contradiction in law, practice and our culture around the poisoning and hunting of rats with dogs? If anti-hunting is about animal welfare and is working against animal cruelty why is there no statement about the control of rats from any anti-hunt organisation?  I believe that the best way to deal with rats is with a group of terriers; that is infinitely preferable to me than poisoning, trapping, gassing, flooding etc etc.  Rats are highly social, sentient animals with huge intelligence but are conveniently ignored by the anti-hunt lobby even when these are animals which can be legally hunted by a pack of dogs.  I wonder why anti-hunt protestors don't make anything of this - can you explain that?  Perhaps it is because this is recognised to be the best, most humane method of dealing with this particular 'vermin'; to deal with them on their own ground, with their natural resources and facilities in tact and in relation to a predator that they are hugely well adapted to deal with.  But wait, that sounds like hunting....
		
Click to expand...

1) You just don’t get it do you, hunting with hounds is illegal and cruel, but it still happens and that is why we are out there, its really that simple.

2) You frequently bring up cats and hunting.

3) Killing rats with dogs is legal, do I like it ? No of course not, but it’s legal so what do you expect us to do ?  I have rats as pets, would I get enjoyment out of watching my dogs kill rats absolutely not, but on some of “your’ secret scummy pages the pure joy “people” get out of this is actually frightening.

4) Jim Barrington, well quite honestly I wouldn‘t wipe anything with anything he spouts.

5) Why are wolves extinct .... errr hunted to extinction and humans destroying their habitat.

6) Come out sabbing, it won’t take long for your eyes to be opened and for you to see what we see every time we go out. I do not recognise your unicorn version of hunting.

7) Hunting for food and to survive is a trillion miles away from fox hunting for fun, it’s bizarre how you can even make that leap.

8) https://www.jstor.org/stable/51105?seq=1 

Yes these deer “really” enjoyed being hunted “. High concentrations of cortisol, typically associated with extreme physiological and psychological stress, were found” 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/jun/11/hunting.ruralaffairs

Can you can read that and honestly believe the foxes and pregnant hares weren’t terrified before death ? 

I actually find it incredible that you and these “experts” believe sentient creatures do not feel fear, that foxes don’t feel fear when chased. If that makes me “illiterate” then I will wear that badge with honour.

9) What answers you want from me, I have monitored/sabbed hunts for over 10 years, I will be out four times a week some weeks at various hunts in various counties, have I seen foxes deliberately hunted ...yes, have I seen foxes and hares torn to pieces ...yes far too many times, have I seen bagged foxes ...yes, have I seen chopped foxes ...yes. Have I sat on fox earths to protect a fox being chased...yes far too many times. Have I seen Cubs killed....yes I have and I can tell you that is sickening. A grown man on a horse turning a cub back into the hounds and the screaming is something that you never forget.


So no I don’t have a string of letters behind my name, (other than the ones hunts call men!) but I have a lot of experience and if I am emotive then you will just have deal with it, your opinion of me, means absolutely nothing because I have seen it with my own eyes to know when I say foxes are terrified when they are being hunted. 

Am I outraged, you can be sure I am, simulated no it isn’t simulated, come out with me on a hunt day and you would see for yourself just how unsimulated my outrage is when an innocent animal is killed. 

Inane ....pot kettle black there...bet you won’t put me on mute though.

Do you want the law to be changed so you can hunt foxes again  ? Yes or No ?


----------



## Rumtytum (27 March 2021)

Wishfilly said:



			I also think hunting with hounds is an unethical (and ineffective) way of controlling the population of foxes. I think all animals should be killed as humanely as is possible.

But most hunts would object to having their season curtailed or called off if it was felt that the local fox population was of a good size and should not be reduced.
		
Click to expand...

I used to live close to a very large hunting/shooting estate where the gamekeepers were not allowed to shoot foxes before and during the hunting season.  At the end of the season the keepers would then shoot every fox they could find and collect the bodies into one huge pile the size of a small bonfire.  They must have left some alive to breed for the next season’s sport.


----------



## palo1 (27 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			1) You just don’t get it do you, hunting with hounds is illegal and cruel, but it still happens and that is why we are out there, its really that simple.

2) You frequently bring up cats and hunting.

3) Killing rats with dogs is legal, do I like it ? No of course not, but it’s legal so what do you expect us to do ?  I have rats as pets, would I get enjoyment out of watching my dogs kill rats absolutely not, but on some of “your’ secret scummy pages the pure joy “people” get out of this is actually frightening.

4) Jim Barrington, well quite honestly I wouldn‘t wipe anything with anything he spouts.

5) Why are wolves extinct .... errr hunted to extinction and humans destroying their habitat.

6) Come out sabbing, it won’t take long for your eyes to be opened and for you to see what we see every time we go out. I do not recognise your unicorn version of hunting.

7) Hunting for food and to survive is a trillion miles away from fox hunting for fun, it’s bizarre how you can even make that leap.

8) https://www.jstor.org/stable/51105?seq=1

Yes these deer “really” enjoyed being hunted “. High concentrations of cortisol, typically associated with extreme physiological and psychological stress, were found”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/jun/11/hunting.ruralaffairs

Can you can read that and honestly believe the foxes and pregnant hares weren’t terrified before death ?

I actually find it incredible that you and these “experts” believe sentient creatures do not feel fear, that foxes don’t feel fear when chased. If that makes me “illiterate” then I will wear that badge with honour.

9) What answers you want from me, I have monitored/sabbed hunts for over 10 years, I will be out four times a week some weeks at various hunts in various counties, have I seen foxes deliberately hunted ...yes, have I seen foxes and hares torn to pieces ...yes far too many times, have I seen bagged foxes ...yes, have I seen chopped foxes ...yes. Have I sat on fox earths to protect a fox being chased...yes far too many times. Have I seen Cubs killed....yes I have and I can tell you that is sickening. A grown man on a horse turning a cub back into the hounds and the screaming is something that you never forget.


So no I don’t have a string of letters behind my name, (other than the ones hunts call men!) but I have a lot of experience and if I am emotive then you will just have deal with it, your opinion of me, means absolutely nothing because I have seen it with my own eyes to know when I say foxes are terrified when they are being hunted.

Am I outraged, you can be sure I am, simulated no it isn’t simulated, come out with me on a hunt day and you would see for yourself just how unsimulated my outrage is when an innocent animal is killed.

Inane ....pot kettle black there...bet you won’t put me on mute though.

Do you want the law to be changed so you can hunt foxes again  ? Yes or No ?
		
Click to expand...

Morton and Bateson's research is old and now mostly discredited - Bateson himself has said that this research was flawed in many, many ways. Morton's research is 20 years old and was an incredibly small sample though I don't deny that many people would find this compellingly upsetting reading.  The idea of traumatic death and the details of that are difficult to accept on lots of levels.  

You will find quite easily though, research from vets that refute Morton and Bateson's research so the conclusion is definately contested, unclear.  Who you choose to think is 'right' is a matter of personal interpretation and personal 'bias' if you like.  I want to be honest in this dialogue and for me, the research of 2 vets done 20 years ago on a small sample of animals is not more convincing than the assessment of over 800 vets with an interest in wildlife management who updated their own position statement on hunting as recently as 2018. (VAWM).  I am certain that you prefer and would always reference the research that supports your own beliefs - that is natural.  Not even the professional group of vets in this country are agreed on the matter of hunting but I imagine you would say that all the vets saying they feel hunting with hounds would be a more humane death for foxes than other forms of lethal control were all sick individuals.  So be it. 

I would not say that all foxes who were hunted to death had instant deaths, I don't think anyone could state that confidently but there are vets that have done post mortems on hunted animals and their assessment of similar trauma to that described by Morton and Bateson was that death was *virtually* instant.  It is incredibly rare for any predator to kill absolutely instantly.  An expert with a high velocity rifle can do that for an animal and that is humane but that outcome is not certain - many, many foxes are horribly injured and suffer for a much longer period of time as a result of mis-shots.  I also know that my daughter's bantam was certainly not dead when we got to her having seen the attack on her by a feral cat but she died shortly afterwards having experienced bites/tearing to her breast/chest and neck.  Death does not come easily to many living things.  That isn't a justification for cruelty in any way though.  Your view is pretty set, as mine is @Koweyka but I haven't 'muted' you, nor do I plan to!!  I am interested to hear what antis have to say but I haven't heard any logical argument for banning trail hunting.  I would like to see amendment to the Hunting Act with much clearer regulation, governance and discipline of hunting with hounds. Potentially that would or could do away with a 'field' of followers though I personally feel that the field is a non-issue in animal welfare terms.  I would support amendment of the Hunting Act that allowed for the lethal control of foxes with hounds; I believe that would be better for foxes but I am not expecting that outcome any time soon! 

You haven't in any way responded to the query about cats so there is a bit of a hole there.  Rats are wonderful pets - I share your sense of joy in them and their awesomeness but I wonder what you do to actively campaign or work for the improvement of their control; which do you think is the best means of control for rats or do you believe that no control at all is needed? 

You are absolutely entitled to your beliefs of course as I am mine but that does not make either of us right or wrong in those beliefs.  I don't belong to any rat hunting groups by the way nor do I subscribe to any social media pages where rat hunting is a topic - not sure what you are getting at to be honest!!  I would rather however, that my terrier hunted and killed rats than put down poison and in order to deal with a rat problem I would deliberately put that dog in place to hunt those rats.  That seems very different to allowing feral cats to just kill rats.,mice and anything else they fancy.  The problem seems to be my or other people's involvement in hunting/killing animals.  Where does that begin and end for you though - do you think that our slaughter-house system and laws prevent cruelty and suffering to animals at the hands of people or can that be dispensed with because we eat those animals?  Yet some folk would assert that we certainly don't need to eat animals.  The issue is so big that it is very difficult to get a handle on - it is much easier to deal with limited issues like hunting I guess...

There is a massive problem with the anti-hunting argument in that the issues around cats and rats are left unanswered, skirted around because they are too difficult to think through and entirely contradict the anti-hunting position it seems to me.  If you are going to be logical about animal cruelty/wildlife crime that needs to be much clearer. If it is not ok to have a domestic or semi-domestic animal kill wildlife so be it but that, in reality, would be totally unacceptable to most pet owning people in the UK.  That actually is most of us, including you. Perhaps you feel justified in keeping pets even though that may cause quite high degrees of stress to them.  If all wild animals must be left to live their natural lives out then that too would be totally unacceptable, problematical and likely to result in a degree of animal suffering.   I am not trying to take any high moral ground here - I keep pets, I eat meat and I would support hunting with hounds if the law were repealed after all but I am trying to explain what your position looks like to me.


----------



## Koweyka (27 March 2021)

Have you been on the gin tonight ?


----------



## palo1 (27 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Have you been on the gin tonight ?
		
Click to expand...

Erm, no.  Have you?!!


----------



## Dizzy socks (27 March 2021)

I think the problem with trail hunts flouting the ban has been sufficiently well covered by now, so this is about whether fox hunting as it was pre ban could be justified.

I think there's a difference between hunting foxes with dogs and hunting foxes with dogs *and* having a mounted field follow.

While the benefits of hunting with dogs *may* be at least debatable, I can't see many justifications for having mounted followers behind, essentially for no purpose other than to have fun, and causing some level of disruption, no matter how polite they may be.

Obviously most horse sports are like that to some degree, although I have to say I can't think of any which cause quite the same level of disrution.

But the conflation of suposedly necessary pest control and people out for a jolly is sufficiently distasteful that I think it always prove fatal in terms of public support. I can't see an alternative to this. People taking pleasure in killing is not popular, and won't ever become so. Either it's pest control, and should be done as humanely as possibly with no need for mounted followers, and not in the indiscriminant fashion of before the ban, or it is for sport, in which case it should be done more humanely and the pretence that it is for pest control must go (and with it the justification for legalisation, I think?).

Sorry, convoluted.

Palo, I'm really not trying to have a dig and appreciate your contributions to the thread, but you mention research and evidence a lot without really seeming to provide any which is credible and scientific? I'd be genuinely interested to read it, as I have also requested in an earlier post I believe.


----------



## stormox (27 March 2021)

Dizzy socks said:



			I think the problem with trail hunts flouting the ban has been sufficiently well covered by now, so this is about whether fox hunting as it was pre ban could be justified.

I think there's a difference between hunting foxes with dogs and hunting foxes with dogs *and* having a mounted field follow.

While the benefits of hunting with dogs *may* be at least debatable, I can't see many justifications for having mounted followers behind, essentially for no purpose other than to have fun, and causing some level of disruption, no matter how polite they may be.

.
		
Click to expand...

The reason for the mounted followers is that their subs and caps pay for the upkeep of the hunt staff, horses and hounds.  There is no denying that riding a good horse over a lovely country like the Quorn is a tremendous experience and a great education for young horses. I suspect not many followers give much of a thought to the fox, they just enjoy the gallop over unknown country with hedges and fences you wouldnt normally have access to.


----------



## Dizzy socks (27 March 2021)

stormox said:



			The reason for the mounted followers is that their subs and caps pay for the upkeep of the hunt staff, horses and hounds.  There is no denying that riding a good horse over a lovely country like the Quorn is a tremendous experience and a great education for young horses. I suspect not many followers give much of a thought to the fox, they just enjoy the gallop over unknown country with hedges and fences you wouldnt normally have access to.
		
Click to expand...

I don't dispute that, I'm only talking about the perception of people not involved. I suppose if the killing of the fox is irrelevant to the followers then why should the two be connected, trail hunting is just as good - I don't think it's really an argument for allowing fox hunting?


----------



## palo1 (27 March 2021)

Dizzy socks said:



			I think the problem with trail hunts flouting the ban has been sufficiently well covered by now, so this is about whether fox hunting as it was pre ban could be justified.

I think there's a difference between hunting foxes with dogs and hunting foxes with dogs *and* having a mounted field follow.

While the benefits of hunting with dogs *may* be at least debatable, I can't see many justifications for having mounted followers behind, essentially for no purpose other than to have fun, and causing some level of disruption, no matter how polite they may be.

Obviously most horse sports are like that to some degree, although I have to say I can't think of any which cause quite the same level of disrution.

But the conflation of suposedly necessary pest control and people out for a jolly is sufficiently distasteful that I think it always prove fatal in terms of public support. I can't see an alternative to this. People taking pleasure in killing is not popular, and won't ever become so. Either it's pest control, and should be done as humanely as possibly with no need for mounted followers, and not in the indiscriminant fashion of before the ban, or it is for sport, in which case it should be done more humanely and the pretence that it is for pest control must go (and with it the justification for legalisation, I think?).

Sorry, convoluted.

Palo, I'm really not trying to have a dig and appreciate your contributions to the thread, but you mention research and evidence a lot without really seeming to provide any which is credible and scientific? I'd be genuinely interested to read it, as I have also requested in an earlier post I believe.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry if I missed that request; I have referenced a number of things and provided links to those on this thread - I am not sure if you haven't seen those or whether you feel they are not credible and scientific? I will have a look back but on the whole I try to only include either peer reviewed stuff or articles that are 'distanced' if you like from the issue of hunting with hounds.  There is plenty of stuff out there if you look.  The thread has covered quite a lot of ground too...what particular aspect are you asking for this kind of research about?


----------



## ycbm (28 March 2021)

Dizzy socks said:



			But the conflation of suposedly necessary pest control and people out for a jolly is sufficiently distasteful that I think it always prove fatal in terms of public support. I can't see an alternative to this. People taking pleasure in killing is not popular, and won't ever become so. Either it's pest control, and should be done as humanely as possibly with no need for mounted followers, and not in the indiscriminant fashion of before the ban, or it is for sport, in which case it should be done more humanely and the pretence that it is for pest control must go (and with it the justification for legalisation, I think?).
		
Click to expand...

This a thousand times over.  
.


----------



## ycbm (28 March 2021)

stormox said:



			The reason for the mounted followers is that their subs and caps pay for the upkeep of the hunt staff, horses and hounds.  There is no denying that riding a good horse over a lovely country like the Quorn is a tremendous experience and a great education for young horses. I suspect not many followers give much of a thought to the fox, they just enjoy the gallop over unknown country with hedges and fences you wouldnt normally have access to.
		
Click to expand...


Is there any record of when paying a subscription for going out hunting became a thing?  In the old literature I have read,  a very rich land owner would own a pack and hunt at his own expense.  He might have house guests and  neighbours out with him,  and yeoman farmers who farmed the land being ridden over,  but not subscribers to help him pay for it. 

Going back to the idea of it being a tradition which deserves to be upheld,  then,  the tradition of following a fox pack on horses was originally purely for the pleasure of it,  not the financing of it,  and that's a tradition,  as DS says above,  that the modern public will not stomach.  
.


----------



## palo1 (28 March 2021)

Dizzy socks said:



			I think the problem with trail hunts flouting the ban has been sufficiently well covered by now, so this is about whether fox hunting as it was pre ban could be justified.

I think there's a difference between hunting foxes with dogs and hunting foxes with dogs *and* having a mounted field follow.

While the benefits of hunting with dogs *may* be at least debatable, I can't see many justifications for having mounted followers behind, essentially for no purpose other than to have fun, and causing some level of disruption, no matter how polite they may be.

Obviously most horse sports are like that to some degree, although I have to say I can't think of any which cause quite the same level of disrution.

But the conflation of suposedly necessary pest control and people out for a jolly is sufficiently distasteful that I think it always prove fatal in terms of public support. I can't see an alternative to this. People taking pleasure in killing is not popular, and won't ever become so. Either it's pest control, and should be done as humanely as possibly with no need for mounted followers, and not in the indiscriminant fashion of before the ban, or it is for sport, in which case it should be done more humanely and the pretence that it is for pest control must go (and with it the justification for legalisation, I think?).

Sorry, convoluted.

Palo, I'm really not trying to have a dig and appreciate your contributions to the thread, but you mention research and evidence a lot without really seeming to provide any which is credible and scientific? I'd be genuinely interested to read it, as I have also requested in an earlier post I believe.
		
Click to expand...

Briefly to respond to your request to references - this article is an example and is interesting.  It is now 11 years old and is slightly overtaken by other research and views around the pros and cons of disturbance to wildlife through hunting with hounds activities but it certainly has relevance to this I think: http://www.ndow.org/uploadedFiles/n...gs/Committees/08_hounds-nontarget effects.pdf


This one is more recent and addresses the fraught issue of domestic cats: https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10073

I could trawl through the thread to pick up other bits of research but that will take ages tbh as there are quite a few references and links if you are interested.


----------



## Dizzy socks (28 March 2021)

palo1 said:



			Briefly to respond to your request to references - this article is an example and is interesting.  It is now 11 years old and is slightly overtaken by other research and views around the pros and cons of disturbance to wildlife through hunting with hounds activities but it certainly has relevance to this I think: http://www.ndow.org/uploadedFiles/ndoworg/Content/Public_Meetings/Committees/08_hounds-nontarget effects.pdf


This one is more recent and addresses the fraught issue of domestic cats: https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10073

I could trawl through the thread to pick up other bits of research but that will take ages tbh as there are quite a few references and links if you are interested.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you for that, I've just quickly read the first one, I think it's quite interesting. To be hoenst, I'm unsure why you've picked it - it seems to only show negatives for hunting with dogs, and doesn't exaclty support your perspective? A few points I'd like to raise from it:

- The article obviously isn't in reference to fox hunting, it's hares and boars and the knock on effect that this had had on roe deer - I'm not really sure how much can necessarily be extrapolated from that? The behaviour of roe deer in response to hunting with dogs will be very different to that of foxes.

- The article seemed to be essentially saying that hunting with dogs causes such signifcant stress that the deer reproduce less, are forced to move to more unsuitable habitats, and that they clustered together in the "safe" zone  - I don't think this is exactly ethical or humane?

- The article overall definitely wasn't exactly positive about hunting with hounds. "As shown in our study, hunting harassment provoked by drives with hounds significantly affects the behaviour of non-target species. Therefore, the use of long-legged hounds represents a variable that should be carefully evaluated by wildlife managers in their management plans and conservation policies, especially when endangered or vulnerable species are present." the harassment of non-target species is something I hadn't previously considered, but is definitely very relevant - surely then, hunting with hounds doesn't just harm foxes, but also other wildlife which may be vulnerable or endangered? Also worth noting that the study only considers those hunting with between 2 and 3 dogs, so such disruption to other wildlife will obviously increase when a whole pack is out.

--

Re the cats article, I haven't read it yet, but will - though I have to say I don't think it's that relevant. I don't doubt that cats cause harm to wildlife, but that's hardly a justification for the legalisation of something else which also harms wildlife. I don't think "fairness" should override pragmatism and effect, if that makes sense?


----------



## palo1 (28 March 2021)

Dizzy socks said:



			Thank you for that, I've just quickly read the first one, I think it's quite interesting. To be hoenst, I'm unsure why you've picked it - it seems to only show negatives for hunting with dogs, and doesn't exaclty support your perspective? A few points I'd like to raise from it:

- The article obviously isn't in reference to fox hunting, it's hares and boars and the knock on effect that this had had on roe deer - I'm not really sure how much can necessarily be extrapolated from that? The behaviour of roe deer in response to hunting with dogs will be very different to that of foxes.

- The article seemed to be essentially saying that hunting with dogs causes such signifcant stress that the deer reproduce less, are forced to move to more unsuitable habitats, and that they clustered together in the "safe" zone  - I don't think this is exactly ethical or humane?

- The article overall definitely wasn't exactly positive about hunting with hounds. "As shown in our study, hunting harassment provoked by drives with hounds significantly affects the behaviour of non-target species. Therefore, the use of long-legged hounds represents a variable that should be carefully evaluated by wildlife managers in their management plans and conservation policies, especially when endangered or vulnerable species are present." the harassment of non-target species is something I hadn't previously considered, but is definitely very relevant - surely then, hunting with hounds doesn't just harm foxes, but also other wildlife which may be vulnerable or endangered? Also worth noting that the study only considers those hunting with between 2 and 3 dogs, so such disruption to other wildlife will obviously increase when a whole pack is out.

--

Re the cats article, I haven't read it yet, but will - though I have to say I don't think it's that relevant. I don't doubt that cats cause harm to wildlife, but that's hardly a justification for the legalisation of something else which also harms wildlife. I don't think "fairness" should override pragmatism and effect, if that makes sense?
		
Click to expand...


Yes the article about disturbance by dogs is interesting - it is also 11 years old.  In spite of the noise of the anti-hunting lobby sadly there is no direct research about the impact of disturbance by dogs/hounds on wildlife in the UK or directly on foxes. That in itself is interesting and suggests that it is either a 'non-subject', non-starter in research terms or just isn't interesting enough to scientists.  I linked to this article because that is one of the things that is available that directly addresses the disturbance of 'non-target' species in relation to hunting with hounds which is relevant when considering the impact of hunting.  Also, the setting is as close as possible to find near the UK.  As you say, the article suggests that deer in 'hunting zones' reproduce less, are forced to move more etc.  That is also the conclusion of research carried out in Yellowstone in relation to the introduction of Apex predators and is now (more recent than this article) considered to be a healthy stress for the ecosystem.   This is really relevant actually to the current situation with deer in the UK.  Most environmental charities and environmentalists are concerned about the number of deer, their reproduction rate and the effect that they have on ecologically significant vegetation; getting them to reproduce less, move more etc are now considered to be desirable outcomes. 

I am not sure if you will have access to this but the abstract gives you a flavour of that here: https://www.researchgate.net/public...ncreasing_numbers_of_deer_in_British_woodland

In Yellowstone the kind of stress activated by predation/presence of wolves (which I understand is not quite the same but may be comparable) resulted in enormous ecological and biodiversity benefits.  I understand that you may read and feel that 'stressing' deer is not ethical but I think that it is considered a potentially 'better' approach than increased direct culling which has all sorts of difficulties associated with it and does not moderate deer numbers in any kind of 'natural' way.

ETA - in response to the issue of cats killing wildlife it is fundamentally relevant.  If you make a law on the premise that allowing one domesticated/semi domesticated animal to kill wildlife is wrong because the act of hunting is cruel then it is utterly non-sensical as well as illegitimate to allow another animal of the same type (carnivorous predator ie a cat) to do exactly that.  Equally and in opposite if you allow, by law the hunting of one mammal by another predatory carnivore (terriers hunting rats and/or rabbits) and identify that as 'not cruel' then you are in a right legal and democratic mess.    It isn't to do with fairness but to do with logic and legality. It has made it possible though to exclude a minority (pro hunters) over a majority (cat owners) which is very, very poor democracy and also anti-libertarian.


----------



## Dizzy socks (28 March 2021)

palo1 said:



			Yes the article about disturbance by dogs is interesting - it is also 11 years old.  In spite of the noise of the anti-hunting lobby sadly there is no direct research about the impact of disturbance by dogs/hounds on wildlife in the UK or directly on foxes. That in itself is interesting and suggests that it is either a 'non-subject', non-starter in research terms or just isn't interesting enough to scientists.  I linked to this article because that is one of the things that is available that directly addresses the disturbance of 'non-target' species in relation to hunting with hounds which is relevant when considering the impact of hunting.  Also, the setting is as close as possible to find near the UK.  As you say, the article suggests that deer in 'hunting zones' reproduce less, are forced to move more etc.  That is also the conclusion of research carried out in Yellowstone in relation to the introduction of Apex predators and is now (more recent than this article) considered to be a healthy stress for the ecosystem.   This is really relevant actually to the current situation with deer in the UK.  Most environmental charities and environmentalists are concerned about the number of deer, their reproduction rate and the effect that they have on ecologically significant vegetation; getting them to reproduce less, move more etc are now considered to be desirable outcomes.

I am not sure if you will have access to this but the abstract gives you a flavour of that here: https://www.researchgate.net/public...ncreasing_numbers_of_deer_in_British_woodland

In Yellowstone the kind of stress activated by predation/presence of wolves (which I understand is not quite the same but may be comparable) resulted in enormous ecological and biodiversity benefits.  I understand that you may read and feel that 'stressing' deer is not ethical but I think that it is considered a potentially 'better' approach than increased direct culling which has all sorts of difficulties associated with it and does not moderate deer numbers in any kind of 'natural' way.

ETA - in response to the issue of cats killing wildlife it is fundamentally relevant.  If you make a law on the premise that allowing one domesticated/semi domesticated animal to kill wildlife is wrong because the act of hunting is cruel then it is utterly non-sensical as well as illegitimate to allow another animal of the same type (carnivorous predator ie a cat) to do exactly that.  Equally and in opposite if you allow, by law the hunting of one mammal by another predatory carnivore (terriers hunting rats and/or rabbits) and identify that as 'not cruel' then you are in a right legal and democratic mess.    It isn't to do with fairness but to do with logic and legality. It has made it possible though to exclude a minority (pro hunters) over a majority (cat owners) which is very, very poor democracy and also anti-libertarian.
		
Click to expand...

Well if there hasn't been additional, more relevant, research in the last 11 years then surely this is our only insight - and it definitely seems to show disruption to other wildlife? I'm not sure of the relevance of the anti-hunt lobby - if the only research available helps their case then surely it should be the pro-hunt lobby who would seek additional research if they thought it would show otherwise. Feel free to correct me, but it seems like you're saying that disruption caused by hunting with dogs essentially replicates the apex predator - i.e. the fox - so why the need for hounds? (It's probably also hard to do such research in the UK by virtue of the fact that it's illegal?)

I do have access to the other article you linked, and I skimmed it. I don't disagree with it, but I don't think it supports fox-hunting - quite the opposite, for the reason I stated above. By your logic, I think it supports foxes instead. I think its a big leap to say fox-hunting helps limit the deer population, to be honest - and even if we take that assertion, disruption is indiscriminatory, and more vulnerable wildlife will be affected in the same way, and I don't think that could ever be a net benefit, when there are other ways to control the deer?

Re Cats - We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm don't think its poor democracy when the population is clearly not in support of hunting, and clearly in favour of cats. I don't think democracy dictates logic necessarily, but you brought democracy into it, not me. I don't think I mind it being anti-libertatrian either, and I'm not convinced it even is, in any meaningful sense - obviously our freedoms are curtailed for all sorts of reasons, and I think this is a perfectly justifiable one. Out of interest how do you reconcile a democratic process which votes for anti-libertarian policies?
I also don't think cats and fox-hunting are morally analogous, though granted they have their similarities. If intention matters, then there's a big difference between allow and encourage. I would also say that cats are increasingly being kept indoors - this is the way society is moving I think, not backwards.


----------



## Tiddlypom (28 March 2021)

I also think that the domestic cat predation issue is quite separate to that of hunting with hounds. 

It is an issue that deserves its own thread, rather than being lumped in with hunting with hounds. There is much to discuss about it, but I am somewhat bemused that 'but what about cats' keeps being brought up on this thread.


----------



## Koweyka (28 March 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			I also think that the domestic cat predation issue is quite separate to that of hunting with hounds.

It is an issue that deserves its own thread, rather than being lumped in with hunting with hounds. There is much to discuss about it, but I am somewhat bemused that 'but what about cats' keeps being brought up on this thread.
		
Click to expand...

I find the references to cats being compared to hunting hounds utterly bemusing, the only reference should be the amount of cats that are killed by hunting hounds ....

Though hunting being compared to primates chasing each other in the jungle still has me stumped ....


----------



## palo1 (28 March 2021)

Dizzy socks said:



			Well if there hasn't been additional, more relevant, research in the last 11 years then surely this is our only insight - and it definitely seems to show disruption to other wildlife? I'm not sure of the relevance of the anti-hunt lobby - if the only research available helps their case then surely it should be the pro-hunt lobby who would seek additional research if they thought it would show otherwise. Feel free to correct me, but it seems like you're saying that disruption caused by hunting with dogs essentially replicates the apex predator - i.e. the fox - so why the need for hounds? (It's probably also hard to do such research in the UK by virtue of the fact that it's illegal?)

I do have access to the other article you linked, and I skimmed it. I don't disagree with it, but I don't think it supports fox-hunting - quite the opposite, for the reason I stated above. By your logic, I think it supports foxes instead. I think its a big leap to say fox-hunting helps limit the deer population, to be honest - and even if we take that assertion, disruption is indiscriminatory, and more vulnerable wildlife will be affected in the same way, and I don't think that could ever be a net benefit, when there are other ways to control the deer?

Re Cats - We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm don't think its poor democracy when the population is clearly not in support of hunting, and clearly in favour of cats. I don't think democracy dictates logic necessarily, but you brought democracy into it, not me. I don't think I mind it being anti-libertatrian either, and I'm not convinced it even is, in any meaningful sense - obviously our freedoms are curtailed for all sorts of reasons, and I think this is a perfectly justifiable one. Out of interest how do you reconcile a democratic process which votes for anti-libertarian policies?
I also don't think cats and fox-hunting are morally analogous, though granted they have their similarities. If intention matters, then there's a big difference between allow and encourage. I would also say that cats are increasingly being kept indoors - this is the way society is moving I think, not backwards.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry I think I may not have been clear about the up to date research.  The relationship between the fox and deer is not relevant as deer do not show behavioural changes as a result of fox activity; but they do when other, larger predators are involved; disruption caused by hunting with dogs does not replicate the activity of the fox and foxes are, in 'full' ecosystems, in turn predated on by larger apex predators which are the ones that cause the trophic cascade.   

The 'other'ways of controlling deer have proven to be not advantageous ecologically, nor particularly acceptable in other ways either - there is plenty of information about that too. 

We will have to disagree on the issue of cats; I think that is largely a case of personal and social bias - it isn't convenient to consider how to mitigate the impact of domestic cats even in light of the amount of damage they do,  our understanding of the vulnerability of small mammals, reptiles and song birds nor in light of the fact that we have a legal statement in the form of the hunting act that identifies that allowing one predator to hunt another is not acceptable at the same time as saying that it is in fact acceptable for some dogs (terriers) and some vermin.  The person that drafted the Hunting Act has long challenged it - I have put a link earlier to Daniel Greenberg's podcast about the Hunting Act.  

Generally people seem horrified to think that their pet cat perhaps could be legally confined because of the way that pet cats interact with wildlife - for many people that would be too difficult and have feline welfare implications that would be hard to accept.   However, the effect of cat predation on vulnerable wildlife is undeniable.


----------



## Koweyka (28 March 2021)

“Yes the article about disturbance by dogs is interesting - it is also 11 years old. In spite of the noise of the anti-hunting lobby sadly there is no direct research about the impact of disturbance by dogs/hounds on wildlife in the UK or directly on foxes”

This sounds awfully like you are referring to cubbing, that’s what pro hunt say as a smokescreen for cubbing “ we are dispersing/disturbing the cubs “


----------



## ycbm (28 March 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			I also think that the domestic cat predation issue is quite separate to that of hunting with hounds.

It is an issue that deserves its own thread, rather than being lumped in with hunting with hounds. There is much to discuss about it, but I am somewhat bemused that 'but what about cats' keeps being brought up on this thread.
		
Click to expand...

I'm getting irritated by the continued attempt at throwing out a diversion by cat whataboutery.

Nobody disputes that they predate wildlife. There is no connection between that and financing and organising a pack of hounds solely for the purpose of  hunting fox,  transporting them and fifty plus horses to where you want to hunt,  setting them on the trail of a wild animal and following them with people on the horses. 

No. connection. whatsoever.


----------



## ycbm (28 March 2021)

palo1 said:



			If you make a law on the premise that allowing one domesticated/semi domesticated animal to kill wildlife is wrong because the act of hunting is cruel then it is utterly non-sensical as well as illegitimate to allow another animal of the same type (carnivorous predator ie a cat) to do exactly that
		
Click to expand...

The law wasn't made on that premise.  It was made to catch votes, on the premise that an equally effective/humane method of fox control, shooting, (Burns report)  was available and that the majority of the  public wanted to stop an industry which organises a group of dogs to chase wildlife so that a group of riders and foot followers can enjoy the chase.

In your cats v hounds argument you persistently ignore the fact that hounds are organised by humans and followed by people enjoying the chasing and/or death of an animal,  and cats aren't.  They don't compare and your continued insistence that they do is confirming anti hunt prejudices.
.


----------



## Koweyka (29 March 2021)

What an utter disgrace ....

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-03-29...rf-jLKo9IBiLPQGkFi8GuMmqsLzqTTprf5MSEf_BI3qNU


----------



## palo1 (29 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			What an utter disgrace ....

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-03-29...rf-jLKo9IBiLPQGkFi8GuMmqsLzqTTprf5MSEf_BI3qNU

Click to expand...

Well they certainly wouldn't be the only people to break Covid regs which is hugely frustrating.   It is actually a good thing that there has been such unqualified condemnation of this stupidity from the rest of the hunting community - and suspensions etc.  That was the right thing to do.    I don't think the HSA should be too quick to point fingers over breaking Covid regs or the law for that matter...


----------



## Koweyka (29 March 2021)

If ITV hadn’t got hold of it I doubt there would be any condemnation and if you read the online chatter in the hunting community there is more condemnation that they sneaked into Cottesmore territory.... Never mind those hounds were very interested in what appears to be a fox earth or badger sett ....or did they have a trail layer out as well.

Why shouldn’t the HSA point fingers ? Why shouldn’t anyone point fingers ?


----------



## Tiddlypom (29 March 2021)

Quigleyandme said:



			A member of the Quorn dressed as for hunting and took a couple of hounds to a friend’s house to wish him a happy birthday. His friend lives in the Cottesmore country. It was ill-considered. He has been suspended. Nobody was hunting anything.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe you were mislead as to what really happened, but the ITV clip shows that it was a lot more than that...

Its rather ironic that this has caused the hunting community so much angst, whereas the far more serious Kimblewick Hunt 'prod the fox out of the ground' court case got barely a reaction...


----------



## ester (29 March 2021)

They filmed it themselves too..... wow


----------



## Koweyka (29 March 2021)

Disgusting 

“The event was also understood to have been attended on foot by members from the Countryside Alliance, local hunts and the Masters of Foxhounds Association (MFHA), the governing body for registered packs of foxhounds.”

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news...I1bSQARXapmDZIuONIuosCEK9HmDYDwcpJFQvHdPLozBY


----------



## Tiddlypom (29 March 2021)

The master whose birthday celebrations this latest furore is all about is a major name in hunting, even I had heard of him.

The Quorn is hardly a two bit pack, either.


----------



## Koweyka (29 March 2021)

They are so out of touch with public opinion and reality, time to disband them.


----------



## Koweyka (29 March 2021)

They chased and killed three foxes on this birthday bash and the response from “the master” states it’s been blown out of proportion, hardly taking it seriously....



Videos and letters sent to the HSA show that on Thursday 18th March the Quorn Hunt travelled over 15 miles from their kennels to the home of Senior Joint Master Joss Hanbury at Burley on the Hill Leicestershire to celebrate his 70th birthday. Sources say that Joss used hounds formerly from the Atherstone hunt to illegally chase and kill three foxes. The incident has been reported as a crime to Leicestershire Police (1).


----------



## ester (30 March 2021)

It’s concerning that people from the hierarchy of countryside alliance/MFHA and all local hunts (except presumably the Cottesmore who are local enough for it to be their country) all thought it was fine to go too.


----------



## Michen (30 March 2021)

FGS. The stupidity and selfishness of these people. And I love and fully support hunting, but I am so fed up with those that are ruining it for the rest of us with their behaviour.


----------



## Kipper's Dick (30 March 2021)

Do these people have no idea of the damage they are doing to the sport of legal trail-hunting?   All hunts should be beyond reproach and whiter than white, no exceptions, no excuses, if they want their sport to continue.  At this rate, Koweyka and his friends can hang up their balaclavas, ditch their placards and sell their long-range lenses on ebay.  The hunting fraternity are doing a sterling job of cocking it up, all on their own.


----------



## Tiddlypom (30 March 2021)

Kipper's Dick said:



			At this rate, Koweyka and his friends can hang up their balaclavas, ditch their placards and sell their long-range lenses on ebay. The hunting fraternity are doing a sterling job of cocking it up, all on their own.
		
Click to expand...

Former HHOer and pro field sports and hunting stalwart Alec Swan used to opine that there was no need for antis, as hunting was doing a very good job of bringing about its own downfall.

Hunting has been excelling itself of late doing just that.


----------



## Koweyka (30 March 2021)

Kipper's Dick said:



			Do these people have no idea of the damage they are doing to the sport of legal trail-hunting?   All hunts should be beyond reproach and whiter than white, no exceptions, no excuses, if they want their sport to continue.  At this rate, Koweyka and his friends can hang up their balaclavas, ditch their placards and sell their long-range lenses on ebay.  The hunting fraternity are doing a sterling job of cocking it up, all on their own.
		
Click to expand...

You forgot to mention drones, we could sell them too ! 
Hunting is doing our job for us, long may it continue.


----------



## palo1 (30 March 2021)

ester said:



			It’s concerning that people from the hierarchy of countryside alliance/MFHA and all local hunts (except presumably the Cottesmore who are local enough for it to be their country) all thought it was fine to go too.
		
Click to expand...

There has been so very little support from anyone or any organisation in hunting wrt this 'event'.  The prevailing response is one of fury and disgust.  What is shown in the last bit of a letter posted is not what is being said or felt generally.  The fact that the masters have been suspended is absolutely right and will not have been done without understanding that suspending the master of one of the most famous hunts and most famous masters will send a 'new' message to hunts; that this sort of bad behaviour won't be tolerated.  That is at least welcome.


----------



## palo1 (30 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			You forgot to mention drones, we could sell them too !
Hunting is doing our job for us, long may it continue.
		
Click to expand...

At least for you it takes the attention away from the HSA supporting rioters in Bristol chucking fireworks at horses I guess...


----------



## BeckyFlowers (30 March 2021)

palo1 said:



			At least for you it takes the attention away from the HSA supporting rioters in Bristol chucking fireworks at horses I guess...
		
Click to expand...

I didn't know the HSA sent a contingency to the Bristol riots, where did you see that then?  I must say, I've been keeping an eye on this story closely and this is the first I've heard of it.  Happy to be corrected, as always.


----------



## Koweyka (30 March 2021)

palo1 said:



			At least for you it takes the attention away from the HSA supporting rioters in Bristol chucking fireworks at horses I guess...
		
Click to expand...

Provide the proof that the HSA support throwing fireworks at horses.


----------



## palo1 (30 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Provide the proof that the HSA support throwing fireworks at horses.
		
Click to expand...

Here you go: It seeems perfectly clear that no actions of the protestors will be criticised.  Mendip Hunt Sabs statement here: -





https://www.facebook.com/mendiphuntsabs/?__cft__[0]=AZV278eQZM_F6TruP6LgSyXpK6X_9EfS54F1hvxR6XU1afF_q0flYRoUD5s4q09ImeRAM6z1OMPTRH6ByqMaDvy77MF9U62hi6X3J9JkWUcjfHvVt-ndugrtI_vpIj-dbxsPXUVS9-Mi2c6dHSWfZnBOxBq3ctk8uYd9WPcLEFymEA&__tn__=%3C%3C%2CP-R
*Mendip Hunt Sabs*

*March 22 at 8:08 PM*  · 

Kill the Bill!
Solidarity with protestors who were injured in the Kill the Bill demonstration in Bristol yesterday. We must continue to oppose this archaic bill which threatens all of our rights and freedoms and particularly threatens travellers, ramblers, hunt saboteurs, and protestors across the country. We stand in solidarity with all protestors who took action to make change.
Police care more about defending their own windows than the liberty of citizens they are supposed to protect. We should not divide protestors into “good” and “bad” and create a false hierarchy of tactics. Protest is inherently disruptive and under the new bill all forms of protest exercised yesterday are illegal. Anything considered mildly annoying would be illegal.
 It was the police who escalated and introduced violence when they charged at and attacked the people in the streets with batons, dogs and horses. It was the police who attacked mourning women at a vigil for Sarah Everard in London. And a serving police officer who allegedly kidnapped and murdered her.
People are understandably angry at the police and their abuse of power. The government is desperate to crack down on protest at a time when it is needed more than ever. We must continue to resist the authoritarianism and #KillTheBill
We’ll post some links in the comments for more info, please do check them out to learn more about the bill and the events of yesterday.







=AZV278eQZM_F6TruP6LgSyXpK6X_9EfS54F1hvxR6XU1afF_q0flYRoUD5s4q09ImeRAM6z1OMPTRH6ByqMaDvy77MF9U62hi6X3J9JkWUcjfHvVt-ndugrtI_vpIj-dbxsPXUVS9-Mi2c6dHSWfZnBOxBq3ctk8uYd9WPcLEFymEA&__tn__=EH-R']
I think it is particularly pertinent that this post states ''We stand in solidarity with all protestors...We should not divide protestors into ''good'' and ''bad'' and create a false hierarcy of tactics...Protest is inherently disruptive...''

These are the words of the Mendip Hunt Sabs - not an interpretation of them.


----------



## palo1 (30 March 2021)

BeckyFlowers said:



			I didn't know the HSA sent a contingency to the Bristol riots, where did you see that then?  I must say, I've been keeping an eye on this story closely and this is the first I've heard of it.  Happy to be corrected, as always.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't actually say that but you can see from the Mendip Hunt Sabs statement that they are quite happy to provide support for those rioters and they have in fact been directly involved in the riots. They are, and the HSA by implication, quite happy to see any tactic as legitimate with no protestors to be identified as 'good' or 'bad'.  I didn't actually intend to derail this thread but if Hunting is in a spot of bother, the Hunt Sabs are too it seems clear.


----------



## BeckyFlowers (30 March 2021)

I just re-read your post 1181, I initially read it as the HSA were there at the riot.  Sorry about that, but yeah they sound like a delightful bunch don't they.


----------



## Kipper's Dick (30 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			You forgot to mention drones, we could sell them too ! 
Hunting is doing our job for us, long may it continue.
		
Click to expand...

Won't you be needing those to keep a watch on the indiscriminate, unregulated and sometimes barbaric persecution of foxes by the shooting fraternity and others?
Or is your main aim just to get trail-hunting banned?


----------



## Koweyka (30 March 2021)

palo1 said:



			Here you go: It seeems perfectly clear that no actions of the protestors will be criticised.  Mendip Hunt Sabs statement here: -



https://www.facebook.com/mendiphunt...dHSWfZnBOxBq3ctk8uYd9WPcLEFymEA&__tn__=<<,P-R
*Mendip Hunt Sabs*

*March 22 at 8:08 PM*  ·

Kill the Bill!
Solidarity with protestors who were injured in the Kill the Bill demonstration in Bristol yesterday. We must continue to oppose this archaic bill which threatens all of our rights and freedoms and particularly threatens travellers, ramblers, hunt saboteurs, and protestors across the country. We stand in solidarity with all protestors who took action to make change.
Police care more about defending their own windows than the liberty of citizens they are supposed to protect. We should not divide protestors into “good” and “bad” and create a false hierarchy of tactics. Protest is inherently disruptive and under the new bill all forms of protest exercised yesterday are illegal. Anything considered mildly annoying would be illegal.
It was the police who escalated and introduced violence when they charged at and attacked the people in the streets with batons, dogs and horses. It was the police who attacked mourning women at a vigil for Sarah Everard in London. And a serving police officer who allegedly kidnapped and murdered her.
People are understandably angry at the police and their abuse of power. The government is desperate to crack down on protest at a time when it is needed more than ever. We must continue to resist the authoritarianism and #KillTheBill
We’ll post some links in the comments for more info, please do check them out to learn more about the bill and the events of yesterday.







=AZV278eQZM_F6TruP6LgSyXpK6X_9EfS54F1hvxR6XU1afF_q0flYRoUD5s4q09ImeRAM6z1OMPTRH6ByqMaDvy77MF9U62hi6X3J9JkWUcjfHvVt-ndugrtI_vpIj-dbxsPXUVS9-Mi2c6dHSWfZnBOxBq3ctk8uYd9WPcLEFymEA&__tn__=EH-R']=AZV278eQZM_F6TruP6LgSyXpK6X_9EfS54F1hvxR6XU1afF_q0flYRoUD5s4q09ImeRAM6z1OMPTRH6ByqMaDvy77MF9U62hi6X3J9JkWUcjfHvVt-ndugrtI_vpIj-dbxsPXUVS9-Mi2c6dHSWfZnBOxBq3ctk8uYd9WPcLEFymEA&__tn__=EH-R']
I think it is particularly pertinent that this post states ''We stand in solidarity with all protestors...We should not divide protestors into ''good'' and ''bad'' and create a false hierarcy of tactics...Protest is inherently disruptive...''

These are the words of the Mendip Hunt Sabs - not an interpretation of them.[/QUOTE

Or you could read this and make up your own mind about what happened, no horses injured or dogs, but do what you do best and try deflect from this thread about hunting. The HSA would never condone hurting animals despite the crud the pro’s come out with. 


http://afed.org.uk/what-actually-happened-in-bristol-and-how-a-narrative-is-built/

Click to expand...


----------



## Koweyka (30 March 2021)

Kipper's Dick said:



			Won't you be needing those to keep a watch on the indiscriminate, unregulated and sometimes barbaric persecution of foxes by the shooting fraternity and others?
Or is your main aim just to get trail-hunting banned?
		
Click to expand...

We have thermal cameras for use at night.

I want trail hunting banned.


----------



## BeckyFlowers (30 March 2021)

The link wouldn't open, so I googled AFED.org.uk - I wouldn't believe anything that the Anarchists Federation publishes with respect to law and order!  And I consider myself centre-left, politically speaking.


----------



## Koweyka (30 March 2021)

Many other eyewitness accounts including from the press who were victims of police violence also support the same view, that it was peaceful up to the point the dogs were set upon the protestors.

No fireworks were thrown at horses.


----------



## The Fuzzy Furry (30 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			No fireworks were thrown at horses.
		
Click to expand...

There were. Directly at them with intent.


----------



## Koweyka (30 March 2021)

It’s unfortunate it mentions Boris in the thread link. 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...kill-the-bill-protest-violence-is-disgraceful


----------



## Koweyka (30 March 2021)

The Fuzzy Furry said:



			There were. Directly at them with intent.
		
Click to expand...

Personally I haven’t seen that footage, nobody certainly within the anti movement condones animals being targeted and if any anti’s/Sabs were there and saw it I am very sure they would stop it.


----------



## Koweyka (30 March 2021)

Just googled and seen some footage, absolutely unacceptable, it was good to see that the person who did it was tackled and stopped by the protestors.


----------



## palo1 (30 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Personally I haven’t seen that footage, nobody certainly within the anti movement condones animals being targeted and if any anti’s/Sabs were there and saw it I am very sure they would stop it.
		
Click to expand...

That sounds remarkably like something you would decry if coming from a trail hunter...


----------



## Koweyka (30 March 2021)

palo1 said:



			That sounds remarkably like something you would decry if coming from a trail hunter...
		
Click to expand...

Well if you had bothered to read on you would see that I googled it for myself and said it was disgusting.


----------



## palo1 (30 March 2021)

Do you really think that the Anarchist's Federation is credible? Do you think many people would think that they are a credible reporting source?  I know people in Bristol, even people who wanted to engage with a peaceful protest who would most certainly contradict your view of events.  Personally I think it is pretty dire that Priti Patel never considered how to manage legitimate protest within a Covid situation and she has had almost a year to consider this possibility. But that doesn't give every thug and rabble rouser the licence to utterly disrupt an event.  And chuck fireworks at animals...
ETA - glad to hear you think it is disgusting. Maybe some of the other sab/anti-hunt activities could do with your scrutiny too...


----------



## palo1 (30 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			You forgot to mention drones, we could sell them too !
Hunting is doing our job for us, long may it continue.
		
Click to expand...

The use of drones is hugely questionable and difficult in legal terms - likely to become more so too so you probably don't have much of a market for sab-soiled drones....


----------



## palo1 (30 March 2021)

ester said:



			It’s concerning that people from the hierarchy of countryside alliance/MFHA and all local hunts (except presumably the Cottesmore who are local enough for it to be their country) all thought it was fine to go too.
		
Click to expand...

I think this is just a 'justification' for several people (not as many as suggested) being there. They may well have had something to do with these organisations but it seems likely that those roles will be removed very shortly.  It seems more clear to me that truly, hunting people are enraged by the sheer stupidity, selfishness and arrogance of this happening. If it results in idiots being removed from their posts that is all to the good imo!!


----------



## Koweyka (30 March 2021)

palo1 said:



			The use of drones is hugely questionable and difficult in legal terms - likely to become more so too so you probably don't have much of a market for sab-soiled drones....
		
Click to expand...

Ahh this is what I have been waiting for .... for you to start to show your true colours ...sab soiled .... really though is that the best you have got ?

It’s a shame it’s not yet sunk in that over 85% of the country despise hunting and the people that do it, what do you think the public would prefer ?

My sab soiled hands soiled from protecting wildlife from you and your ilk or your blood stained ones from the deaths of thousands of foxes.

I was speaking to a DCI today around the use of drones and they have no issues around us using them, providing we have the correct licences which we do, not so easy to hide what you get up to from drones is it.


----------



## palo1 (30 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Ahh this is what I have been waiting for .... for you to start to show your true colours ...sab soiled .... really though is that the best you have got ?

It’s a shame it’s not yet sunk in that over 85% of the country despise hunting and the people that do it, what do you think the public would prefer ?

My sab soiled hands soiled from protecting wildlife from you and your ilk or your blood stained ones from the deaths of thousands of foxes.

I was speaking to a DCI today around the use of drones and they have no issues around us using them, providing we have the correct licences which we do, not so easy to hide what you get up to from drones is it.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry you were offended by my phraseology.  I do not believe that you are protecting wildlife from me in any shape or form nor do I have 'blood stained' hands from the death of any foxes or other wildlife.  It is pretty offensive to suggest that to an individual you don't know.  I am super glad you are talking to the police about the use of drones; that at least is responsible though the groups you are allied to may be seen in a very different light.


----------



## Koweyka (30 March 2021)

If you have hunted and killed foxes which you have then you have their blood on your hands, those foxes didn’t want to die they didn’t wave a flag saying kill me, the hunters I speak to have the same disassociation for the Fox that has been killed as you do.

I am super happy that you are super glad that we take drone use responsibly, but that’s the pro hunts problem isn’t it, you always always completely underestimate the anti movement.


----------



## palo1 (30 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			If you have hunted and killed foxes which you have then you have their blood on your hands, those foxes didn’t want to die they didn’t wave a flag saying kill me, the hunters I speak to have the same disassociation for the Fox that has been killed as you do.

I am super happy that you are super glad that we take drone use responsibly, but that’s the pro hunts problem isn’t it, you always always completely underestimate the anti movement.
		
Click to expand...

I was involved in fox hunting back in the day so in that respect you are right; I accept that.  I always felt, sincerely that hunting was the best way to manage the fox population and thus other elements of our countryside in several ways.  That was a system that had been in existence using methods (hounds) that had been refined over hundreds of years without detriment to the fox population.  Hunting with hounds absolutely was a proxy for larger, extinct predators in relation to foxes.  That is what I believed and understood then and that is what I believe now.  I do not engage in fox hunting now.  I do trail hunt within the law and still believe that activity, without the death of foxes, has validity in a number of ways.  We fundamentally disagree.  I don't think it is un-called for to push back against opinions which I believe are wrong from start to finish nor do I believe it is wrong to state that I don't believe Hunt Saboteurs have the best interests of animals at heart.  Nothing I know or have seen of sabs leads me to believe that this is the case.  Perhaps you are unique, different to what I have heard of from friends and professionals (police, vets, doctors, animal welfare officers, wildlife trust workers) with regard to anti-hunt activities.  I am sorry you are so angry, sorry that your anger seems to be personally directed at me in this particular place (the HHO forum) - someone you absolutely don't know and sorry that whatever you feel you do towards animal welfare and wildlife crime requires such aggression and vitriol.  That may just be your way of doing things, your way of 'coping' and of communicating.  It doesn't make any impact on me other than to confirm what I already believe I am afraid.

ETA - Just in case you are wondering, I have never hunted hounds - I totally accept that by supporting fox hunting before the ban that I do have the blood of killed foxes on my hands as it were (your expression, not mine; I don't see it like that at all). The emotive language that you use doesn't change the way I feel however but it is hugely irritating as it is so clearly intended to be offensive and manipulative.


----------



## Koweyka (30 March 2021)

Oh you do make me chuckle, you and the language you use and the accusations you throw around are typical of what we deal with every time we go out.

I have seen too many foxes die at the hands of hunts to be anything other than angry, this why I am so driven to stop foxes losing their lives so you can have a bit of fun. 

In my group we have two ex policemen, a retired doctor, vets nurses, nhs nurse, a solicitor so all the same people that you quote ....not quite what you allege Sabs are.  

It’s not personal towards you, though fair play to you, you put your head above the parapet and admit what you are, but you constantly defend the indefensible. You attempt to defend it on a thread that exposed trail hunting for what it truly is .... a myth a disguise for the real thing, you must know it goes on, many many people within hunting knows it goes on, but you constantly say it doesn’t. I would have far more respect for you, if you came out and said yes you know what, it does go on and we need to stop it and sort it out from within, sort yourselves out, get rid of the people who think they are above the law and stop killing foxes. Work with the anti’s and prove you aren’t chasing and killing foxes, if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about. In fact I know of several packs doing this exact same thing.


----------



## Koweyka (30 March 2021)

I see you have edited your post to say that you have never hunted hounds ....

This is taken from a message you sent me that you didn’t allow me to reply to

“I will not share which hunt I trail hunt with”

So make your mind up do you hunt or don’t you ....

Irritating ....one of the nicer insults I have had, though I get the distinct impression that you trump me on the irritation scale.


----------



## L&M (30 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			If ITV hadn’t got hold of it I doubt there would be any condemnation and if you read the online chatter in the hunting community there is more condemnation that they sneaked into Cottesmore territory.... Never mind those hounds were very interested in what appears to be a fox earth or badger sett ....or did they have a trail layer out as well.

Why shouldn’t the HSA point fingers ? Why shouldn’t anyone point fingers ?
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, I am a hunting person and utterly disgusted by this pack and their Mastership, and don't give a hoot about 'who's country they were on'.

Another example of how hunting will destroy itself, without any help from legislation or monitors. 

Bloody idiots making a mockery of covid restrictions and enforcing the public opinion that hunting folk think they live above the law......


----------



## palo1 (30 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			I see you have edited your post to say that you have never hunted hounds ....

This is taken from a message you sent me that you didn’t allow me to reply to

“I will not share which hunt I trail hunt with”

So make your mind up do you hunt or don’t you ....

Irritating ....one of the nicer insults I have had, though I get the distinct impression that you trump me on the irritation scale.
		
Click to expand...

I just meant that I have been a huntsman or master of a hunt


Koweyka said:



			I see you have edited your post to say that you have never hunted hounds ....

This is taken from a message you sent me that you didn’t allow me to reply to

“I will not share which hunt I trail hunt with”

So make your mind up do you hunt or don’t you ....

Irritating ....one of the nicer insults I have had, though I get the distinct impression that you trump me on the irritation scale.
		
Click to expand...

Now I am laughing!!  I thought you knew all about hunting and I had assumed you would understand that I meant I have never been either a huntsman or master (hunting hounds) - sorry though I think there was a typo in one of my responses.  I have only been a member of the field so never in charge of hounds, not that it is particularly significant here.


----------



## teapot (30 March 2021)

Does anyone know if foot following counts under the 'no spectators' ruling in Friday's Govt guidelines?

Foot following or ramble in the countryside is one thing, but if hunting comes under organised sport/activites, hunts may have to be careful.


----------



## Koweyka (30 March 2021)

Well you know what happens when you assume it make an ass out of you ...

The field are just as culpable in our eyes, when they ride into us to stop us getting to the fox, when they deliberately block roads with horses, when they signal as to which way the fox ran it all contributes to the fox dying.


----------



## DabDab (30 March 2021)

Koweyka said:



			If you have hunted and killed foxes which you have then you have their blood on your hands, those foxes didn’t want to die they didn’t wave a flag saying kill me, the hunters I speak to have the same disassociation for the Fox that has been killed as you do.
		
Click to expand...

What about the disassociation many people have with the killing carried out by their cat? They know the cat kills and are directly responsible for introducing it to that environment, entirely for their own pleasure. 


_I felt like cats hadn't been mentioned for a page or two _


----------



## Roasted Chestnuts (30 March 2021)

Dear god can you two go and have a private chat? I mean you are never going to convince each other, neither is willing to agree to disagree and it’s getting wearing reading you both openly insulting each other.

Palo I get your defending trail hunting and kow-watever I get you want it banned but neither hunter nor sab have clean hands despite what you are posting. Some hunts are obeying the laws and some aren’t and some sabs are damaging property, hurting hounds and horses and being a fecking menace and some aren’t. Why not just put each other on ignore and move on? I’m about to hit it and Unwatch this thread for the sake of my email alerts  🤟🏼


----------



## ycbm (30 March 2021)

DabDab said:



			What about the disassociation many people have with the killing carried out by their cat? They know the cat kills and are directly responsible for introducing it to that environment, entirely for their own pleasure.
		
Click to expand...

Cat whataboutery a-gain 😡.

There is no disassociation.

Hounds are organised and managed  so that they  chase wildlife,  so followers can enjoy the chase.

Cats are not. 

People keep hounds to enjoy having them chase a wild animal. 

People keep cats to enjoy looking at them and having them sit on their laps and pur. In pet cats, the hunting is an undesirable and undesired side effect,  not the primary reason that they are kept. 

End of.
.


----------



## Koweyka (30 March 2021)

She messaged me had a bit of a rant but blocked me from reply immediately and I asked her to put me on ignore, she wouldn’t but then I think she secretly likes the banter ....


----------



## DabDab (31 March 2021)

ycbm said:



			Cat whataboutery a-gain 😡.

There is no disassociation.

Hounds are organised and managed  so that they  chase wildlife,  so followers can enjoy the chase.

Cats are not.

People keep hounds to enjoy having them chase a wild animal.

People keep cats to enjoy looking at them and having them sit on their laps and pur. In pet cats, the hunting is an undesirable and undesired side effect,  not the primary reason that they are kept.

End of.
.
		
Click to expand...

😂 I was partly joking because the back and forth between K and Palo getting dull.

However, in relation specifically to the disassociation point that Koweyka came out with there, it is relevant. 

If someone wants something soft that will sit on their lap and be stroked then people could go for a nice big lop-eared rabbit. That won't be killing any wildlife.

I used to have a lovely rabbit and it was unfortunately killed by someone else's cat one day when out in my garden. I still feel a lot of guilt about the way my beautiful pet died, but he was big and black and lived with terriers, so it never even occurred to me that a random cat would attack him. That cat's owner won't be aware that it killed my rabbit, but they will have been apathetic to the fact that their cat goes out and kills _something_. I have a cat now, and I just don't think about it, doesn't mean I'm not (morally) responsible for anything he kills. 

Obviously I don't think it is any defence for anything that goes on in hunting or an argument in favour of hunting though. Because it isn't.


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 March 2021)

Saying its ok to hunt foxes because cats kill is completely ridiculous and really scrapping the bottom of the barrel.    Yes cats kill, they do not gather in numbers, dress up and go out and cause huge disruption to other people and livestock under the pretence of following a trail.   For goodness sake get real.
Fact is fox hunting is illegal.  Trail hunting will be before long and the only people to blame for that is hunters who have broken the law.  You can argue and debate until the cows come home but that is the fact of it.  No way in this day and age will hunting be allowed to continue.  Face it and move on!


----------



## DabDab (31 March 2021)

😂😂 are you responding to me sandstone? If so, did you read what I wrote


----------



## CrunchieBoi (31 March 2021)

My background is in ecology and I just can't see how free-roaming cats or fox-hunting with hounds could be viewed as anything other than a negative for wildlife and ecosystmes.

The fact remains however, that one is illegal and the other is not.

On a side-note how many packs are there roughly in the UK? I had the impression it was around 200 but might be wrong. If the leaked webinars were indeed attended by around 150 different people, that looks awfully like a fair chunk of the employed hunting community were hoping to pick up tips on how to bodyswerve the law.


----------



## DabDab (31 March 2021)

I agree CB. Although I often wonder if what is arguably the most ecologically damaging aspect of hunting is the bit that they left legal.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (31 March 2021)

Which specific bit are you referring to DabDab?


----------



## Tiddlypom (31 March 2021)

The crashing through the countryside disturbing wildlife, farm animals and pets?


----------



## DabDab (31 March 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			The crashing through the countryside disturbing wildlife, farm animals and pets?
		
Click to expand...

Yep that.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (31 March 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			The crashing through the countryside disturbing wildlife, farm animals and pets?
		
Click to expand...

I agree, whichever way you look at trail hunting, it's difficult to come up with a positive angle to it (ecologically speaking).


----------



## Koweyka (31 March 2021)

CrunchieBoi said:



			I agree, whichever way you look at trail hunting, it's difficult to come up with a positive angle to it (ecologically speaking).
		
Click to expand...

Or even morally speaking.


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 March 2021)

DabDab said:



			😂😂 are you responding to me sandstone? If so, did you read what I wrote
		
Click to expand...

No, not you sorry.  I was replying to Palo1.


----------



## Tiddlypom (31 March 2021)

Hunting Leaks has revealed another corker, this time from the Sinnington Hunt, for the season 19/20.

https://huntingleaks.is/sinnington-...BffnxfPnMYvRS8okWGU3ffsOK3qWoXy_OhwH6a0VjkyCE

The Sinnington seem not to have been troubled much by saboteurs, so have apparently been able to carry on fox hunting with little pretence at laying or following trails. This document offers advice on how they need to up their game in case the sabs or police turn up.






ETA I've blanked out individual's names, but they are visible on the original.

ETA The reference to 'holding up' when autumn hunting, and whether it is wise for them to continue the practice.

Holding up is cubbing as per pre ban, when the field surrounded a covert, hounds were sent in, the field made lots of noise to prevent the young foxes from escaping, so young hounds could have easy kills and learn their trade.

Holding up is in no way post ban compliant.


----------



## Fellewell (31 March 2021)

My pet dogs hunt trails every time we leave the house. They are mostly on lead at the moment because of nesting birds but at other times they're crashing about through the undergrowth because that's instinctive for them. Luckily my recall is good enough to prevent problems, although if I had to contend with balaclava-clad nitwits distracting them or me then my recall may fail.
I'm guessing most sabs are in favour of rewilding. If a guardian breed is used to protect sheep, for example, then wolves may be killed. They would probably suggest that sheep are kept in barns in these circumstances. Just which animals are allowed to display natural behaviours, in their opinion? Is it just the ones that aren't owned by people perceived as having lots of money?
Don't kid yourself that you don't enjoy hunting Koweyka, you've been baiting Palo since you got here.


----------



## Silver Clouds (31 March 2021)

Interesting that they don't include 'obeying the law' in their list of reasons to trail lay- a lot of hunts really are going to bring about their own demise.


----------



## Koweyka (31 March 2021)

Fellewell said:



			My pet dogs hunt trails every time we leave the house. They are mostly on lead at the moment because of nesting birds but at other times they're crashing about through the undergrowth because that's instinctive for them. Luckily my recall is good enough to prevent problems, although if I had to contend with balaclava-clad nitwits distracting them or me then my recall may fail.
I'm guessing most sabs are in favour of rewilding. If a guardian breed is used to protect sheep, for example, then wolves may be killed. They would probably suggest that sheep are kept in barns in these circumstances. Just which animals are allowed to display natural behaviours, in their opinion? Is it just the ones that aren't owned by people perceived as having lots of money?
Don't kid yourself that you don't enjoy hunting Koweyka, you've been baiting Palo since you got here.
		
Click to expand...

Yeh yeh whatever, crack on with the insults and delusions.  I have been open that I joined this thread because of the crud she was spouting I have made no secret of that.


----------



## Koweyka (31 March 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			Hunting Leaks has revealed another corker, this time from the Sinnington Hunt, for the season 19/20.

https://huntingleaks.is/sinnington-...BffnxfPnMYvRS8okWGU3ffsOK3qWoXy_OhwH6a0VjkyCE

The Sinnington seem not to have been troubled much by saboteurs, so have apparently been able to carry on fox hunting with little pretence at laying or following trails. This document offers advice on how they need to up their game in case the sabs or police turn up.

View attachment 68816


View attachment 68814

ETA I've blanked out individual's names, but they are visible on the original.
		
Click to expand...

Smokescreen anyone, not one of the registered “trail packs” should be allowed to leave kennels again.

We know that we can only ever cover a fraction of hunts at any given time and the reason the hunts haven’t outed the packs flaunting the law is because they themselves don’t want to become targets, they are basically “nimbys”


----------



## Tiddlypom (31 March 2021)

Silver Clouds said:



			Interesting that they don't include 'obeying the law' in their list of reasons to trail lay- a lot of hunts really are going to bring about their own demise.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, the top reason given to trail lay is always 'for the insurance', not what the feck scent would hounds be following if they hadn't laid a trail for them to find...🤔.


----------



## ycbm (31 March 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			Hunting Leaks has revealed another corker, this time from the Sinnington Hunt, for the season 19/20.

https://huntingleaks.is/sinnington-...BffnxfPnMYvRS8okWGU3ffsOK3qWoXy_OhwH6a0VjkyCE

The Sinnington seem not to have been troubled much by saboteurs, so have apparently been able to carry on fox hunting with little pretence at laying or following trails. This document offers advice on how they need to up their game in case the sabs or police turn up.

View attachment 68816


View attachment 68814

ETA I've blanked out individual's names, but they are visible on the original.

ETA The reference to 'holding up' when autumn hunting, and whether it is wise for them to continue the practice.

Holding up is cubbing as per pre ban, when the field surrounded a covert, hounds were sent in, the field made lots of noise to prevent the young foxes from escaping, so young hounds could have easy kills and learn their trade.

Holding up is in no way post ban compliant.
		
Click to expand...


"Q. Who are our opponents?
A. The Police and the 2004 Hunting Act. "

They were even so brazen as to put it in writing  😲


----------



## palo1 (31 March 2021)

For a different take on trail hounds/hound trailling have a look at this: http://www.houndtrailingassociation.com/about/about-hound-trailing/ This is never in the news nor does any anti acknowledge it's existence.  Lots of money raised for charity, complete openness and transparency and a brilliant re-homing programme.  I have rehomed one of these fantastic hounds and whilst not entirely/strictly domestic, she was fabulous!!   I know antis will tell me that this is nothing to do with winter trail hunting but it is definately part of the hunting world/community.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (31 March 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			Hunting Leaks has revealed another corker, this time from the Sinnington Hunt, for the season 19/20.

https://huntingleaks.is/sinnington-...BffnxfPnMYvRS8okWGU3ffsOK3qWoXy_OhwH6a0VjkyCE

The Sinnington seem not to have been troubled much by saboteurs, so have apparently been able to carry on fox hunting with little pretence at laying or following trails. This document offers advice on how they need to up their game in case the sabs or police turn up.

View attachment 68816


View attachment 68814

ETA I've blanked out individual's names, but they are visible on the original.

ETA The reference to 'holding up' when autumn hunting, and whether it is wise for them to continue the practice.

Holding up is cubbing as per pre ban, when the field surrounded a covert, hounds were sent in, the field made lots of noise to prevent the young foxes from escaping, so young hounds could have easy kills and learn their trade.

Holding up is in no way post ban compliant.
		
Click to expand...

It certainly is beginning to look as though trail hunting has had its (brief) day. I've seen some other screenshots where those involved indicated the need for a smooth transition between hunting fox and hunting a scent on the off-chance they need to make a very quick swap on the day. 

Trail hunting can surely no longer be viewed as a legitimate, legal activity.


----------



## ycbm (31 March 2021)

CrunchieBoi said:



			It certainly is beginning to look as though trail hunting has had its (brief) day. I've seen some other screenshots where those involved indicated the need for a smooth transition between hunting fox and hunting a scent on the off-chance they need to make a very quick swap on the day.

Trail hunting can surely no longer be viewed as a legitimate, legal activity.
		
Click to expand...


I don't know, but it does look very much as though it is so widespread, organised and determined that no trail hunt can be trusted to run within the law unless they have active monitoring.

It seems clear that the moment observation is removed,  the die-hard hunting fraternity will return to hunting fox.  After 16 years,  I'm shocked by that,  but I don't suppose I should be,  because it obviously never actually stopped,  did it?  
.


----------



## Tiddlypom (31 March 2021)

Here's the plan for the day when those pesky antis (or presumably even the police) turn up. You have to hunt legally for the day, which will annoy the purists, apparently 🙃.


----------



## Amirah (31 March 2021)

The "purists"?  Arrogant criminals more like.


----------



## palo1 (31 March 2021)

And hunting organisations are also involved in this: https://www.biodiversityhuntingcountryside.eu/#about. - In spite of Brexit UK organisations are engaged with this.


----------



## Tiddlypom (26 April 2021)

The MFHA have taken some positive action. Goodness. Joss Hanbury, senior master of the Quorn hunt and one of the most well known current MFHs has been suspended by the MFHA, along with another master. The police are continuing their investigations into the incident.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...cjga-oTSQnY2uGTRubs80GgmH3PyPF4kl03UpapBaGr3E

Also

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-04-25...DmNc55oOVhWndHRQowCYn8iREY7AIB9VQQjN_UvqP54YE

_'The master of one of the nation’s most respected hunts has lost his position after taking to fields during lockdown as part of a 70th birthday “surprise”.

Joss Hanbury, senior hunt master for the Quorn Hunt in Leicestershire, was found to have “seriously damaged the reputation” of the sport after a gathering last month while Covid-19 restrictions on movement were in force.

Footage showed two men on horseback dressed for hunting as hounds dug into what anti-hunting activists believe was a foxhole or badger sett.

The dogs had been driven half an hour to land near Hanbury’s home for what is claimed to have been “hound exercise”. Hunts were given clear guidance that during lockdown hounds should only be exercised from their kennels. The Masters of Foxhounds Association suspended Hanbury for two seasons while another master, Rowan Cope, was suspended for six months. The association said that their actions had not been “responsible”.


A letter to Quorn Hunt members confirmed that neither master would continue their roles, according to ITV News. The police said that the incident was still under investigation. Lee Moon, at the Hunt Saboteurs Association, said: “Whilst it’s pleasing to see action has been taken we do wonder if that’s only because the event became public and was covered by the press.”'_


----------



## paddy555 (8 May 2021)

bit surprised today by the hunt. I was informed by someone that my name, address, phone no and fact I have some fields (along with everyone else in a very large geographical area be they pro or anti) is now in the public domain of I guess the entire country really. Certainly in the public domain for anyone who wants to look. Some of those phone numbers are ex directory I expect as mine is.

Seems to be a total failure to protect data.  not very pleased

oh and edited to add that my local council appears to have given the hunt a grant along with a 10k covid grant. So as both a council tax payer and income tax payer I seem to have been unknowingly contributing to them as well.


----------



## ycbm (8 May 2021)

paddy555 said:



			bit surprised today by the hunt. I was informed by someone that my name, address, phone no and fact I have some fields (along with everyone else in a very large geographical area be they pro or anti) is now in the public domain of I guess the entire country really. Certainly in the public domain for anyone who wants to look. Some of those phone numbers are ex directory I expect as mine is.

Seems to be a total failure to protect data.  not very pleased
		
Click to expand...


If the Hunt did this you need to report them for a GDPR breach,  it's an imprisonable crime.


----------



## paddy555 (8 May 2021)

ycbm said:



			If the Hunt did this you need to report them for a GDPR breach,  it's an imprisonable crime.
		
Click to expand...

thanks for the reply. Posted as I wondered what people would think. Considering it. Came as a bit of a shock really but the old brain is now starting to kick into gear.


----------



## ycbm (8 May 2021)

paddy555 said:



			thanks for the reply. Posted as I wondered what people would think. Considering it. Came as a bit of a shock really but the old brain is now starting to kick into gear.
		
Click to expand...

It's absolutely indefensible if it was done by a business/organisation,  Paddy. Completely illegal, and the penalties are severe to reflect how harmful it is considered to be.  The laws were strengthened more recently but I worked on data protection back in the early 80's when that would have been illegal.
.


----------



## Tiddlypom (8 May 2021)

ycbm said:



			If the Hunt did this you need to report them for a GDPR breach,  it's an imprisonable crime.
		
Click to expand...

Even if the publication of these contact details was not a deliberate act by the hunt, but a malicious act by others, the hunt is required to report the breach pdq to the relevant authorities. There is a lot on line about the legal ramifications of the accidental leaking of insecure personal details.

It's potentially a very serious issue.

Paddy555, I'd be firstly upset about this and then fuming. I would definitely be taking it further than just contacting the hunt and letting them know that you weren't happy.


----------



## Clodagh (8 May 2021)

paddy555 said:



			thanks for the reply. Posted as I wondered what people would think. Considering it. Came as a bit of a shock really but the old brain is now starting to kick into gear.
		
Click to expand...

I’d be bloody livid!
On the grant issue I imagine they have as much right to claim it as any other small business. In Scotland I think they prevented anyone associated with field sports from claiming support, that sits wrong with me, there’s lots of individuals and companies I’d choose not to support but where do you stop and start with that.


----------



## paddy555 (8 May 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			Even if the publication of these contact details was not a deliberate act by the hunt, but a malicious act by others, the hunt is required to report the breach pdq to the relevant authorities. There is a lot on line about the legal ramifications of the accidental leaking of insecure personal details.

It's potentially a very serious issue.

Paddy555, I'd be firstly upset about this and then fuming. I would definitely be taking it further than just contacting the hunt and letting them know that you weren't happy.
		
Click to expand...

absolutely  no intention of contacting the hunt direct. (or at least not for a while )

I would however like some info please if anyone can help

some of the people listed who have land and would rather not have the hunt have things such as "difficult fields to avoid" noted. 

If you hunt a fox I can understand that you are governed by the fox as to where he runs and that hounds hunting him are going to follow. 

If you hunt only a laid trail then to my innocent mind a person decides where the trail goes and could lay it to avoid areas of land where people preferred them not to hunt so there would be no need to have "difficult land to avoid" 

If I'm wrong please don't be afraid to say. I would like to be accurate when I contact people 

It does concern me that there are some people listed who really don't want the hunt and details are included of discussions/action etc which to my mind should be totally private.


----------



## Silver Clouds (8 May 2021)

It is awful the hunt have released your info Paddy; as others have said, GDPR breaches attract some stiff penalties so report it to the ICO rather than the hunt.

And no, I can't see how ANY land/property could be 'difficult to avoid' for a hunt that was actually legally trail hunting, after all they can choose where to lay the trail. The hunts really don't help themselves do they


----------



## Silver Clouds (8 May 2021)

A hunt about an hour away from me ran a fun ride last weekend and thought Covid rules didn't apply to them (because they're above the law presumably) so it was a mass start, crowded parking, and apparently a bit of a free-for-all. The police turned up mid-morning to put them straight as some of the locals had complained. Many fun rides have been held around here under covid (last autumn and this spring since the last lockdown lifted), and all of the others have managed to implement social distancing and sensible precautions with no problems, so god knows why one hunt thought they would be excused. Again it is an example of (some) hunting people really not caring what the locals/general public think of them, and being too short-sighted to realise that they are only harming themselves in the longrun.


----------



## Tiddlypom (8 May 2021)

paddy555 said:



			If you hunt only a laid trail then to my innocent mind a person decides where the trail goes and could lay it to avoid areas of land where people preferred them not to hunt so there would be no need to have "difficult land to avoid"
		
Click to expand...

You are not wrong. Hunts should be careful where they lay trails and should not allow them to stray off piste. They should not lay trails close to areas where they are not invited to be on.

Comments such as (and there are plenty more where these came from):-
_
A few horse fields next to ****, not keen when hounds get in there, difficult to stop happening.

Hounds can get in the garden, not sure how keen they are, don’t get here that often._

And particularly the comment speaks volumes. 

_Anti, don’t ring. Hounds like to be in their garden, do what you can to avoid this then I personally ignore._

Just keep the hounds out of people's gardens, and if they do get in, don't then ignore the residents .


----------



## Silver Clouds (8 May 2021)

The arrogance is unbelievable TP (not you, some hunting people!)


----------



## palo1 (8 May 2021)

Hunts have not released anyone's details; hacking done by Hunting Leaks is responsible for the data breach.  This issue has been raised in Iceland where the breaches have taken place but so far, no luck in resolving the issue.  Twitter and other social media shut down Hunting Leaks in response but HL are still finding ways to release individual's data without penalty.


----------



## Clodagh (8 May 2021)

palo1 said:



			Hunts have not released anyone's details; hacking done by Hunting Leaks is responsible for the data breach.  This issue has been raised in Iceland where the breaches have taken place but so far, no luck in resolving the issue.  Twitter and other social media shut down Hunting Leaks in response but HL are still finding ways to release individual's data without penalty.
		
Click to expand...

I think the trouble is, as a known issue, the hunts would be expected to tighten their online security.


----------



## Tiddlypom (8 May 2021)

The leak was indeed maliciously done by a third party, but the hunt involved are guilty of not protecting the personal information inc phone nos, addresses that they hold on a large number of people. Including all personal remarks on same.

It's a serious breach of the GDPR rules.


----------



## paddy555 (8 May 2021)

palo1 said:



			Hunts have not released anyone's details; hacking done by Hunting Leaks is responsible for the data breach.  This issue has been raised in Iceland where the breaches have taken place but so far, no luck in resolving the issue.  Twitter and other social media shut down Hunting Leaks in response but HL are still finding ways to release individual's data without penalty.
		
Click to expand...


to a point however the question arises as to how they were able to access the date in the first place? presumably the hunt failed to protect the data. Is that acceptable? They must be aware that in view of the antis their data is liable to be hacked and must be secured. 
HL released the data, the hunt made that possible. 
I now have a list of just about all land within around 20 mile radius, names of owners, addresses, phone numbers and basically their views on hunting, something which quite honestly is private. I don't wish people to know my views and I have no right to know theirs. I know a large number of people on that list. 

I appreciate that hunts need to have records of landowners, contact details and what areas to avoid. However that information should not be public knowledge.


----------



## palo1 (8 May 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			The leak was indeed maliciously done by a third party, but the hunt involved are guilty of not protecting the personal information inc phone nos, addresses that they hold on a large number of people. Including all personal remarks on same.

It's a serious breach of the GDPR rules.
		
Click to expand...

It is undoubtedly a very serious breach of the law.  It is dire for many people.  I understand that the hacking happened over a fairly short period of time but the information is being leaked over a longer period of time in order to cause the greatest anxiety and distress amongst those people who may be very concerned about their details being leaked.  HL deliberately based their operation in Iceland so that they would be immune to GDPR regs.   Security in hunt organisations has been tightened wherever and however possible I believe too but it is too late for this set of breaches.


----------



## palo1 (8 May 2021)

paddy555 said:



			to a point however the question arises as to how they were able to access the date in the first place? presumably the hunt failed to protect the data. Is that acceptable? They must be aware that in view of the antis their data is liable to be hacked and must be secured.
HL released the data, the hunt made that possible.
I now have a list of just about all land within around 20 mile radius, names of owners, addresses, phone numbers and basically their views on hunting, something which quite honestly is private. I don't wish people to know my views and I have no right to know theirs. I know a large number of people on that list.

I appreciate that hunts need to have records of landowners, contact details and what areas to avoid. However that information should not be public knowledge.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree.  I think that depending on all sorts of things some hunt's online security systems would be better than others but there are definately guidelines/responsibilities which are clear not only via the law but also through the ordinary committees and conventions.  The hacking of hunts has been pretty wholesale however and sophisticated with a huge range of information having been 'taken'; I don't think it is at all clear where or how it has been done.  Personally speaking I am appalled and unnerved by it as generally, getting information from a hunt/hunt official is virtually impossible and I would say the vast majority of people involved in hunting are totally aware of the sensitivity of personal information and would never do anything to deliberately weaken any security or share information unneccessarily.  Very few folk dealing with landowners of any kind would be unaware of the sensitivity around boundaries/access or their views on a whole range of things.  Of course I would say this, as a hunting supporter, but Hunting Leaks have no scruples at all, have clearly given no thought to the damage they are doing to individuals that they have no knowledge of and may not realise what a dire own goal this will be.  For example, earlier leaks about Glastonbury (Worthy Farm) resulted in the Festival essentially withdrawing work opportunities for local hunt supporters (of which the Festival was clearly aware previously) and Michael Eavis is already under pressure from the same group re: his views and actions in relation to the Badger cull.  Yet the local hunting community provides a huge amount of support for the Festival (provision of parking and other things) so neighbourly interactions are going to be interesting.  In this particular example the Festival will want to keep rolling with it's usual arrangements.  HL is just a really unpleasant and rather sinister group with a clear knowledge of the law and how to break it.


----------



## Tiddlypom (8 May 2021)

From the ICO (Information Commissioner's) website

https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/raising-concerns/



_[Your full address]
[Phone number]
[The date]_​_
[Name and address of the organisation]
[Reference number (if provided within the initial response)]

Dear [Sir or Madam / name of the person you have been in contact with]
_
*Information rights concern*
_[Your full name and address and any other details such as account number to help identify you]

I am concerned that you have not handled my personal information properly.

[Give details of your concern, explaining clearly and simply what has happened and, where appropriate, the effect it has had on you.]

I understand that before reporting my concern to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) I should give you the chance to deal with it.

If, when I receive your response, I would still like to report my concern to the ICO, I will give them a copy of it to consider.

You can find guidance on your obligations under information rights legislation on the ICO’s website (www.ico.org.uk) as well as information on their regulatory powers and the action they can take.

Please send a full response within one calendar month. If you cannot respond within that timescale, please tell me when you will be able to respond.

If there is anything you would like to discuss, please contact me on the following number [telephone number].


Yours faithfully
[Signature]_

I hope that Paddy555 won't mind me relaying that this is the South Devon Hunt. Anyone who knows anyone who lives in that area and whose details may also be listed could perhaps let them know? Hunting is such an inflammatory subject that people may well not wish to be identified as being very pro or very anti along with their address and phone number.

My brief bit of stalking on anti sites shows that the leak is from at least 6 days ago.


----------



## Silver Clouds (8 May 2021)

To comply with GDPR businesses (and charities etc, I presume one of these categories would include hunts) are required to have permission from individuals to store their personal data, and must have clear, justifiable reasons for doing so (and the 'owner' of the data - in this case Paddy - needs to be aware of these reasons). As Paddy's phone number is ex-directory and Paddy isn't a member of the hunt it sounds very unlikely that the hunt in question had permission to hold/store Paddy's personal data. _If _Paddy gave permission for their personal data to be kept by the hunt (e.g. so that the hunt could notify Paddy if they would be passing close to Paddy's property and likely to upset their livestock) then the hunt keeping it to note the owner's personal feelings about hunting (or to use it for any other reason than the reason Paddy gave them permission for) is a breach of GDPR.

Yes, HL leaked the information, but it sounds as though the hunt may have been breaching GDPR in the first place by storing it and/or using it for reasons the owner was not aware of.


----------



## Tiddlypom (19 September 2021)

Unless there has been an adjournment of which I am unaware, Mark Hankinson, Director of the MFHA, is due to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court tomorrow and the next day, September 20 and 21, charged with intentionally encouraging or assisting others to commit an offence under the Hunting Act 2004, contrary to Section 44 of the Serious Crimes Act 2007.


----------



## Sossigpoker (19 September 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			Unless there has been an adjournment of which I am unaware, Mark Hankinson, Director of the MFHA, is due to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court tomorrow and the next day, September 20 and 21, charged with intentionally encouraging or assisting others to commit an offence under the Hunting Act 2004, contrary to Section 44 of the Serious Crimes Act 2007.
		
Click to expand...

Did this not happen back in March ?


----------



## Tiddlypom (20 September 2021)

The initial hearing was before Plymouth magistrates’ court on March 4. The trial date was then set to start today.


----------



## Koweyka (20 September 2021)

We hope the many thousands of foxes killed by the “trail hunt smokescreen“ will finally get some justice over the next several days.


----------



## bonnysmum (20 September 2021)

Can I just say that as someone who avoided Horse & Hound for literally years because of the hunting association, I'm delighted to see this thread with some like-minded contributors.


----------



## Tiddlypom (20 September 2021)

Report in The Guardian after day 1 of the trial of the MFHA Director.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...8dyDHxYuD0KPp3yQhaE_T8CaaWMEsjLYZO9AD_kRTAoME

_An application by Hankinson’s defence to strike out the video evidence, on the grounds it was obtained by fraud, was refused by the deputy senior district judge, Tan Ikram. Hankinson’s barrister, Richard Lissack QC, then sought to cast aspersions against the hunt saboteurs who obtained the video._


----------



## ycbm (20 September 2021)

I'm glad it's being heard by a senior district judge not three lay magistrates which is more common in a magistrates court.  Its much harder to bluff it out to get "reasonable doubt" with a district judge than with lay people.  
.


----------



## Tiddlypom (21 September 2021)

The trial continues tomorrow, where the defendant Mark Hankinson is expected to give evidence.

Interesting choice of witness for the defence. A master who found it difficult to recall that a countryman/terrierman employed by his own pack had been found guilty of interfering with a badger sett on a hunting day in 2015. The judge was right onto that one.


----------



## Stressymummy (21 September 2021)

bonnysmum said:



			Can I just say that as someone who avoided Horse & Hound for literally years because of the hunting association, I'm delighted to see this thread with some like-minded contributors.
		
Click to expand...

Ummm.....This forum is called Horse & Hound ....
Why are you on it if you have been avoiding it ?


----------



## Stressymummy (21 September 2021)

Koweyka said:



			We hope the many thousands of foxes killed by the “trail hunt smokescreen“ will finally get some justice over the next several days.
		
Click to expand...

How about the thousands of chickens killed by foxes, will they get justice ?


----------



## Sandstone1 (22 September 2021)

Stressymummy said:



			Ummm.....This forum is called Horse & Hound ....
Why are you on it if you have been avoiding it ?
		
Click to expand...

And why are you still here?  You made a disgusting unforgivable comment on here at the weekend and should have been banned for life in my opinion.


----------



## littleshetland (22 September 2021)

Stressymummy said:



			How about the thousands of chickens killed by foxes, will they get justice ?
		
Click to expand...

Are you the same Stressymummy that found it 'amusing' that someones horse was killing the yard chickens in an earlier thread?


----------



## skinnydipper (22 September 2021)

Stressymummy said:



			How about the thousands of chickens killed by foxes, will they get justice ?
		
Click to expand...

Excuse me, but didn't you find it amusing that a horse was killing chickens?

and I couldn't believe your comment on another thread.

You have a problem, lady.


ETA.  Cross posted


----------



## ycbm (22 September 2021)

Is Stressymummy Dunroamin? If not,  they need ignoring as if they were.  Don't feed the troll,  it's enjoying it.  
.


----------



## Tiddlypom (22 September 2021)

The trial in magistrates' court has been adjourned after today's proceedings, in which Mark Hankinson (amongst others) gave evidence, to reconvene at 2pm on 15 October.

Today was the third day of a trial which was originally scheduled to last 2 days. Time constraints of both the judge and the lawyers mean that final submissions are to be made in writing. MH is required to attend court in person to hear the verdict.

Rupert Evelyn of ITV has been in court following proceedings, and provided Twitter updates as they progressed. Hope this link works, I'm not really a Twitter person.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1440646521129607182


----------



## ycbm (22 September 2021)

Verdict on October 15th, then?  This is going to be really interesting, it's all going to hang,  I think,  on whether the defence lawyer has been sharp enough to inject enough reasonable doubt. 
.


----------



## Fern007 (22 September 2021)

Thank you for the updates.


----------



## MagicMelon (22 September 2021)

As an anti, Id be delighted to see the end of "trail" hunting. "Accidents" should never be allowed to happen, clearly they happen regularly (whether by accident or not) therefore it cannot continue.

Please try not to bring hunting into this part of the forum - leave it in the hunting area. I realise this is a pro-hunting magazing forum however it also just happens to be one of the best/busiest forums for general horse info hence many of us here Im sure are not supportive of hunting and would rather avoid the chat about it.


----------



## Crazy_cat_lady (22 September 2021)

https://petition.parliament.uk/peti...xb_O2l6rWYN1RG15B4MP3RRq2VgjNRZoARqUy7FlXDeQU

I've just signed this petition, which I've only just become aware of-  they're campaigning to ban any form of hunting in residential or public areas to try and stop people's pets being involved in "accidents" following the death of their poor pet cat who's no doubt been mentioned and discussed up thread. 

Unfortunately reading the government's response it sounds like hunting, not the safety of people's beloved pets comes first 😡

If I was lucky enough to have land they'd be Forbidden from crossing it 

I agree with @MagicMelon and would be in full support of trail hunting being banned there's no need for it anymore


----------



## tallyho! (22 September 2021)

Whilst I do support the ban altogether I do hate the whole disappearing of riding across the country as more and more bridleways magically disappear


----------



## Miss_Millie (23 September 2021)

I hope that Mark Hankinson is punished appropriately for encouraging others to break the law. It will send out a clear message that fox hunting will not be tolerated. Crazy that it was banned way back in 2004...he must have thought he was untouchable.


----------



## ycbm (23 September 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			I hope that Mark Hankinson is punished appropriately for encouraging others to break the law. It will send out a clear message that fox hunting will not be tolerated. Crazy that it was banned way back in 2004...he must have thought he was untouchable.
		
Click to expand...

He has to be found guilty yet and a clever lawyer will be able to find a number of ways to inject "reasonable doubt" into the things that were said. It's by no means a foregone conclusion.  
.


----------



## Gallop_Away (23 September 2021)

As someone who supports LEGAL and LEGITIMATE trail hunting, I think the only way hunting will ever have a future in a modern society is to condemn those who still allow illegal hunting to continue. 
I hunt regularly with my local pack who are most certainly a trail hunt. When other hunts continue to behave in an illegal manner and show no regard for the law, they drag the rest of us down with them.
If hunting is to cling on then something needs to change.


----------



## Fern007 (23 September 2021)

Gallop_Away said:



			As someone who supports LEGAL and LEGITIMATE trail hunting, I think the only way hunting will ever have a future in a modern society is to condemn those who still allow illegal hunting to continue.
I hunt regularly with my local pack who are most certainly a trail hunt. When other hunts continue to behave in an illegal manner and show no regard for the law, they drag the rest of us down with them.
If hunting is to cling on then something needs to change.
		
Click to expand...

Some of my best and most exhilarating rides were drag/ trail hunting.  I have absolutely no issue with that at all. Reading some commeon fb unfortunately a lot of people don't know the difference and put it all under one umbrella.  I for one would love to see hunting completely banned. Blood hounds and trail fine with me.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (24 September 2021)

According to the defendant no one said anything inappropriate but later on claims that Lord Benjamin Mancroft was "taken to task" about a "poor joke" regarding foxes being killed on trail hunts. 

Talk about tying yourself in knots.


----------



## canteron (24 September 2021)

I took a visiting Australian out to watch the hunt a couple of years ago as he wanted the whole English experience.  They killed 3 foxes quite shamelessly.   Although I had asked the secretary if it was OK for me to come and she kindly arranged for 2 other supporters to explain everything to my friend, it was quite shocking.

The huntsman has since moved on to a smarter pack, and I think this hunt is a little bit better now?


----------



## Koweyka (24 September 2021)

canteron said:



			I took a visiting Australian out to watch the hunt a couple of years ago as he wanted the whole English experience.  They killed 3 foxes quite shamelessly.   Although I had asked the secretary if it was OK for me to come and she kindly arranged for 2 other supporters to explain everything to my friend, it was quite shocking.

The huntsman has since moved on to a smarter pack, and I think this hunt is a little bit better now?
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely disgusting, this is why it so infuriating when certain individuals chat such utter rubbish saying all hunts act within the law. Whilst there may be some that do, I have only ever seen one hunt actively try and avoid killing foxes with trails, though that’s changed again and they are now back hunting.

We never sab drag/blood/clean boot, we have no need to, but we do sab hunts that we know are actively hunting foxes. If they weren’t hunting illegally we would not be there.

Regardless of the outcome of this trial, it’s obvious what all the masters, ex coppers etc were discussing.

Hunting foxes has had its day, some “people” need to accept that.


----------



## canteron (11 October 2021)

Bumping, as I guess the verdict is on Friday.
Fascinating case on so many levels - have the hunting Lobby (nice people do hunt but there are a lot who believe in their natural superiority over the rabble) managed to get over themselves enough to produce a proper defence?


----------



## Tiddlypom (15 October 2021)

Guilty. This is massive.

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-10-15...-hankinson-found-guilty-of-hunting-act-breach

_One of Britain’s leading huntsmen has been found guilty of encouraging or assisting others to commit an offence under the Hunting Act._

_Mark Hankinson was a director of the Hunting Office that runs the sport. He was caught in a leaked online training webinar in 2020 telling hunts how to hunt illegally. `_

A spokesperson for the Hunt Saboteurs Association said:-

“_We’re delighted that Mark Hankinson has been found guilty and the sentence is of little importance.  This result shows that he, and indeed the entire hunting community, are guilty of perpetrating a smokescreen to hide their illegal hunting for the past 15 years. _

_We now demand that the rest of the panel – Lord Mancroft, ex-police Inspector Phil Davies, ex-police officer Paul Jelley, Alice Bowden and Richard Tyacke also face charges for their part in this conspiracy.  We also demand that the major landowners permanently suspend any hunting on their land._

I agree. The verdict is entirely the correct one. The only surprise is that MH is the only panel member to be charged to date.


----------



## ycbm (15 October 2021)

WOW!  That's a game changer.

Now hunting,  get your act together or lose your sport altogether.


----------



## Koweyka (15 October 2021)

Guilty, just as us “anti’s” have known all along …..Trail Hunting is a lie and always has been. A smokescreen for hunting and killing foxes, everyone who participates in hunting knew what was going on and let it happen. You are all just as guilty.

Hunting should now be banned full stop.

As someone who has witnessed the brutal killing of many many foxes over the years at the jaws of the trail hunts, well you have finally been exposed as the wildlife criminals you are.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (15 October 2021)

No surprise to see the guilty verdict, the webinars were pretty damming. 

It is good to see trail hunting recognised as an illegal activity. Will those who claimed otherwise continue to take part, even knowing they are breaking the law?


----------



## Tiddlypom (15 October 2021)

Damning words from the presiding judge as he delivered the verdict.

_At Westminster court Deputy Chief Magistrate Tan Ikram said "I am sure that the defendant through his words was giving advice on how to illegally hunt with dogs."_

_In my judgement he was clearly encouraging the mirage of trail laying to act as cover for illegal hunting," he added._

_Mr Hankinson was fined £1,000 along with a contribution of £2,500 towards legal costs._

Mark Hankinson: Top huntsman guilty of encouraging illegal fox hunting https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58654916

ETA

_On Friday Deputy Chief Magistrate Tan Ikram concluded: "Mr Hankinson's advice that trail laying needed to be "plausible" was only necessary if it was a "sham and a fiction""

"It wasn't just bad language as he suggested, there was a clear and common thread throughout the two separate webinars."

"A specific aggravating factor was that you were speaking to large number of people. Your words potentially had an impact throughout the whole country."_


----------



## paddy555 (15 October 2021)

thanks for updating


----------



## Sandstone1 (15 October 2021)

Good result but should have been a much stiffer fine.


----------



## ycbm (15 October 2021)

CrunchieBoi said:



			It is good to see trail hunting recognised as an illegal activity. Will those who claimed otherwise continue to take part, even knowing they are breaking the law?
		
Click to expand...


Trail hunting is not and never has been an illegal activity.

It is up to hunting now to stop pretending that it hunts trails while actually hunting fox. 

The first thing to do is to stop using fox scent. 
.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (15 October 2021)

ycbm said:



			Trail hunting is not and never has been an illegal activity.
		
Click to expand...

Don't agree, even before the webinars it was pretty clear that the majority of hunts labelling themselves as "trail" hunts were only really interested in carrying on as they did pre-ban. The webinars have pretty much confirmed the aim of the game. The fact covert filming frequently seems to catch out hunt staff kind of blows the idea there was any widespread interest in adapting practices out the water as well. 

The use of fox scent, as you say, demonstrates a pretty obvious intent and should never have been permitted.


----------



## ycbm (15 October 2021)

CrunchieBoi said:



			Don't agree, even before the webinars it was pretty clear that the majority of hunts labelling themselves as "trail" hunts were only really interested in carrying on as they did pre-ban. The webinars have pretty much confirmed the aim of the game. The fact covert filming frequently seems to catch out hunt staff kind of blows the idea there was any widespread interest in adapting practices out the water as well.

The use of fox scent, as you say, demonstrates a pretty obvious intent and should never have been permitted.
		
Click to expand...

They were not trail hunting, only saying that they were.  By definition if they had been trail hunting,  they would not have been doing anything illegal.

Trail hunting is legal. 
.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (15 October 2021)

ycbm said:



			They were not trail hunting, only saying that they were.  By definition if they had been trail hunting,  they would not have been doing anything illegal.

Trail hunting is legal. 
.
		
Click to expand...

The problem for trail hunting is that there has been no condemnation of the illegal activity (which for me, was clearly being carried out by the majority) by either the good hunts or, for that matter, anyone connected to hunting (CA and so on). People will be only too happy to tar any hunt going under the name of "trail" hunt with that particular brush now. 

When you consider that the webinars have now had their purpose officially judged as a means of advising hunt staff on the best way of breaking the law and were delivered by the head honcho of trail hunting to a sizeable following, it's very hard to disagree.


----------



## palo1 (15 October 2021)

Statement from the MFHA (The Hunting Office) in response to the verdict, below.  I would hope that a review will involve a full range of stakeholders and be seen to have a new sense of integrity and openness.


----------



## paddy555 (15 October 2021)

palo1 said:



			Statement from the MFHA (The Hunting Office) in response to the verdict, below.  I would hope that a review will involve a full range of stakeholders and be seen to have a new sense of integrity and openness.
Nothing will change. A couple of weeks time there will be more footage from somewhere of a hunt hunting a fox. Total waste of time. 









Click to expand...

but who is setting up the review? from that it sound like the MFH assoc. The same body who are hugely disappointed and considering an appeal. The ones who, per the judge.

_n my judgement he was clearly encouraging the mirage of trail laying to act as cover for illegal hunting," he added._


----------



## CrunchieBoi (15 October 2021)

palo1 said:



			Statement from the MFHA (The Hunting Office) in response to the verdict, below.  I would hope that a review will involve a full range of stakeholders and be seen to have a new sense of integrity and openness. 









Click to expand...

So... offering to mark their own homework.


----------



## Tiddlypom (15 October 2021)

'Lawful trail hunting activities'.

Good grief 🤣.

Not a chance. You (the MFHA) have just been thoroughly, very publicly and legally busted.


----------



## Steerpike (15 October 2021)

Reassurances to all stakeholders and land owners, surely he should be saying the general public as it is them that the hunting community have to convince that they are all squeaky clean and hunting within the law?


----------



## palo1 (15 October 2021)

Steerpike said:



			Reassurances to all stakeholders and land owners, surely he should be saying the general public as it is them that the hunting community have to convince that they are all squeaky clean and hunting within the law?
		
Click to expand...

I would hope that 'stakeholders' does include the general public, some of whom will definitely not be supportive but the process of review really needs to be without the MFHA as @paddy555 and others have said because the MFHA, even with a new bod in charge (Andrew Osborne), have not exactly come out of this looking as if they are capable of decent (or any) governance and due diligence.  

For me, a review and a clear and robust disciplinary proceedure put in place by an external body would be the best outcome as that might help to change the current narrative of all trail hunting to be illegal fox hunting under cover. That is absolutely not the case as other posters on here have asserted (as well as myself).   The worst outcome would be that monitoring by vigilantes where there can be no trust or discussion possible on either side, continues to be the public 'face' of any governance of hunting.   The minister and government have made it clear that there is no intention to amend the law in this parliament so I would hope there is time for the hunting community to sort out the rot.


----------



## palo1 (15 October 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			'Lawful trail hunting activities'.

Good grief 🤣.

Not a chance. You (the MFHA) have just been thoroughly, very publicly and legally busted.
		
Click to expand...

But there are hunts that are hunting lawfully - even the sabs accept that.


----------



## Lady Jane (15 October 2021)

How do you know if a hunt is following the rules? My friend hunted several times with a hunt a couple of years ago and never saw any untoward activity? The sabs were out every time and on one occassion pulled someone off their horse who then required an ambulance and the police were involved


----------



## Tiddlypom (15 October 2021)

palo1 said:



			But there are hunts that are hunting lawfully - even the sabs accept that.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, but all hunts have claimed to be hunting lawfully all along, haven't they, when many very evidently haven't. The MFHA even helpfully provided the smokescreen guidelines to enable illegal hunting to take place.

No one will trust anything pro hunt say, Palo. Hunting should have dealt with this much sooner. You (as in pro hunt) are a laughing stock.


----------



## palo1 (15 October 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			Yes, but all hunts have claimed to be hunting lawfully all along, haven't they, when many very evidently haven't. The MFHA even helpfully provided the smokescreen guidelines to enable illegal hunting to take place.

No one will trust anything pro hunt say, Palo. Hunting should have dealt with this much sooner. You're a laughing stock.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks for that @Tiddlypom.  I am not sure if that is meant personally but...

You cannot possibly know that 'many very evidently haven't' been hunting lawfully.  The Hunting Act is so appalling that it makes it extraordinarily difficult to prove legal or illegal hunting and that has been an issue for years.  A great many people enjoy legal trail hunting but of course sabs and antis just ignore that, even when they monitor hunts and either have to give up because there is nothing for them to see that is worth 'exposing' or where the law is so clearly followed that it is a waste of sabs time.  There are, too, trust issues around sabs and their evidence gathering and claims of illegality in trail hunting.  Please don't pretend there are not.   

Incidentally, today, very sadly saw the murder of an anti-hunt MP, David Amess, who I knew and worked alongside as well as briefly working alongside Michael Foster (responsible for bringing the original Hunting Act private members bill to parliament).  I was involved in animal welfare research in a number of directions and communicated with a huge range of people about those issues, including across the spectrum of views around hunting.  Those discussions were invariably respectful and personally polite.  That didn't mean they lacked clarity, power or conviction.   It saddens and depresses me that here, where people have much in common through their interest in horses, dogs and related activities that that isn't always the case.  Polarising debate just isn't helpful and leads to all sorts of difficult places for those involved.


----------



## Crazy_cat_lady (15 October 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Guilty, just as us “anti’s” have known all along …..Trail Hunting is a lie and always has been. A smokescreen for hunting and killing foxes, everyone who participates in hunting knew what was going on and let it happen. You are all just as guilty.

Hunting should now be banned full stop.

As someone who has witnessed the brutal killing of many many foxes over the years at the jaws of the trail hunts, well you have finally been exposed as the wildlife criminals you are.
		
Click to expand...

Agree, its time to ban it completely that way there can be no "slip ups" or "accidents" including them killing peoples cats, which is unforgivable 

There's no reason for it to take place so just ban it. Unfortunately it never will be.

The "fine" is probably laughable to him, they should have stuck animal cruelty on as well as that's what it is.

Laughable the MFH are considering an appeal and will be the ones doing the review. Says it all really and makes me suspect he's the tip of the iceberg. It should be an independent panel doing the review. It should also include the public for all we know if the landowners were pro, they could be complicit. Animal welfare organisations should be included too


----------



## Tiddlypom (15 October 2021)

palo1 said:



			That is absolutely not the case as other posters on here have asserted (as well as myself).
		
Click to expand...

I'm one of those, but the fairly recent transition of my local pack from blatant fox hunting to legal trail hunting was painful for all concerned. It only happened because after protracted sab and monitor attention a major local sporting landowner was going to ban the hunt from all its land, inc many tenanted farms, because it was fed up of the negative effect the bad publicity (from the antis) was having on its other business interests.

The master who had been assuring me that they were legally trail hunting all along threw their toys out of the pram and declared they were hanging up their boots, as they couldn't see the point in continuing if the pack switched from fox to trail hunting .

ETA I've edited my previous post to make it clear that it is pro hunt in general who are now a laughing stock, not you personally, Palo .


----------



## L&M (15 October 2021)

As a hunting fanatic, I am actually also pleased with the outcome, and agree the fine should have been bigger.

He has put hunting into even more disrepute and jeopardised the future of hunts that do actually follow a trail (mine being one).

Bloody idiot and just hope that finally all packs are made to tow the line, so that our wonderful sport and hounds still have a purpose, but going forward in a more civilised and legal manner.


----------



## palo1 (15 October 2021)

L&M said:



			As a hunting fanatic, I am actually also pleased with the outcome, and agree the fine should have been bigger.

He has put hunting into even more disrepute and jeopardised the future of hunts that do actually follow a trail (mine being one).

Bloody idiot and just hope that finally all packs are made to tow the line, so that our wonderful sport and hounds still have a purpose, but going forward in a more civilised and legal manner.
		
Click to expand...

It is genuinely lovely to hear of someone describe themselves as a 'hunting fanatic' in relation to the sport of trail hunting and following hounds - a breath of fresh air!! That has really cheered me up


----------



## TTK (15 October 2021)

So the judge called BS on the hunt. Good. My local hunt were digging out cubs in a spinney above my fields last week, bold as brass. Trail hunting my aunt fanny.


----------



## L&M (15 October 2021)

palo1 said:



			It is genuinely lovely to hear of someone describe themselves as a 'hunting fanatic' in relation to the sport of trail hunting and following hounds - a breath of fresh air!! That has really cheered me up 

Click to expand...

My pleasure! This is the wake up call hunting needs, and just hope it is not too late........


----------



## palo1 (15 October 2021)

TTK said:



			So the judge called BS on the hunt. Good. My local hunt were digging out cubs in a spinney above my fields last week, bold as brass. Trail hunting my aunt fanny.
		
Click to expand...

I think you should check the law on this before identifying any activity as illegal.  There are exemptions that are entirely lawful that mean that foxes can be destroyed/dug out with one dog.  It is not something that everyone is comfortable with but the law is what it is and a big part of the situation that both sides find themselves in now is because of that.


----------



## TTK (15 October 2021)

Palo, a gang of terrier men and a reasonable size pack are not 1 dog. I have followed for years, I know what I am seeing. Don’t try to defend the indefensible.


----------



## Miss_Millie (15 October 2021)

I'm so pleased with this outcome. I hope it will make people think twice before illegally hunting in the future. This does not reflect well on trail hunting, at all.


----------



## palo1 (15 October 2021)

TTK said:



			Palo, a gang of terrier men and a reasonable size pack are not 1 dog. I have followed for years, I know what I am seeing. Don’t try to defend the indefensible.
		
Click to expand...

I am not trying to defend the indefensible!!  I was responding to your post just to say that digging out a fox per se (however unpalatable that may be) is not necessarily illegal.  I don't know what you have seen.


----------



## paddy555 (15 October 2021)

palo1 said:



			It is genuinely lovely to hear of someone describe themselves as a 'hunting fanatic' in relation to the sport of trail hunting and following hounds - a breath of fresh air!! That has really cheered me up 

Click to expand...

so if trail hunting is so wonderful why doesn't everyone do it?


----------



## meleeka (15 October 2021)

£1000 fine is disappointing.


----------



## palo1 (15 October 2021)

paddy555 said:



			so if trail hunting is so wonderful why doesn't everyone do it?
		
Click to expand...


For the life of me I don't know!!  Well, not everyone feels confident to ride across country possibly at speed or over tricky terrain and obstacles.  Not everyone enjoys watching hounds following a scent especially not in cold and/or utterly miserable weather/horizontal rain.  Not everyone has the patience to sit quietly to wait until hounds can find a line to follow - that can be quite dull if you are not interested in the way hounds work.  Not everyone knows a mate or friend that is involved in trail hunting so may not feel confident to give it a go and the myths of trail-hunting entirely outside the scope of what the antis say can make it seem daunting. Not everyone has a horse that can listen and/or be safe to ride in the open in company.  Not everyone has transport or wants to use their horse time for riding in the winter when they may want to rest their horses/train for a certain discipline.  Not everyone wants to do any particular activity for all sorts of reasons.

I know what anti hunters say about the reasons not to go trail hunting so no need to repeat all those, there are other logistical and equestrian reasons too.  If you look at a great many of our most respected equestrians they have enjoyed and appreciated hunting for their horses and their own sakes.  It is a thing.   In spite of all the vitriol and the mess that has been reported a huge number of people involved with horses and all sorts of other people still enjoy and support trail hunting and every one of them has their own reason and take on that.   I do often wonder how antis by-pass the very many 'normal', 'reasonable' people who trail hunt but they do because it would be ridiculous to assert that everybody involved in trail hunting is a sick, bloodthirsty, sadist who is also mentally disturbed and happy to break the law!   It makes a total nonsense of the vets, doctors, nurses, farriers, teachers, farmers, labourers, plumbers, artists, policemen and women, teenagers (who really do know their own minds), etc that enjoy going out with hounds.  But hey, I have said this before and there probably isn't a need to repeat that on this forum where there is a really polarised debate on the issue.

Edited to add a bit about law breaking...


----------



## paddy555 (15 October 2021)

palo1 said:



			For the life of me I don't know!!  Well, not everyone feels confident to ride across country possibly at speed or over tricky terrain and obstacles.  Not everyone enjoys watching hounds following a scent especially not in cold and/or utterly miserable weather/horizontal rain.  Not everyone has the patience to sit quietly to wait until hounds can find a line to follow - that can be quite dull if you are not interested in the way hounds work.  Not everyone knows a mate or friend that is involved in trail hunting so may not feel confident to give it a go and the myths of trail-hunting entirely outside the scope of what the antis say can make it seem daunting. Not everyone has a horse that can listen and/or be safe to ride in the open in company.  Not everyone has transport or wants to use their horse time for riding in the winter when they may want to rest their horses/train for a certain discipline.  Not everyone wants to do any particular activity for all sorts of reasons.
		
Click to expand...

sorry, I didn't ask that question very well. I meant if trail hunting was so wonderful why don't people who want to hunt just do that. Why do they need to hunt fox.


----------



## millikins (15 October 2021)

paddy555 said:



			so if trail hunting is so wonderful why doesn't everyone do it?[/QUOTE

Not everyone does dressage or jousting or eventing, I'm sure each person who participates thinks their activity is wonderful.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## millikins (15 October 2021)

paddy555 said:



			sorry, I didn't ask that question very well. I meant if trail hunting was so wonderful why don't people who want to hunt just do that. Why do they need to hunt fox.
		
Click to expand...

I expect many of the mounted followers think they are trail hunting. And if a fox is killed it's explained as an accident.


----------



## palo1 (15 October 2021)

paddy555 said:



			sorry, I didn't ask that question very well. I meant if trail hunting was so wonderful why don't people who want to hunt just do that. Why do they need to hunt fox.
		
Click to expand...

You would need to ask someone else that question.


----------



## Tiddlypom (15 October 2021)

C'mon, the ridden field know perfectly well whether they are hunting a trail or a fox.

They are morally guilty as heck if they ride with a fox hunting pack, even though technically only the hunt staff and masters are committing an offence. All the fun of an illegal activity with none of the consequences.


----------



## Koweyka (15 October 2021)

palo1 said:



			For the life of me I don't know!!  Well, not everyone feels confident to ride across country possibly at speed or over tricky terrain and obstacles.  Not everyone enjoys watching hounds following a scent especially not in cold and/or utterly miserable weather/horizontal rain.  Not everyone has the patience to sit quietly to wait until hounds can find a line to follow - that can be quite dull if you are not interested in the way hounds work.  Not everyone knows a mate or friend that is involved in trail hunting so may not feel confident to give it a go and the myths of trail-hunting entirely outside the scope of what the antis say can make it seem daunting. Not everyone has a horse that can listen and/or be safe to ride in the open in company.  Not everyone has transport or wants to use their horse time for riding in the winter when they may want to rest their horses/train for a certain discipline.  Not everyone wants to do any particular activity for all sorts of reasons.

I know what anti hunters say about the reasons not to go trail hunting so no need to repeat all those, there are other logistical and equestrian reasons too.  If you look at a great many of our most respected equestrians they have enjoyed and appreciated hunting for their horses and their own sakes.  It is a thing.   In spite of all the vitriol and the mess that has been reported a huge number of people involved with horses and all sorts of other people still enjoy and support trail hunting and every one of them has their own reason and take on that.   I do often wonder how antis by-pass the very many 'normal', 'reasonable' people who trail hunt but they do because it would be ridiculous to assert that everybody involved in trail hunting is a sick, bloodthirsty, sadist who is also mentally disturbed.   It makes a total nonsense of the vets, doctors, nurses, farriers, teachers, farmers, labourers, plumbers, artists, policemen and women, teenagers (who really do know their own minds), etc that enjoy going out with hounds.  But hey, I have said this before and there probably isn't a need to repeat that on this forum where there is a really polarised debate on the issue.
		
Click to expand...

Just as it’s ridiculous to assert that all anti’s are unwashed, unemployed townies with no idea of the countryside, wouldn’t you say….

You still try and paint a pretty trail hunting picture, when it’s all a fraud, a lie, a myth …a smokescreen for hunting foxes. You are not fooling anyone Palo.

Also to be perfectly honest I think to continue to go out with a hunt that is blatantly hunting and killing and you are fully aware of this, I think you are mentally disturbed, what sane individual would want to be a part of that heinous cruelty and be a part of the death of innocent animals week after week and claim to be a well balanced individual. 

Why continue with a fox hunt, why not drag or clean boot or anything that doesn’t involve risking the lives of living creatures. I will never understand it.


----------



## Ambers Echo (15 October 2021)

millikins said:



			I expect many of the mounted followers think they are trail hunting. And if a fox is killed it's explained as an accident.
		
Click to expand...

Well this would apply to me. My kids went to a pony club attached to a hunt so they could hunt for free. For one reason or another we never actually went to a meet but planned to. Until I realised they were probably illegally hunting foxes. 

if I were to hunt now I’d go to a bloodhound hunt and follow a trail. I will never hunt with foxhounds. I had zero interest in hunting till the ban then felt I could join in as I assumed the hunts genuinely followed a trail.

 As I said earlier in the thread, I don’t want to get into a debate about hunting per se. But people have the right to make an informed choice about what they are doing so I was furious about the deceit.


----------



## palo1 (15 October 2021)

millikins said:



			I expect many of the mounted followers think they are trail hunting. And if a fox is killed it's explained as an accident.
		
Click to expand...

I think this is possible with some of the bigger hunts or where hunt staff are more remote from the field AND they either lose control of hounds or are hunting a fox.    Back in the day before the ban it wasn't at all unusual for members of the field to very rarely see a fox even when that was a legitimate quarry so for many folk trail hunting isn't that different in that sense.  It is something I have always wondered about in relation to antis but I don't really want to go down that road just now.


----------



## Ambers Echo (15 October 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			C'mon, the ridden field know perfectly well whether they are hunting a trail or a fox.
		
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t have done. I’m a city girl. Clueless about hunting but liked the idea of it. Sounded fun! Maybe if I’d ever gone I’d have worked it out but who knows


----------



## palo1 (15 October 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Just as it’s ridiculous to assert that all anti’s are unwashed, unemployed townies with no idea of the countryside, wouldn’t you say….

You still try and paint a pretty trail hunting picture, when it’s all a fraud, a lie, a myth …a smokescreen for hunting foxes. You are not fooling anyone Palo.

Also to be perfectly honest I think to continue to go out with a hunt that is blatantly hunting and killing and you are fully aware of this, I think you are mentally disturbed, what sane individual would want to be a part of that heinous cruelty and be a part of the death of innocent animals week after week and claim to be a well balanced individual.

Why continue with a fox hunt, why not drag or clean boot or anything that doesn’t involve risking the lives of living creatures. I will never understand it.
		
Click to expand...

I have never made those assertions about antis; the hunt monitors I have come across have been either very polite and respectful or full on masked, aggressive, camera wielding intimidators but I haven't ever assumed anything about their personal habits or employment.   Are you telling me that I am going out with a hunt that is blatantly hunting and killing?  

You are clearly telling me that I am mentally disturbed but I am not sure why other than that I support legal trail hunting which you cannot accept.  Is that a form of gas-lighting or just a kind of personal fascism?  I have and do go out with a drag pack and love going out with a clean boot hunt too.  I try, in my life generally, not to put any living thing at risk and would hope you do too.


----------



## ycbm (15 October 2021)

Palo can I ask if you approve of the verdict being appealed?
.


----------



## palo1 (15 October 2021)

Ambers Echo said:



			Well this would apply to me. My kids went to a pony club attached to a hunt so they could hunt for free. For one reason or another we never actually went to a meet but planned to. Until I realised they were probably illegally hunting foxes.

if I were to hunt now I’d go to a bloodhound hunt and follow a trail. I will never hunt with foxhounds. I had zero interest in hunting till the ban then felt I could join in as I assumed the hunts genuinely followed a trail.

As I said earlier in the thread, I don’t want to get into a debate about hunting per se. But people have the right to make an informed choice about what they are doing so I was furious about the deceit.
		
Click to expand...

I would hope you were not deceived by your local hunt. Bloodhounding is great fun so you should have no doubts about that.


----------



## Ambers Echo (15 October 2021)

My local hunt has been implicated in lots of unsavourary activities. So no, I don’t trust them now and we dropped out of pony club too. But there is a well regarded bloodhound pack nearby so maybe one day …


----------



## Koweyka (15 October 2021)

palo1 said:



			I have never made those assertions about antis; the hunt monitors I have come across have been either very polite and respectful or full on masked, aggressive, camera wielding intimidators but I haven't ever assumed anything about their personal habits or employment.   Are you telling me that I am going out with a hunt that is blatantly hunting and killing? 

You are clearly telling me that I am mentally disturbed but I am not sure why other than that I support legal trail hunting which you cannot accept.  Is that a form of gas-lighting or just a kind of personal fascism?  I have and do go out with a drag pack and love going out with a clean boot hunt too.  I try, in my life generally, not to put any living thing at risk and would hope you do too.
		
Click to expand...

Ooh you do make me giggle, you can read one thing and make it into a totally different scenario in your head to fit your narrative. Not everything is about you darling.


----------



## palo1 (15 October 2021)

ycbm said:



			Palo can I ask if you approve of the vetdict being appealed?
.
		
Click to expand...

I think an appeal is pointless - regardless of what may happen at appeal, the reputational damage has been done and overturning the verdict on appeal would be a pyrrhic victory.  I was very disappointed in the verdict of course but the more important task for hunting now and where I would prefer to see energy spent is on cleaning up the ghastly mess and instigating proper discipline, governance and effective and open communication about trailhunting.  I know of a young huntsman who has put his life and soul, as well as that of his young family into legal trail hunting, engaging the community, safely hunting much loved and uniquely bred hounds.  He represents the faith that many of us put into an institution that clearly couldn't do a proper job and communicate that job safely, clearly and with no room for the kind of toxic doubt that we have experienced.  I am furious on his behalf as well as the behalf of many of us who want to see hunting in the 21st century.  

I can't imagine a UK winter without being sat on a hill somewhere in the freezing/horizontal rain/wind/snow, watching wonderful, extraordinary hounds trying to work a scent, in the company of friends both equine and human and knowing that when hounds speak we might fly across ground we know and love and take on what comes our way.  For me that is a very essential connection with all of the things that matter to me and it has nothing whatsoever to do with foxes...it never has.  I know that antis will scoff and mock, call me vile names and suggest that I am deranged, sick or bloodthirsty and am hiding my real intentions (ie to take pleasure in killing animals) but I can at least still say how it is for me.  So, because of how important that all is for me, I want to see trail hunting put right where there are things to be put right.


----------



## ycbm (15 October 2021)

palo1 said:



			I was very disappointed in the verdict of course
		
Click to expand...

I hope that you mean that you were  disappointed that the things you were assured, (an assurance you passed on to us on the forum),  were taken out of context were in fact proven to be true?

I hope the sport can sort itself,  I'd quite like to trail hunt Joe.

But I really do think that it's going to be crucial to give up using fox scent, because it's going to be an uphill battle after this to convince anyone the sport is clean if it persists in using the scent of an animal it's not supposed to be chasing.  .


----------



## DabDab (15 October 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Just as it’s ridiculous to assert that all anti’s are unwashed, unemployed townies with no idea of the countryside, wouldn’t you say….

You still try and paint a pretty trail hunting picture, when it’s all a fraud, a lie, a myth …a smokescreen for hunting foxes. You are not fooling anyone Palo.

Also to be perfectly honest I think to continue to go out with a hunt that is blatantly hunting and killing and you are fully aware of this, I think you are mentally disturbed, what sane individual would want to be a part of that heinous cruelty and be a part of the death of innocent animals week after week and claim to be a well balanced individual.

Why continue with a fox hunt, why not drag or clean boot or anything that doesn’t involve risking the lives of living creatures. I will never understand it.
		
Click to expand...

You are a disgustingly rude individual. I don't agree with Palo's take on hunting but I am fairly certain that the words in your first para here have never been written on this thread before, so that is just the machinations of your own (seemingly v.adversarial) mind.


----------



## DabDab (15 October 2021)

Good news on the verdict, and moreso because of the decisiveness of the judge's words. 

I agree with ycbm, there is no reasonable justification for training using fox scent anymore and it would go a long way to show they were serious about change if they all agreed to pick another scent.


----------



## Michen (15 October 2021)

palo1 said:



			I think an appeal is pointless - regardless of what may happen at appeal, the reputational damage has been done and overturning the verdict on appeal would be a pyrrhic victory.  I was very disappointed in the verdict of course but the more important task for hunting now and where I would prefer to see energy spent is on cleaning up the ghastly mess and instigating proper discipline, governance and effective and open communication about trailhunting.  I know of a young huntsman who has put his life and soul, as well as that of his young family into legal trail hunting, engaging the community, safely hunting much loved and uniquely bred hounds.  He represents the faith that many of us put into an institution that clearly couldn't do a proper job and communicate that job safely, clearly and with no room for the kind of toxic doubt that we have experienced.  I am furious on his behalf as well as the behalf of many of us who want to see hunting in the 21st century. 

I can't imagine a UK winter without being sat on a hill somewhere in the freezing/horizontal rain/wind/snow, watching wonderful, extraordinary hounds trying to work a scent, in the company of friends both equine and human and knowing that when hounds speak we might fly across ground we know and love and take on what comes our way.  For me that is a very essential connection with all of the things that matter to me and it has nothing whatsoever to do with foxes...it never has.  I know that antis will scoff and mock, call me vile names and suggest that I am deranged, sick or bloodthirsty and am hiding my real intentions (ie to take pleasure in killing animals) but I can at least still say how it is for me.  So, because of how important that all is for me, I want to see trail hunting put right where there are things to be put right.
		
Click to expand...

Beautifully put.


----------



## palo1 (15 October 2021)

ycbm said:



			I hope that you mean that you were  disappointed that the things you were assured, (an assurance you passed on to us on the forum),  were taken out of context were in fact proven to be true?

I hope the sport can sort itself,  I'd quite like to trail hunt Joe.

But I really do think that it's going to be crucial to give up using fox scent, because it's going to be an uphill battle after this to convince anyone the sport is clean if it persists in using the scent of an animal it's not supposed to be chasing.  .
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I am hugely disappointed that Mark Hankinson has been deemed to have encouraged illegal hunting; that puts what I hold dear in great jeopardy.  I have listened to the webinars, read the transcripts of the same and read all of the court case submissions and still think that things were taken out of context.  I know of people attending those webinars (and others that didn't) who are shocked at the verdict because that is not how those things were received but that is now water under the bridge I think.  

The issue of fox scent is a historic one thanks to the awfulness of the hunting act.  Some people will argue that if fox scent was the real problem then hounds would never riot on other animals but I am not interested in that.  I am more interested in the integrity of the way the trail is laid - with many interruptions and challenges to the hounds etc which is far more testing for hounds than the 'plain drag' that drag packs use and which can end up feeling like either a fancy dress fun ride OR team chasing with less rules and more nutters!!   Blood hounding feels much more 'real' in that way too.  Trail hunting is supposed to be a true test of hounds so the laid trail has to be more difficult -  utlising tricky cover, water, interruptions, stinky drains etc.  It shouldn't really be about the field having a jolly as hound work is absolutely supposed to be the key. 

My old dog was a failed hound  - she was a bit 'idle' as she would follow a trail for a couple of miles or so and then want to go home please!! I had her from the age of 2.  She had a great nose and would have made a great S &R dog if I had wanted to get involved in that.  She was trained, not on the scent of fox but something else (I can't remember exactly what it was as I had her more than 13 years ago) and loved apples.  I am sure she would have followed a rasher of bacon with fairly minimal training...but no matter what I could have trained her to follow, she still would have been rather 'laid back' about it all lol (so perhaps not an ideal search and rescue dog after all...)  She was a gem in any case.


----------



## Michen (15 October 2021)

palo1 said:



			I think this is possible with some of the bigger hunts or where hunt staff are more remote from the field AND they either lose control of hounds or are hunting a fox.    Back in the day before the ban it wasn't at all unusual for members of the field to very rarely see a fox even when that was a legitimate quarry so for many folk trail hunting isn't that different in that sense.  It is something I have always wondered about in relation to antis but I don't really want to go down that road just now.
		
Click to expand...

I can honestly say that out of the 4 trail packs I’ve hunted with over the last few years I have never seen a fox 🤦‍♀️. Whether that means they are hunting legally or the hounds have not found anything when I’ve been out I don’t know. But then I’ve never been out particularly regularly and probably more often with drag than trail.


----------



## ester (15 October 2021)

L&M said:



			As a hunting fanatic, I am actually also pleased with the outcome, and agree the fine should have been bigger.

He has put hunting into even more disrepute and jeopardised the future of hunts that do actually follow a trail (mine being one).

Bloody idiot and just hope that finally all packs are made to tow the line, so that our wonderful sport and hounds still have a purpose, but going forward in a more civilised and legal manner.
		
Click to expand...

And this is why the statement from the MFHA confuses me, rather than state the above (which they really should have done) they are going to look to appeal it!? What a terrible statment.


----------



## Koweyka (15 October 2021)

DabDab said:



			You are a disgustingly rude individual. I don't agree with Palo's take on hunting but I am fairly certain that the words in your first para here have never been written on this thread before, so that is just the machinations of your own (seemingly v.adversarial) mind.
		
Click to expand...

So Palo can insinuate that anti’s have an idealistic view of the sort of people we believe ride out with the hunt, however when I mention the same can be said about the idealistic view of the well known insinuations about antis is that we are all unemployable unwashed townie yobs and you have an issue with that.

Your opinion of me means absolutely nothing to me, you haven’t walked a step in my shoes and seen what Trail Hunting is and how foxes are horrifically killed.

I won’t stoop down to your low level of aggressive name calling, for something you are clearly confused about.


----------



## Fern007 (15 October 2021)

millikins said:



			I expect many of the mounted followers think they are trail hunting. And if a fox is killed it's explained as an accident.
		
Click to expand...


The hunts, before the ban, were doing a ' job for the farmers. They were getting rid of the foxes that may or may not harm livestock or game birds in return for riding across the farmers land. I suppose the hunts felt trail hunting was a bit pointless. I'm glad he was found guilty, hopefully paving the way for a few more guilty verdicts. They are kinder ways ie shooting the foxes in order to keep numbers down.  My OH is a game keeper and shoots foxes regularly. They know absolutely nothing about it.


----------



## Tiddlypom (16 October 2021)

palo1 said:



			Yes, I am hugely disappointed that Mark Hankinson has been deemed to have encouraged illegal hunting; that puts what I hold dear in great jeopardy. I have listened to the webinars, read the transcripts of the same and read all of the court case submissions and still think that things were taken out of context.
		
Click to expand...

So you're still in denial about the fact that MH was encouraging illegal hunting? It was clear as day, as the judge agreed.

Good grief. You really do have your head in the sand.

I fully agree with ycbm and others that the only possible was for hunting to save itself now is to *voluntarily* move away from using fox scent, and to state that very publicly pdq. The ball is firmly in hunting's court now as to how to respond, but soon the choice will be out of their hands as more major landowners bar access. Who wants to be seen to allow a known illegal activity on their land?


----------



## skinnydipper (16 October 2021)

No matter how people dress it up, they use fox scent because they want to hunt fox.


----------



## palo1 (16 October 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			So you're still in denial about the fact that MH was encouraging illegal hunting? It was clear as day, as the judge agreed.

Good grief. You really do have your head in the sand.

I fully agree with ycbm and others that the only possible was for hunting to save itself now is to move away from using fox scent.
		
Click to expand...

That is not what I have said at all.  We are all free to interpret things the way we want but my words are clear I think; the interpretation is yours.


----------



## Sandstone1 (16 October 2021)

skinnydipper said:



			No matter how people dress it up, they use fox scent because they want to hunt fox.
		
Click to expand...

Completely agree with this.   Its obvious what goes on and its come to the time when it will not be tolerated.   Hunting with hounds has been banned for years but they have just carried on as if they are above the law.   I feel that now with mobile phones, drones and monitors and sabs that film the goings on it just can not continue.


----------



## Gallop_Away (16 October 2021)

As I wrote on the shooting hounds thread, if hunting is ever to have a place in this modern world it needs to change with the times. 
For those of us who trail hunt legally this verdict is incredibly disappointing as we have been let down massively and thrown under the bus with the illegal hunts in the eyes of the public. 
We all now need to stick together to turn things around and prove that we can follow the law. We also need to condemn illegal hunting as LOUDLY as possible. 
Palo has put the beauty of trail hunting across so well in their previous posts. It can still have a place in this world but things need to change for that to happen. I hope this will be the wakeup call hunting needs!


----------



## Sandstone1 (16 October 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			So you're still in denial about the fact that MH was encouraging illegal hunting? It was clear as day, as the judge agreed.

Good grief. You really do have your head in the sand.

I fully agree with ycbm and others that the only possible was for hunting to save itself now is to move away from using fox scent.
		
Click to expand...




Gallop_Away said:



			As I wrote on the shooting hounds thread, if hunting is ever to have a place in this modern world it needs to change with the times.
For those of us who trail hunt legally this verdict is incredibly disappointing as we have been let down massively and thrown under the bus with the illegal hunts in the eyes of the public.
We all now need to stick together to turn things around and prove that we can follow the law. We also need to condemn illegal hunting as LOUDLY as possible.
Palo has put the beauty of trail hunting across so well in their previous posts. It can still have a place in this world but things need to change for that to happen. I hope this will be the wakeup call hunting needs!
		
Click to expand...

Although I have no issue with genuine trail hunting, im not sure it can go on.  Firstly farmers in lots of cases only allow the hunt on their land to control foxes.  If that is fully and completely stopped I cant see that many landowners are going to want the disruption and damage caused by trail hunting.    The upset and stress caused by the hunt to livestock plus the damage to land is considerable.   Problems with hunts trespassing and even killing pets plus the increasing lack of land due to increased housing etc will bring the end to all hunting.


----------



## Gallop_Away (16 October 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			Although I have no issue with genuine trail hunting, im not sure it can go on.  Firstly farmers in lots of cases only allow the hunt on their land to control foxes.  If that is fully and completely stopped I cant see that many landowners are going to want the disruption and damage caused by trail hunting.    The upset and stress caused by the hunt to livestock plus the damage to land is considerable.   Problems with hunts trespassing and even killing pets plus the increasing lack of land due to increased housing etc will bring the end to all hunting.
		
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying and I'm not suggesting it will be in anyway easy but I think it is possible. Our hunt has an excellent relationship with our land owners as does the drag pack I have hunted with. The land owners have just as much love for hunting and watching hounds work as we do. 
It takes effort and communication but masters from both hunts are superb at maintaining this relationship and won't put up with any nonsense from anyone out of respect for our land owners. 
The issue of killing of pets is awful and one that should be utterly condemned. It is no excuse for hounds not to be able to be recalled at a split second. Again I have witnessed the amazing work our master puts in with his hounds. This is clearly something hunting needs to address and show the public. 
We have a great deal of work to do clearly.


----------



## ycbm (16 October 2021)

palo1 said:



			That is not what I have said at all.  We are all free to interpret things the way we want but my words are clear I think; the interpretation is yours.
		
Click to expand...


Your words are clear as day to me Palo.

You do not believe that the Chairman of the MFA was guilty of encouraging the illegal hunting of fox.

How you continue to hold that point of view, having read the judgement, astounds me. 

It is that kind of attitude which will kill hunting Palo, you are bringing about your own demise.


----------



## ycbm (16 October 2021)

Gallop_Away said:



			As I wrote on the shooting hounds thread, if hunting is ever to have a place in this modern world it needs to change with the times.
For those of us who trail hunt legally this verdict is incredibly disappointing as we have been let down massively and thrown under the bus with the illegal hunts in the eyes of the public.
We all now need to stick together to turn things around and prove that we can follow the law. We also need to condemn illegal hunting as LOUDLY as possible.
Palo has put the beauty of trail hunting across so well in their previous posts. It can still have a place in this world but things need to change for that to happen. I hope this will be the wakeup call hunting needs!
		
Click to expand...


Excellent post. This is what is needed if I am ever going to be able to hunt Joe. And I really want to.  
.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (16 October 2021)

skinnydipper said:



			No matter how people dress it up, they use fox scent because they want to hunt fox.
		
Click to expand...

This is the long and short of it for me as well. The hunting act will never be repealed so there is no valid reason to continue to use fox scent to lay trails. It just confirms that everyone is hoping for an "accident" to take place.

If hunts hadn't been so opposed to progression, there wouldn't be a pack alive today that wasn't trained to follow an artificial scent.


----------



## palo1 (16 October 2021)

skinnydipper said:



			No matter how people dress it up, they use fox scent because they want to hunt fox.

ETA.  ... still hunt fox.
		
Click to expand...




ycbm said:



			Your words are clear as day to me Palo.

You do not believe that the Chairman of the a MFA was guilty of encouraging the illegal hunting of fox.

How you continue to hold that point of view, having read the judgement, astounds me.

It is that kind of attitude which will kill hunting Palo, you are bringing about your own demise.

View attachment 81168

Click to expand...

Well thank you for that! If you are going to be so blunt I will return the favour...When will you accept that your viewpoint on hunting is not the only one? When will you accept that people who trail hunt understand and care about the issues and pay close attention to and discuss the nuance and detail of everything in the public eye and on the hunting field?  When will you accept that people, like myself, who live in a contemporary society doing ordinary jobs alongside other ordinary people who may have different views,  do think about both the moral/ethical issues as well as the way that the wider public might view that activity?  I have far too much to lose personally and professionally to engage in activities that are illegal or will compromise me in any other way.   When will you accept that you are not, in fact, an expert on the realities of trail hunting in spite of having very strong opinons on the subject?

I do care passionately about the future of hounds and absolutely want to see real, credible improvements in the existing system which clearly does not work.  I want to support trail hunting, not bring about it's demise; have you considered that?  Have you considered that I try to communicate my views as openly and clearly as I can and that I have no interest, no possible reason to hide my head in the sand or to make statements that will bring me personal grief?  Perhaps you feel I am simply stupid. 

I do understand the context of the webinars, I know and understand some of the people attending as well as some of the people presenting and discussing on those webinars.  Why MH said the things he did which have brought those webinars to court I have no idea; he is VERY aware of the law and his position at that time in relation to the law.  It is far worse than 'unfortunate' and I certainly don't want to gloss over what was said and how it has been interpreted in spite of knowing many trail hunters that are committed to hunting within the law.   I understand the judgement made against MH and have not dismissed that.   I have agreed with other posters that there must be improvements that demonstrate far more effectively that legal trail hunting is entirely possible. 

Sometimes your attitude toward my posts on trail hunting feels really personal.  That is not pleasant and I hope I try to avoid that approach myself but I really wanted to reply to you in the same spirit.


----------



## skinnydipper (16 October 2021)

palo1 said:



			I believe that the reason fo
		
Click to expand...

The part of your post addressed to me is missing.

I am not sure what you were about to say to explain the reason for using fox scent but if dogs can be trained to identify when a person is in the prodromal phase of a seizure, can detect cancer in urine,  identify and alert a diabetic to a hyperglycaemic attack and locate a cadaver under water, then surely hounds can be trained to track a scent other than fox.


----------



## palo1 (16 October 2021)

skinnydipper said:



			The part of your post addressed to me is missing.

I am not sure what you were about to say to explain the reason for using fox scent but if dogs can be trained to detect when a person is in the prodromal phase of a seizure, can identify and alert a diabetic to a hyperglycaemic attack and locate a cadaver under water, then surely hounds can be trained to track a scent other than fox.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry - I don't really know what that bit of text was doing there which is why I just removed it.  I think it was part of another post or earlier edit but I didn't deliberately try to respond to this post.  I did reply to the idea of scent based training earlier in fact.


----------



## ester (16 October 2021)

palo1 said:



			I understand the judgement made against MH and have not dismissed that.   I have agreed with other posters that there must be improvements that demonstrate far more effectively that legal trail hunting is entirely possible.
.
		
Click to expand...

Are you confident on the basis of the MFHA statement that they are going to make those improvements? They've just never come across as keen to do so to me, and to me that statement confirms that remains the case so I'm curious if you read it differently.


----------



## ycbm (16 October 2021)

palo1 said:



			I understand the judgement made against MH and have not dismissed that.
		
Click to expand...

But you have. You don't actually agree that the verdict was the correct one,  it's clear from what you wrote above that is the case. 

Will you make an unequivocal statement that you accept that the Chairman of the organisation which controls your sport was giving advice to hunts how to evade the law and hunt fox? 
.


----------



## palo1 (16 October 2021)

ester said:



			Are you confident on the basis of the MFHA statement that they are going to make those improvements? They've just never come across as keen to do so to me, and to me that statement confirms that remains the case so I'm curious if you read it differently.
		
Click to expand...

I am frustrated that the MFHA want to go through an appeal process - personally I think it would be much better if they progressed to improvement actions.  I don't know why an appeal might be considered the best course of action tbh but I don't know what Richard Lissack QC does so his advice to the MFHA may be pertinent.  Or not!

I would like to see an action plan for hunting days as well as a clear disciplinary code and severe penalties for bringing hunting into disrepute that is absolutely clear to everyone and adhered to. That needs to be transparent for the general public.  The MFHA do have a great deal in place already with regard to code of conduct for hunting days, reporting procedures but it is opaque and clearly not well communicated to the general public and it looks as if there is no real solid procedure for dealing with hunting related incidents.  I don't know why.  I am not sure whether the current MFHA can do that -  they haven't responded to issues in the best and most pro-active way in the last couple of years and although there is a new team in place there now I don't know if they can turn things around sufficiently.

Hunts must have clear evidence of trail hunting for every day they go out; that is already the Hunting Office's position but the reality of that hasn't been effective enough.   Hunts are starting to use drones now to help with that as somehow that is more interesting for people to do than try to record lots of different positions (huntsman & whips for example) using headcams etc.    Last time a hunt used a drone to record their day (a week or so ago I think), the sabs present objected mightily and threatened civil action for invasion of privacy even though the hunt drone had the landowner's permission.  Drone wars are not particularly appealing but that is one way that hunts could record their day but there are also issues with that.   It was interesting that the antis/sabs were so vehement about it too...

It hasn't been sufficient to  have identified trail layers (I recorded 2 or 3 every time I was doing thiis last season as part of the Covid protocol) - somehow the laying of trails and the subsequent hunting of trails have to be proven I guess.  Some hunts will find that easier than others.   When I was recording our trail layers for Covid reasons I had to only keep that paperwork for 3 weeks for GDPR reasons - after that it had to be destroyed which would not have been very handy if I had subsequently been asked to produce that for any enquiry.  I have never met a trail layer that wouldn't have been entirely happy to be questioned about their activities and I guess they could use a GPS watch or something like that to record trails. I am not sure technology is the answer.  The use of scent is a question the MFHA should deal with but again, after allegations of illegal hunting have been made how can it be proven that the 'right' scent has been used?  The scent used on that day could be easily 'faked' or simply disappear on the ground.  How on earth can that be policed?  I don't accept that all trail hunts are hunting illegally at all and I don't accept that there is a universal culture of acceptance of illegality in hunting - in fact, I know there isn't.   One of the issues is that much of hunting process has been developed through custom and practice rather than with a set of tick box procedures though increasingly kennel management is like that.  Hound breeding has always been incredibly well documented at least but that isn't the issue in question.

I don't really want to contribute more to this thread tbh as there is little ground to be gained here but one of the key issues is that you need a particular sort of person leading an organisation to accept publicly that things haven't been done in the best way and then either resign or demonstrate that change really is afoot.   There has been an increase in grass roots hunters wanting this change and seeing it as eminently possible but the MFHA? Who knows.

ETA: on the private hunting groups on social media there is a really strong consensus that an absolute minority of hunting is illegal; there is outrage and a real sense of injustice about what the public perception is thanks to this current debacle.  I don't think I have seen anything really that clarifies whether MHs word encouraged anyone to hunt illegally as the overwhelming viiew is that people have been following the law and where they haven't there has always been real anger that this endangers all hunting.  I know what I say won't be convincing for some people but I wanted to say it anyway.


----------



## paddy555 (16 October 2021)

palo1 said:



			I would like to see an action plan for hunting days as well as a clear disciplinary code and severe penalties for bringing hunting into disrepute that is absolutely clear to everyone and adhered to. That needs to be transparent for the general public. 


   There has been an increase in grass roots hunters wanting this change and seeing it as eminently possible but the MFHA? Who knows.
		
Click to expand...

what would be really helpful for the general public, the likes of me who have to put up with hunting, would be knowing when and where the meet was going to be held well in advance. Having just come back from riding I luckily heard them and was able to find a way home.  If you have nothing to hide let people know, if you want to go behind closed doors because you are  flouting the rules then keep it as quiet as possible. 

secondly nothing will change. The MFHA have no wish for it to change. "We in our ivory towers". This is how it has always been done. I expect they said the same about bear baiting at one time. 
 If they have wanted change there would have been an immediate apology and how the situation was going to be rectified. What we got was their huge disappointment and now can we have an appeal to get out of it. Beggars belief.


----------



## Sandstone1 (16 October 2021)

Pro hunters can argue til the cows come home, anyone who lives near to or sees what local hunts get up too knows full well that they do often purposely hunt foxes.   They dont let people know when they are meeting anymore to try and avoid sabs so they can get on with doing their thing in peace.  In the most part trail hunting IS a smokescreen for fox hunting.  IF they have nothing to hide why do it in secret??
Why do they need terrier men if they are trail hunting?  why do they need birds of prey?
What it needs is for a few people to go to jail for it.


----------



## Tiddlypom (16 October 2021)

Well, pro hunt will always declare that it is a tiny minority who break the law, and that 'they' are hunting legally 🤷‍♀️. Doesn't make it true.

The master who kept trying to assure me that my local pack was indeed trail hunting, when it was clearly still fox hunting as always, was lying through their teeth.

As long as pro hunt stay in such denial, and do not realise that at the very least they must commit to a time line to stop laying 'trails' with fox scent, they continue to hurtle ever more rapidly to a total ban.

A couple of news reports. There was also an item about the trial result on the BBC 6pm TV news, despite there being so much coverage of the terrible death of Sir David Amess. The beeb are much less likely to report on stuff negative to hunting than ITV.

https://fb.watch/8GuyVQDJTq/ng

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...KxbslZeVyDEQSuzbPaT7aXqVz-5Mpe0ZIBZpGbBDCXGu4

ETA And then this weird statement by the pro hunt This is Hunting UK FB group.

_Mark Hankinson the Director of the Master of Foxhounds Association was this afternoon found guilty of the charges brought against him.

This is Hunting UK is well aware of the implications of the outcome and how the Hunting Act, however unjustly introduced, has to be respected.

The time has come to now begin a serious campaign to tackle the Hunting_ _Act and its anomalies with the aim of bringing back public respect. 

This should and must be done alongside proper engagement with the public._

Erm, where's the bit condemning the illegal actions? Wtf does '*The time has come to now begin a serious campaign to tackle the Hunting Act and its anomalies with the aim of bringing back public respect.*' even mean?


----------



## Ambers Echo (16 October 2021)

As far as I can tell, it means: the Act is rubbish and should be repealed. He is guilty in the eyes of the law but we have no issues with what he did. While this IS the law, we ought to grudgingly respect it if caught, while ignoring it as far as possible behind closed doors. And while working to overturn it. We need a PR campaign on why fox hunting is fine.

They won't condemn him for doing what he did because they don't see anything wrong with hunting foxes with hounds. And abolition of the Act is the aim, not cleaning up trail hutning. 

Which confirms what lots of people believe - that trail hunting was always a cover for ongoing illegal hunting.

Hunting is doomed.


----------



## Ambers Echo (16 October 2021)

I was pleased when the ban came in because I felt that it opened up hunting to people like me who would never have hunted when the aim was to chase and kill a fox. Maybe foxes do need to be culled but I would always view the culling of any animal as a necessary evil not a fun day out or a sport.

But Palo's description of hunting is also wonderful and I would love to do it. Such a shame that the hunting world just can't seem to see that there are so many possibilities within trail hunting. They just want it to be like it always was and that clinging to the past will destroy the possibility of a differeny kind if hunting in the future, that rerains a lot of what made it so special. It's so blinkered and such a shame.


----------



## Backtoblack (16 October 2021)

they are obviously hunting foxes. only drag hunting should be allowed , not trail hunting


----------



## paddy555 (16 October 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			Wtf does '*The time has come to now begin a serious campaign to tackle the Hunting Act and its anomalies with the aim of bringing back public respect.*' even mean?
		
Click to expand...

it simply means that now, in the fullness of time, after many years of consideration after the 2004 act and in due course, when we finally and eventually get around to it, depending on how many more times we get caught out of course we will start to give the matter some thought, a very long and serious thought process which will buy even more time. 

 The final 6 words mean we don't give a f**ck about the public but finally we are starting to have to realise that the pesky public do exist, not that they know anything about hunting nor indeed should they. 

I am not sure why they think there must be proper engagement with the public, all the public I know would be quite happy with a total ban, full stop, I'm sure most don't see a difference between fox hunting, drag, trail hunting or any other sort of hunting. In that they are in total agreement with the MFHA who also don't see a difference between fox and trail hunting.


----------



## ycbm (16 October 2021)

ycbm said:



			Will you make an unequivocal statement that you accept that the Chairman of the organisation which controls your sport was giving advice to hunts how to evade the law and hunt fox?
.
		
Click to expand...

After 4 hours , during which you have posted,  I will take your silence as a "no", Palo.

You believe that a man who says that the purpose of laying a trail is to ensure that the hunt is covered by insurance was not giving advice how to hunt fox illegally. 

There is no future for your sport if as many people as you seem to suggest believe the same, and neither should there be. 
.


----------



## palo1 (16 October 2021)

This is Hunting UK have been pressing for disciplinary action to be much more serious for illegal hunting for years as well as working to support trail layers and to promote good practice.  They are certainly not huge fans of the MFHA!   They are one group that is really only interested in promoting legal hunting and I understand the highlighted sentence above to mean that this organisation wants amendment of the Hunting Act to make hunting with public confidence possible.  You see what you want to see but it is always good to challenge that with alternative views.


----------



## palo1 (16 October 2021)

ycbm said:



			After 4 hours , during which you have posted,  I will take your silence as a "no", Palo.

You believe that a man who says that the purpose of laying a trail is to ensure that the hunt is covered by insurance was not giving advice how to hunt fox illegally.

There is no future for your sport if as many people as you seem to suggest believe the same, and neither should there be.
.
		
Click to expand...

@ycbm you can think whatever you like - you are clearly incapable of considering an alternative viewpoint.


----------



## ycbm (16 October 2021)

palo1 said:



@ycbm you can think whatever you like - you are clearly incapable of considering an alternative viewpoint.
		
Click to expand...

There is no "alternative viewpoint".  I am asking you to state a yes or no answer to a yes or no question which you have so far used every "qualified agreement" trick in the book  to avoid doing.

Do you believe that the man convicted was guilty of telling people how to evade the law and hunt illegally?

Yes    or     No.


----------



## Miss_Millie (16 October 2021)

It shouldn't be a matter of whether or not someone _thinks_ he was guilty, he *was *blatantly guilty, he literally told people to use hunting as a smokescreen, and anyone who believes otherwise is in serious denial.


----------



## palo1 (16 October 2021)

For the record I don't think MH was telling people how to evade the law - he was telling people how to evade sabs.  His QC pointed out that MH had spent years adhering to the letter of the law and checking that others did the same. He was absolutely aware of every facet of the Hunting Act.  The way that he discussed the subject which was the entire raison d'etre of the webinars - how to deal with sabs, is dire.  I have no idea why he communicated in that way.   BUT the judge has convicted him so it doesn't matter what I think.  The fact is that he has been convicted and as a result I think the MFHA needs an entirely new team and a new approach.


----------



## palo1 (16 October 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			It shouldn't be a matter of whether or not someone _thinks_ he was guilty, he *was *blatantly guilty, he literally told people to use hunting as a smokescreen, and anyone who believes otherwise is in serious denial.
		
Click to expand...

No he didn't.  He told people to create a smokescreen to prevent sabs disrupting hunting activities.


----------



## Tiddlypom (16 October 2021)

Oh dear 🙄.

Deluded.

I've corrected your post for you.



palo1 said:



			No he didn't.  He told people to create a smokescreen to prevent sabs disrupting *illegal* hunting activities.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## ycbm (16 October 2021)

I have no idea why he communicated in that way.
		
Click to expand...

My answer to that would be that it was because,  unlike you, he is in an area where illegal hunting is/was widespread,  he believed that the webinars were being listened to only by people within hunting who collude with illegal hunting whether their own hunt does it or not (if only by their silence on the issue) and he fully intended to give advice on how to hunt illegally in the presence of sabs.

It's unusual to be represented by a barrister rather than a solicitor in a Magistrates Court. It's exceptionally unusual to be represented by a Queen's  Council, the highest paid lawyers in the Criminal Court system who would normally only be seen in Crown Court.   And if a QC could not get "reasonable doubt" into the mind of a District Judge who is lower down the legal heirarchy than himself,  my own opinion is that the verdict is a safe one.

I genuinely respect your passion for your sport and your level of knowledge about it,  Palo. But your ability to believe that the webinars were innocent in spite of what you know was said and then not understand why it was said  is perplexing,  to say the least.  I hope the sport survives but with the reaction from the top so far I'm not holding my breath.
.


----------



## L&M (16 October 2021)

Gallop_Away said:



			As I wrote on the shooting hounds thread, if hunting is ever to have a place in this modern world it needs to change with the times.
For those of us who trail hunt legally this verdict is incredibly disappointing as we have been let down massively and thrown under the bus with the illegal hunts in the eyes of the public.
We all now need to stick together to turn things around and prove that we can follow the law. We also need to condemn illegal hunting as LOUDLY as possible.
Palo has put the beauty of trail hunting across so well in their previous posts. It can still have a place in this world but things need to change for that to happen. I hope this will be the wakeup call hunting needs!
		
Click to expand...

With you 110%......


----------



## Backtoblack (17 October 2021)

I sat on the fence re fox hunting for many years eventually deciding to be pro hunting, only after the ban did I actually attend meets,had good times, made friends, good social scene  after realising that our local Hunt was flouting the law I became disenchanted, especially at the digging out of badgers and putting them in sacks,at least one terrier man was presecuted I believe,it went on for years. I am completely disgusted by the whole thing and am now anti hunting. Hunts had a chance to keep going,but they shot thereselvese in the foot, I recently voted against letting them hunt on N T land, something I thought I would never do. Time for a proper total ban.


----------



## ycbm (17 October 2021)

Backtoblack said:



			I sat on the fence re fox hunting for many years
		
Click to expand...

I thought we were supposed to jump them 🤣

(Sorry,  couldn't resist)


----------



## Backtoblack (17 October 2021)

ycbm said:



			I thought we were supposed to jump them 🤣

(Sorry,  couldn't resist)
		
Click to expand...

ROFL 😂🤣😂😂😂🤣


----------



## Miss_Millie (17 October 2021)

Backtoblack said:



			I sat on the fence re fox hunting for many years eventually deciding to be pro hunting, only after the ban did I actually attend meets,had good times, made friends, good social scene  after realising that our local Hunt was flouting the law I became disenchanted, especially at the *digging out of badgers and putting them in sacks*,at least one terrier man was presecuted I believe,it went on for years. I am completely disgusted by the whole thing and am now anti hunting. Hunts had a chance to keep going,but they shot thereselvese in the foot, I recently voted against letting them hunt on N T land, something I thought I would never do. Time for a proper total ban.
		
Click to expand...

Urgh what the hell is wrong with some people, that's awful. Thanks for sharing your experience.


----------



## Tiddlypom (17 October 2021)

I'd be wanting my money back after the fancy pants defending QC allowed the accused to put forward character witnesses from a hunt with a tarnished background (the Cottesmore). Though, to be fair, most of the big name packs have had 'issues' of one sort or another.

The prosecution presumably simply googled the Cottesmore Hunt and dug out the readily available info about a terrierman from that pack being convicted of digging out a badger sett on a hunting day in 2015. Prosecution then proceeded to completely trip up a main defence character witness, a master of the Cottesmore.  When this was put to him the witness initially said "I can't remember what he pleaded or what the case was". Prompting the judge to ask 'You have no idea if a man employed by your hunt was convicted?'

Later another master had to admit, after some blustering, that despite the conviction, the terrierman is still employed by the Cottesmore 'though not by me'.

Some character witnesses. More like dodgy, evasive and shifty.


----------



## palo1 (19 October 2021)

Update from the Hunting Office:-

Hunting Office Statement
"Yesterday, Mark Hankinson resigned as Director of the MFHA.  Mr Hankinson is still considering an appeal, however, following Friday's judgment and considering the length of time any appeal process may take, he decided that he was unable to continue in the role. The Hunting Office team and the wider hunting community thank him for his many years of dedication to hunting with hounds".
Published 19th October 2021

I think this is, as far as it can be, good news.  I hope now that changes, improvements and a new direction can be found.  Some people feel that MH has been the fall guy for the senior leadership at the MFHA but whatever the context of that this had to be the outcome I think.


----------



## Tiddlypom (19 October 2021)

It was inevitable. The only surprise is that it has taken this long.

He ought to be the first of many, of course. The whole organisation needs root and branch reform, but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## palo1 (19 October 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			It was inevitable. The only surprise is that it has taken this long.

He ought to be the first of many, of course. The whole organisation needs root and branch reform, but I'm not holding my breath.
		
Click to expand...

For once I agree with you!!  For public confidence and that of hunt staff I do think there needs to be a complete clearout.  I don't think that will happen to the extent it may need to and I am not sure what Andrew Oscborne will bring to his role but at least, at the very least, MH's resignation signals some recognition of things needing to change and be seen to change.  The MFHA is not the best beloved body of hunt staff - there is a real sense of shame, frustration and absolute outrage in the grass roots as those people feel they have more invested in the future of hunting than the MFHA.  I seriously hope that a team that is far more in touch and more committed to open communication and real governance is put in place to start with.


----------



## Tiddlypom (19 October 2021)

Plus if the new team could commit to ensuring that all illegal hunting and practices stop henceforth, it would be a bonus .


----------



## palo1 (19 October 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			Plus if the new team could commit to ensuring that all illegal hunting and practices stop henceforth, it would be a bonus .
		
Click to expand...

If appropriate governance were in place then that would happen.


----------



## Sossigpoker (19 October 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			Plus if the new team could commit to ensuring that all illegal hunting and practices stop henceforth, it would be a bonus .
		
Click to expand...

Don't hold your breath as you will die waiting


----------



## palo1 (24 October 2021)

Reports of Trail Hunting confound sabs in Cheshire...(from their own sab reports: Cheshire Hunt Saboteurs)

We had a fair few friends out with us today whilst out keeping an eye on the Cheshire Hounds; Stockport Monitors, Midlands Wildlife Action, and independents.
Cheshire Hounds met at Edgley Lodge Farm in Haughton, at 2.30pm.
With a large field of riders gathered, we were invited to watch the first trail being laid. Hounds then came into the field and quickly found the trail, speaking as they followed the line.
There were a lot of jumps and photo opportunities for the field today, and no attempt to lose us.
With the hunt staying in the Haughton area, we were able to stay with the hounds throughout, although with many new and young riders, they were only out for two hours.
Following them back to their meet point, we waited for them to pack up to ensure there was no sneaking off.
All in all, another day of transparent trail laying, trails followed, and no active hunting. Exactly what we like to see.
We heard that our old frenemy, Volvo Man Derek sadly passed away earlier this year - he was always great at inadvertently letting us know where the hunt were, RIP Derek.
Whilst some of us were with Cheshire Hounds, a few others had already been over to see Cheshire Forest in Over Alderley with Cheshire Against Blood Sports and Midlands Wildlife Action.
Unusually, they also laid trails, and appeared to follow them - who’d have thought it?! Two hunts, both trail laying, and all keen to be transparent.
































+6


246246
21 Comments
42 Shares

Like



Comment


Share


----------



## Koweyka (24 October 2021)

palo1 said:



			Reports of Trail Hunting confound sabs in Cheshire...(from their own sab reports: Cheshire Hunt Saboteurs)

We had a fair few friends out with us today whilst out keeping an eye on the Cheshire Hounds; Stockport Monitors, Midlands Wildlife Action, and independents.
Cheshire Hounds met at Edgley Lodge Farm in Haughton, at 2.30pm.
With a large field of riders gathered, we were invited to watch the first trail being laid. Hounds then came into the field and quickly found the trail, speaking as they followed the line.
There were a lot of jumps and photo opportunities for the field today, and no attempt to lose us.
With the hunt staying in the Haughton area, we were able to stay with the hounds throughout, although with many new and young riders, they were only out for two hours.
Following them back to their meet point, we waited for them to pack up to ensure there was no sneaking off.
All in all, another day of transparent trail laying, trails followed, and no active hunting. Exactly what we like to see.
We heard that our old frenemy, Volvo Man Derek sadly passed away earlier this year - he was always great at inadvertently letting us know where the hunt were, RIP Derek.
Whilst some of us were with Cheshire Hounds, a few others had already been over to see Cheshire Forest in Over Alderley with Cheshire Against Blood Sports and Midlands Wildlife Action.
Unusually, they also laid trails, and appeared to follow them - who’d have thought it?! Two hunts, both trail laying, and all keen to be transparent.

























=AZVLBiYjCX4afnIPVt-EKK2BYOUb5fuBmCANmK_HoYNq-6XuWmBV3qtXbfWZJLI4ENRzgAyFksTlGum-JY-f6-T0STJsEdqsW9p5Xp99pUhNYy4oiCkY4EFXQZNSuzZipoR6v4IccEfaycPu95QmNp-Z&__tn__=*bH-R']+6

246246
21 Comments
42 Shares

Like



Comment


Share
		
Click to expand...

Don’t get over excited it’s taken years and years of hard work by monitors and sabs and the deaths of many foxes and dwindling fields and loss of support from landowners to get the Cheshire Hunts to even attempt to trial. All the hunts in Cheshire blatantly hunted foxes and it wasn’t out of the desire to no longer break the law that forced this action, they really had no choice.


----------



## BeckyFlowers (24 October 2021)

palo1 said:



			Reports of Trail Hunting confound sabs in Cheshire...(from their own sab reports: Cheshire Hunt Saboteurs)

We had a fair few friends out with us today whilst out keeping an eye on the Cheshire Hounds; Stockport Monitors, Midlands Wildlife Action, and independents.
Cheshire Hounds met at Edgley Lodge Farm in Haughton, at 2.30pm.
With a large field of riders gathered, we were invited to watch the first trail being laid. Hounds then came into the field and quickly found the trail, speaking as they followed the line.
There were a lot of jumps and photo opportunities for the field today, and no attempt to lose us.
With the hunt staying in the Haughton area, we were able to stay with the hounds throughout, although with many new and young riders, they were only out for two hours.
Following them back to their meet point, we waited for them to pack up to ensure there was no sneaking off.
All in all, another day of transparent trail laying, trails followed, and no active hunting. Exactly what we like to see.
We heard that our old frenemy, Volvo Man Derek sadly passed away earlier this year - he was always great at inadvertently letting us know where the hunt were, RIP Derek.
Whilst some of us were with Cheshire Hounds, a few others had already been over to see Cheshire Forest in Over Alderley with Cheshire Against Blood Sports and Midlands Wildlife Action.
Unusually, they also laid trails, and appeared to follow them - who’d have thought it?! Two hunts, both trail laying, and all keen to be transparent.

























=AZVLBiYjCX4afnIPVt-EKK2BYOUb5fuBmCANmK_HoYNq-6XuWmBV3qtXbfWZJLI4ENRzgAyFksTlGum-JY-f6-T0STJsEdqsW9p5Xp99pUhNYy4oiCkY4EFXQZNSuzZipoR6v4IccEfaycPu95QmNp-Z&__tn__=*bH-R']+6

246246
21 Comments
42 Shares

Like



Comment


Share
		
Click to expand...

It's a great start, let's hope it continues (and other hunts start/continue to act this way).


----------



## Jellymoon (24 October 2021)

Michen said:



			Beautifully put.
		
Click to expand...

I agree, beautifully put.


----------



## Jellymoon (24 October 2021)

BeckyFlowers said:



			It's a great start, let's hope it continues (and other hunts start/continue to act this way).
		
Click to expand...

Lovely to hear and fully in support of this.


----------



## Jellymoon (24 October 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Don’t get over excited it’s taken years and years of hard work by monitors and sabs and the deaths of many foxes and dwindling fields and loss of support from landowners to get the Cheshire Hunts to even attempt to trial. All the hunts in Cheshire blatantly hunted foxes and it wasn’t out of the desire to no longer break the law that forced this action, they really had no choice.
		
Click to expand...

What a nasty and ungenerous comment. Isn’t this what you wanted to happen?


----------



## Jellymoon (24 October 2021)

ycbm said:



			Excellent post. This is what is needed if I am ever going to be able to hunt Joe. And I really want to. 
.
		
Click to expand...

Yep, same. I love hunting but want to do it with a clear conscience.


----------



## Koweyka (24 October 2021)

Jellymoon said:



			What a nasty and ungenerous comment. Isn’t this what you wanted to happen?
		
Click to expand...

Well to be perfectly honest I would rather all trail hunts were shut down. The Cheshire Hunt have had to change not because they wanted to change, there is a huge difference in the reasoning, they have attempted to trail for a short while now, not always perfectly but yes of course anything that mitigates foxes and wildlife deaths is a good thing.


----------



## Jellymoon (24 October 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Well to be perfectly honest I would rather all trail hunts were shut down. The Cheshire Hunt have had to change not because they wanted to change, there is a huge difference in the reasoning, they have attempted to trail for a short while now, not always perfectly but yes of course anything that mitigates foxes and wildlife deaths is a good thing.
		
Click to expand...

Why do you want all trail hunts to be shut down? If they aren’t killing foxes, and are within the law?


----------



## Koweyka (24 October 2021)

Jellymoon said:



			Why do you want all trail hunts to be shut down? If they aren’t killing foxes, and are within the law?
		
Click to expand...

Because trail hunting for many many hunts is just a cover for fox hunting, they do kill foxes and they don’t act within the law.

With the guilty verdict of Mark Hankinson and the very damning verdict by the judge on several others speaking at the webinars, it confirmed everything the “Anti’s” have been saying for years, it was actually equally amazing and disgusting at the same time how many pro hunt people have come out and admitted that fox hunting was still happening under the trail hunt smokescreen, people should have been speaking out years ago instead of allowing it to continue. But hunting folk didn’t speak out.

If you do want trail hunting to continue and to get any form of trust then it will need a massive overhaul, one you need to stop using animal based scents, stop laying “Trails” into areas that foxes live and claim accident, agree to independent monitoring, publish the meets and routes. Set up a governing body that actually governs and takes robust action against those hunts that resist acting within the law. Lose the terrier men.

Until all of that is done every trail hunt should be treated with suspicion.


----------



## BeckyFlowers (24 October 2021)

At some point a line has to be drawn in the sand though, and now seems to be an appropriate point in time.  Let the hunts prove or disprove themselves and then go from there.


----------



## Jellymoon (24 October 2021)

Ok


Koweyka said:



			Because trail hunting for many many hunts is just a cover for fox hunting, they do kill foxes and they don’t act within the law.

With the guilty verdict of Mark Hankinson and the very damning verdict by the judge on several others speaking at the webinars, it confirmed everything the “Anti’s” have been saying for years, it was actually equally amazing and disgusting at the same time how many pro hunt people have come out and admitted that fox hunting was still happening under the trail hunt smokescreen, people should have been speaking out years ago instead of allowing it to continue. But hunting folk didn’t speak out.

If you do want trail hunting to continue and to get any form of trust then it will need a massive overhaul, one you need to stop using animal based scents, stop laying “Trails” into areas that foxes live and claim accident, agree to independent monitoring, publish the meets and routes. Set up a governing body that actually governs and takes robust action against those hunts that resist acting within the law. Lose the terrier men.

Until all of that is done every trail hunt should be treated with suspicion.
		
Click to expand...

Ok, and intelligent response, and I agree with you. I think transparency and communication is the way forward. But you let yourself down by saying you want all trail hunts to shut down - if you want supporters within the farming and hunting community you need to present yourselves as people who genuinely care about foxes, because many of us think of you as people who simply want to have a pop at ‘posh’ people on horses.
I think saying you want all trail hunts to shut down, whether they are doing it properly or not, suggests you might be someone who is not solely motivated by animal welfare.


----------



## Koweyka (24 October 2021)

Jellymoon said:



			Ok

Ok, and intelligent response, and I agree with you. I think transparency and communication is the way forward. But you let yourself down by saying you want all trail hunts to shut down - if you want supporters within the farming and hunting community you need to present yourselves as people who genuinely care about foxes, because many of us think of you as people who simply want to have a pop at ‘posh’ people on horses.
I think saying you want all trail hunts to shut down, whether they are doing it properly or not, suggests you might be someone who is not solely motivated by animal welfare.
		
Click to expand...

I have been a hunt monitor for many many years, I have seen some despicable acts of cruelty towards animals and particularly foxes, I have literally picked up the pieces of foxes, have been subjected to assaults and violence, had my family threatened, my home targeted, I have a police marker on my address, but I carry on doing it because of my love for wildlife and my hatred of cruelty and fox hunting is cruel.

If we wanted to have a pop at “Posh people” there are far less dangerous ways of doing it. I don’t consider horse owners to be posh, I have many friends who work their socks off to keep their horses,  it absolutely is not a class war and never has been.

We actually have the support of many farmers and landowners, and are “Agents of the land” for many people so we can make sure the hunts don’t trespass on their property.

But the fact is that trail hunts all over the country have turned a blind eye to what other hunts have been doing and as such I believe that saying nothing to stop this evil law breaking practice is almost as bad as participating in it. They should be treated the same way and until all the above is put in place, I do believe they should not be allowed out until proper transparent regulation is in place. The law breaking hunts have tarred you all with the same brush.

I would love to know why people never spoke up when they knew foxes were being hunted, this is a genuine question to all of you, why ? I have seen many people say on here they knew hunts were breaking the law but why were authorities not informed, if not the police then why not the MFHA ?


----------



## DabDab (24 October 2021)

Koweyka said:



			So Palo can insinuate that anti’s have an idealistic view of the sort of people we believe ride out with the hunt, however when I mention the same can be said about the idealistic view of the well known insinuations about antis is that we are all unemployable unwashed townie yobs and you have an issue with that.

Your opinion of me means absolutely nothing to me, you haven’t walked a step in my shoes and seen what Trail Hunting is and how foxes are horrifically killed.

I won’t stoop down to your low level of aggressive name calling, for something you are clearly confused about.
		
Click to expand...

You come on this forum purely to have arguments. The words you choose frequently cross the boundary of passionate debate, e.g. calling someone "mentally disturbed" simply for having an opposing viewpoint to you. And yet you think me describing you as rude is "aggressive name calling" 

🤷


----------



## palo1 (24 October 2021)

Koweyka said:



			I have been a hunt monitor for many many years, I have seen some despicable acts of cruelty towards animals and particularly foxes, I have literally picked up the pieces of foxes, have been subjected to assaults and violence, had my family threatened, my home targeted, I have a police marker on my address, but I carry on doing it because of my love for wildlife and my hatred of cruelty and fox hunting is cruel.

If we wanted to have a pop at “Posh people” there are far less dangerous ways of doing it. I don’t consider horse owners to be posh, I have many friends who work their socks off to keep their horses,  it absolutely is not a class war and never has been.

We actually have the support of many farmers and landowners, and are “Agents of the land” for many people so we can make sure the hunts don’t trespass on their property.

But the fact is that trail hunts all over the country have turned a blind eye to what other hunts have been doing and as such I believe that saying nothing to stop this evil law breaking practice is almost as bad as participating in it. They should be treated the same way and until all the above is put in place, I do believe they should not be allowed out until proper transparent regulation is in place. The law breaking hunts have tarred you all with the same brush.

I would love to know why people never spoke up when they knew foxes were being hunted, this is a genuine question to all of you, why ? I have seen many people say on here they knew hunts were breaking the law but why were authorities not informed, if not the police then why not the MFHA ?
		
Click to expand...

Before I reply I want to stress to you that I am only involved in hunting within the law and I do not want to be involved in illegal hunting. In answer to your question:-

I think if you genuinely understood how hunting and trail hunting is conducted you might find an answer to your question.  Most people who hunted before the ban will testify that very rarely did they see a fox and even rarer to personally see 'a kill'.  That is because of the way that fox hunting worked and because of the way that in both fox hunting (pre-ban in the UK and in other places still) and trail hunting the the field is generally kept out of the way of the huntsman and whips - because the 'sport' of hunting (fox, trail, drag, coyote - in the USA and bloodhound)  was and still remains to be about following hounds and crossing the country.

There is still a huge amount of misunderstanding, even from experienced and educated sabs about some elements of trail hunting (and fox hunting before it). I have read far too many examples of ignorance or 'made-up' stuff on sab reports to be convinced this is not the case.

Now that people are trail hunting I imagine a great many hunt followers would genuinely not know for certain if and exactly how trails were being followed.  Posters on here have explained their own experience of this.  Trail laying has always been maintained as discreetly as possible,  with the location, distance etc of trails generally withheld from all but the trail-layers.  In some cases it is far more open and obvious but not always as different teams have different views about the best way to maintain hunting traditions.  That is in no small part because of the deep resentment around the Hunting Act and the legislation that has meant that trail hunting is intended to mimic, as closely as possible, the original activity.  The Hunting Act certainly contributed to the current dire situation.  As you know there is anger about that on both sides.

As for those hunting against the law, I believe that landowners, farmers and hunters are all complicit in that as well as, in some places, an attitude that the exemptions to the law (accidents etc) are entirely legitimate 'get arounds'.  For example farmers on the Welsh hills, parts of the North (fells etc) and other uplands want foxes to be killed, many want the hunt because of the community element and because they resent, very deeply, being told that they can't do what they have always done and are not convinced that this is a 'wrong' thing to do; in spite of the law.  The Hunting Act and the Burns Report as well as other research and reports never convinced some people that fox hunting was, in fact, cruel.   Hill farmers have long campaigned to have exemptions to the Hunting Act for fox control.  In some places (including the Welsh Government for example)  there is really no consensus that hunting with hounds is not the best way to deal with that.   Trail hunting can be difficult in that hunters have too much to lose to hunt foxes or see the best way as working within the law but landowners want the opposite and feel that they should have control over what happens on their land.  I have heard those conversations with hunters about 'Why the hell are you not hunting properly?  Hunters and  hunts can be under pressure to disregard the law in a number of ways.  In my case, our farmers and landowners are happy enough to let us 'play' at hunting on the hills because trail laying doesn't cause any damage to open ground, because it means they have a bit of company/a change of scene and visitors.  Some people still hope and believe the Hunting Act might be repealed (such is their resentment about it).  I do not think the Hunting Act will be repealed btw!  We are clear about trail laying (which is blooming hard work) and appreciate what a privelege it is to be hosted by farmers and landowners to do that as a leisure activity.

I suspect that some followers of hunts that break the law, regardless of how they feel about it, don't want to report any illegal activity because of how difficult that is to prove and how disruptive and divisive that may be in their community.   For some people, the death of foxes is NOT their primary concern, especially perhaps when they are involved in businesses such as farming where the death of animals is an accepted part of their life.  Some of those same people will be conflicted about killing foxes for other reasons and won't see the trouble that reporting illegal hunting brings as worthwhile, valuable or constructive in terms of welfare, environment or anything else.

I know that is repugnant to you and I understand that as well as appreciate legitimate concerns about the law but I am trying to be honest with you.  There are people who break the law in all sorts of ways, for reasons best known to themselves - their friends, neighbours and colleagues know but generally don't report them.


----------



## Koweyka (24 October 2021)

DabDab said:



			You come on this forum purely to have arguments. The words you choose frequently cross the boundary of passionate debate, e.g. calling someone "mentally disturbed" simply for having an opposing viewpoint to you. And yet you think me describing you as rude is "aggressive name calling"

🤷
		
Click to expand...

^Sigh^ We clearly have completely opposing moral compasses, because I believe the vast majority of people would regard someone hunting and killing an animal in a barbaric way for fun is being perpetrated by someone mentally disturbed. Clearly you don’t agree and that’s your prerogative.


----------



## AdorableAlice (24 October 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Well to be perfectly honest I would rather all trail hunts were shut down. The Cheshire Hunt have had to change not because they wanted to change, there is a huge difference in the reasoning, they have attempted to trail for a short while now, not always perfectly but yes of course anything that mitigates foxes and wildlife deaths is a good thing.
		
Click to expand...

Your comment is at worst uneducated and at best blinkered.  Do you not give consideration to all employment that is linked to hunting ?  If you or your family were involved in breeding horses, dealing in horses, shoeing horses, giving any of the many facets of health care to horses or providing lorry services, saddlery services, feed provision, livery provision etc etc, you might have a more balanced and sensible view.


----------



## Koweyka (24 October 2021)

palo1 said:



			Before I reply I want to stress to you that I am only involved in hunting within the law and I do not want to be involved in illegal hunting. In answer to your question:-

I think if you genuinely understood how hunting and trail hunting is conducted you might find an answer to your question.  Most people who hunted before the ban will testify that very rarely did they see a fox and even rarer to personally see 'a kill'.  That is because of the way that fox hunting worked and because of the way that in both fox hunting (pre-ban in the UK and in other places still) and trail hunting the the field is generally kept out of the way of the huntsman and whips - because the 'sport' of hunting (fox, trail, drag, coyote - in the USA and bloodhound)  was and still remains to be about following hounds and crossing the country.

There is still a huge amount of misunderstanding, even from experienced and educated sabs about some elements of trail hunting (and fox hunting before it). I have read far too many examples of ignorance or 'made-up' stuff on sab reports to be convinced this is not the case.

Now that people are trail hunting I imagine a great many hunt followers would genuinely not know for certain if and exactly how trails were being followed.  Posters on here have explained their own experience of this.  Trail laying has always been maintained as discreetly as possible,  with the location, distance etc of trails generally withheld from all but the trail-layers.  In some cases it is far more open and obvious but not always as different teams have different views about the best way to maintain hunting traditions.  That is in no small part because of the deep resentment around the Hunting Act and the legislation that has meant that trail hunting is intended to mimic, as closely as possible, the original activity.  The Hunting Act certainly contributed to the current dire situation.  As you know there is anger about that on both sides.

As for those hunting against the law, I believe that landowners, farmers and hunters are all complicit in that as well as, in some places, an attitude that the exemptions to the law (accidents etc) are entirely legitimate 'get arounds'.  For example farmers on the Welsh hills, parts of the North (fells etc) and other uplands want foxes to be killed, many want the hunt because of the community element and because they resent, very deeply, being told that they can't do what they have always done and are not convinced that this is a 'wrong' thing to do; in spite of the law.  The Hunting Act and the Burns Report as well as other research and reports never convinced some people that fox hunting was, in fact, cruel.   Hill farmers have long campaigned to have exemptions to the Hunting Act for fox control.  In some places (including the Welsh Government for example)  there is really no consensus that hunting with hounds is not the best way to deal with that.   Trail hunting can be difficult in that hunters have too much to lose to hunt foxes or see the best way as working within the law but landowners want the opposite and feel that they should have control over what happens on their land.  I have heard those conversations with hunters about 'Why the hell are you not hunting properly?  Hunters and  hunts can be under pressure to disregard the law in a number of ways.  In my case, our farmers and landowners are happy enough to let us 'play' at hunting on the hills because trail laying doesn't cause any damage to open ground, because it means they have a bit of company/a change of scene and visitors.  Some people still hope and believe the Hunting Act might be repealed (such is their resentment about it).  I do not think the Hunting Act will be repealed btw!  We are clear about trail laying (which is blooming hard work) and appreciate what a privelege it is to be hosted by farmers and landowners to do that as a leisure activity.

I suspect that some followers of hunts that break the law, regardless of how they feel about it, don't want to report any illegal activity because of how difficult that is to prove and how disruptive and divisive that may be in their community.   For some people, the death of foxes is NOT their primary concern, especially perhaps when they are involved in businesses such as farming where the death of animals is an accepted part of their life.  Some of those same people will be conflicted about killing foxes for other reasons and won't see the trouble that reporting illegal hunting brings as worthwhile, valuable or constructive in terms of welfare, environment or anything else.

I know that is repugnant to you and I understand that as well as appreciate legitimate concerns about the law but I am trying to be honest with you.  There are people who break the law in all sorts of ways, for reasons best known to themselves - their friends, neighbours and colleagues know but generally don't report them.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you for your reply Palo, that does go someway to explaining some of it and to be fair I hadn’t considered hunts being pressured into law breaking.

The vast majority of hunts I have attended, they didn’t even pretend to lay a trail, we would be in the area many hours before the meets and no trails are laid and that’s the crux of it, the difference between hunts like yours and the ones that are still now not even trying to hunt within the law.

If you want hunting to continue then it has to be sorted from the inside out, I do believe you understand that. If you want trail hunting to continue then you need to find some strong voices from within.

Every single aspect of it needs to ensure the likelihood of a fox being hunted is mitigated, even this week foxes have been hunted and killed and if you want any sort of public respect or support that has to stop.


----------



## Koweyka (24 October 2021)

AdorableAlice said:



			Your comment is at worst uneducated and at best blinkered.  Do you not give consideration to all employment that is linked to hunting ?  If you or your family were involved in breeding horses, dealing in horses, shoeing horses, giving any of the many facets of health care to horses or providing lorry services, saddlery services, feed provision, livery provision etc etc, you might have a more balanced and sensible view.
		
Click to expand...

So basically what you are saying that every single person that rides out with a hunt is going to slaughter their horse if hunting was stopped ? Incredible what you appear to be insinuating because that’s the only way any of the above will be impacted even slightly. You don’t have to kill to hunt.

You see,  I don’t hunt yet my horses ( shock horror yes I actually own many horses) they still have a farrier, get fed, see a vet, use a lorry if they need medical treatment in house at the vets so I would say my view was pretty balanced…..


----------



## AdorableAlice (24 October 2021)

Koweyka said:



			So basically what you are saying that every single person that rides out with a hunt is going to slaughter their horse if hunting was stopped ? Incredible what you appear to be insinuating because that’s the only way any of the above will be impacted even slightly. You don’t have to kill to hunt.

You see,  I don’t hunt yet my horses ( shock horror yes I actually own many horses) they still have a farrier, get fed, see a vet, use a lorry if they need medical treatment in house at the vets so I would say my view was pretty balanced…..
		
Click to expand...

And I say it isn't balanced and I did not state yuo have to kill to hunt.  I suggest you look at the numbers of packs in the UK, the size of the fields and do the maths for those providing the services previously mentioned.  Hunting of all types, foot packs included are a substantial income for a lot of industries.

Your view is one that suggests limited understanding of hunting and associated activities.  Limited understanding of land management and the rural economy.


----------



## ester (24 October 2021)

Maybe I'm in the wrong locations but re. economic impact for those that keep horses, I know very few who hunt, and even fewer that only keep their horses to hunt and wouldnt do otherwise. Fields have always been pretty small too apart from joint meets.


----------



## Koweyka (24 October 2021)

AdorableAlice said:



			And I say it isn't balanced and I did not state yuo have to kill to hunt.  I suggest you look at the numbers of packs in the UK, the size of the fields and do the maths for those providing the services previously mentioned.  Hunting of all types, foot packs included are a substantial income for a lot of industries.

Your view is one that suggests limited understanding of hunting and associated activities.  Limited understanding of land management and the rural economy.
		
Click to expand...

Ok please explain yourself clearly and tell me why if trail hunting is properly regulated and hunting within the law, nobody has ever mentioned drag/bloodhounds/clean boot hunting should be stopped, why these industries will be impacted ? Unless all those horses suddenly vanish they will still need all of the services would they not ?

Very often I see very small fields, you are in the minority of horse ownership.


----------



## AdorableAlice (24 October 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Ok please explain yourself clearly and tell me why if trail hunting is properly regulated and hunting within the law, nobody has ever mentioned drag/bloodhounds/clean boot hunting should be stopped, why these industries will be impacted ? Unless all those horses suddenly vanish they will still need all of the services would they not ?

Very often I see very small fields, you are in the minority of horse ownership.
		
Click to expand...

I refer you back to land management.


----------



## paddy555 (24 October 2021)

ester said:



			Maybe I'm in the wrong locations but re. economic impact for those that keep horses, I know very few who hunt, and even fewer that only keep their horses to hunt and wouldnt do otherwise. Fields have always been pretty small too apart from joint meets.
		
Click to expand...

same for me. Many can't even get a farrier they have so much work on, vets are at a premium there are not enough of them, people do many activities on horses which would continue. I am not sure it would have a devastating impact or at least not in this area. Many who hunt would still keep horses and all their additional ependiture to ride in some other form.  There may be a demand for less horses but ATM it appears people cannot find a horse to buy for love nor money. 

I remember the arguments from before the hunting act, all these dogs shot, horses PTS, unemployment, damage to the rural economy etc etc.


----------



## paddy555 (24 October 2021)

AdorableAlice said:



			I refer you back to land management.
		
Click to expand...

can you elaborate please? I cannot see how land management in our area would be any different if there was trail hunting or if it was completely banned. As there is no long fox hunting we no longer have to consider pest control as part of the argument.


----------



## Sandstone1 (24 October 2021)

AdorableAlice said:



			Your comment is at worst uneducated and at best blinkered.  Do you not give consideration to all employment that is linked to hunting ?  If you or your family were involved in breeding horses, dealing in horses, shoeing horses, giving any of the many facets of health care to horses or providing lorry services, saddlery services, feed provision, livery provision etc etc, you might have a more balanced and sensible view.
		
Click to expand...

I think that there are lots of other horse sports that use all of the mentioned professionals.  Hunting can not be the sole means of employment for most if not all of them.


----------



## AdorableAlice (24 October 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			I think that there are lots of other horse sports that use all of the mentioned professionals.  Hunting can not be the sole means of employment for most if not all of them.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't say hunting was the sole employer, but it is a considerable provider of employment and would, if banned in all forms, have a substantial impact.


----------



## ester (24 October 2021)

given the amount of merging that has occurred in recent years what are the current numbers of employees for it to be considerable? Genuinely wondering because I wouldnt' have thought it so.


----------



## Jellymoon (24 October 2021)

AdorableAlice said:



			I didn't say hunting was the sole employer, but it is a considerable provider of employment and would, if banned in all forms, have a substantial impact.
		
Click to expand...

This exactly.
An that is why, Koweyka, I don’t actually believe you when you say your sole motivation is fox welfare. I think you’d like to see everything to do with hunting banned and wouldn’t care two hoots about the people who would lose their livelihoods. This says something to me about your attitude to horsey and country folk, and your mental attitude towards other people in general. I don’t actually believe you own ‘many’ horses. Sorry, but no horse person would say that. All your posts on the H and H forum are to do with hunting. 
And, may I ask, who do you come on a forum linked to a magazine which is in support of legal trail hunting? You do realise that the more people who come on this site add to their revenues?


----------



## Koweyka (24 October 2021)

Jellymoon said:



			This exactly.
An that is why, Koweyka, I don’t actually believe you when you say your sole motivation is fox welfare. I think you’d like to see everything to do with hunting banned and wouldn’t care two hoots about the people who would lose their livelihoods. This says something to me about your attitude to horsey and country folk, and your mental attitude towards other people in general. I don’t actually believe you own ‘many’ horses. Sorry, but no horse person would say that. All your posts on the H and H forum are to do with hunting.
And, may I ask, who do you come on a forum linked to a magazine which is in support of legal trail hunting? You do realise that the more people who come on this site add to their revenues?
		
Click to expand...

Errrr ok I don’t give half a hoot what you believe about me because you are completely wrong and are giving many people that do know me quite a giggle.

I was a member of this forum many years ago as I needed some advice about one of the many horses I own, some people were helpful and knowledgeable, I lost my log in details, though I wonder are you going to stalk all the other thousands of members on here and ask why they are here if they aren’t hunting ?


----------



## palo1 (24 October 2021)

Koweyka said:



			^Sigh^ We clearly have completely opposing moral compasses, because I believe the vast majority of people would regard someone hunting and killing an animal in a barbaric way for fun is being perpetrated by someone mentally disturbed. Clearly you don’t agree and that’s your prerogative.
		
Click to expand...

You would think too that the vast majority of people would find some animal husbandry and slaughter practices utterly barbaric, disturbing and morally wrong but that doesn't appear to stop the same majority of people both in the UK and worldwide buying into those practices through consumption.  It is not as simple as you present it.  There is cognitive dissonance present in much of what we do. 

The other problem that you have raised is that for some people involved in rural matters you will not convince them that hunting with hounds was cruel. The Burns Report which was commissioned to reach a conclusion on that score simply couldn't make that conclusion.   Equally IF cruelty were the real issue, the banning of fox hunting and the banning of trail hunting would have such a microscopically small impact on animal welfare that you simply would not focus your efforts in that direction.  I understand the problem with 'whataboutery' but in this case it is really relevant.  If animal welfare was truly the mission of the anti-hunting movement then it would have packed up and moved over to a whole host of other, far more widespread practices of cruelty that could really make a difference to individual animals, the environment and other species.   

I understand about the passion for foxes and for the need for any action we take toward a goal needing focus so I get that sabs want to stop trail hunting, but making a claim about the impact of that on animal welfare is just nonsense.

As for your assertion that change must come from the outside of hunting - I can't be anything other than horrified about vigilantism on this matter. It is similar to groups of vigilantes outside mosques (and earlier in our history Sikh temples) or other minority or marginalised communities.  I have reason to feel very strongly about drink driving; people still do that with tragic consequences.  Do I arrange for a group of like minded people to hound everyone coming out of a pub?  Do I engage in harrassment of pub landlords (who undoubtedly contribute to drink driving offences)?.  Do I attack verbally or physically those people in my community that I suspect of drink driving?  Do I 'out' them to their work and family?  Of course not, though if I was certainly aware of someone drink driving I would report it to the police.  If they chose not to pursue that I might complain or campaign, possibly take it up with my MP.   Vigilantism has NO place in a democratic society.  Change must come from within and must come from the democratic process. I think you are profoundly wrong in so many ways.


----------



## tallyho! (24 October 2021)

Excuse my naïvety.... 

Why can't people just pay landowners to ride over their land, pay hunt organisers to organise a "hunt" ride and be done with the whole dog thing. I'd subscribe a lot of money to be able have a good gallop around the countryside without having to wear itchy tweed and watch a load of dogs accidentally kill wild fluffy things. Everyone will be happy. Landowners will have company if that's what they want, hunt organisers will have something to do and riders will have somewhere to ride. Call it a paid hunting "experience" or even better call it open-riding or something else less naff. Surely this would raise a heck of a lot more money for conservation, towards landowners income (lets face it farmers could do with that!) and a well organised club. It would take one club to completely commercialise the whole outfit, open up country riding for a whole raft of people who would love to do it but would never follow a hunt and help towards countryside stewardship and help prop up equestrianism instead of tearing the whole horse community apart.


----------



## ycbm (24 October 2021)

tallyho! said:



			Excuse my naïvety.... 

Why can't people just pay landowners to ride over their land, pay hunt organisers to organise a "hunt" ride and be done with the whole dog thing. I'd subscribe a lot of money to be able have a good gallop around the countryside without having to wear itchy tweed and watch a load of dogs accidentally kill wild fluffy things. Everyone will be happy. Landowners will have company if that's what they want, hunt organisers will have something to do and riders will have somewhere to ride. Call it a paid hunting "experience" or even better call it open-riding or something else less naff. Surely this would raise a heck of a lot more money for conservation, towards landowners income (lets face it farmers could do with that!) and a well organised club. It would take one club to completely commercialise the whole outfit, open up country riding for a whole raft of people who would love to do it but would never follow a hunt and help towards countryside stewardship and help prop up equestrianism instead of tearing the whole horse community apart.
		
Click to expand...

Where can I join? 
.


----------



## Koweyka (24 October 2021)

palo1 said:



			You would think too that the vast majority of people would find some animal husbandry and slaughter practices utterly barbaric, disturbing and morally wrong but that doesn't appear to stop the same majority of people both in the UK and worldwide buying into those practices through consumption.  It is not as simple as you present it.  There is cognitive dissonance present in much of what we do.

The other problem that you have raised is that for some people involved in rural matters you will not convince them that hunting with hounds was cruel. The Burns Report which was commissioned to reach a conclusion on that score simply couldn't make that conclusion.   Equally IF cruelty were the real issue, the banning of fox hunting and the banning of trail hunting would have such a microscopically small impact on animal welfare that you simply would not focus your efforts in that direction.  I understand the problem with 'whataboutery' but in this case it is really relevant.  If animal welfare was truly the mission of the anti-hunting movement then it would have packed up and moved over to a whole host of other, far more widespread practices of cruelty that could really make a difference to individual animals, the environment and other species.  

I understand about the passion for foxes and for the need for any action we take toward a goal needing focus so I get that sabs want to stop trail hunting, but making a claim about the impact of that on animal welfare is just nonsense.

As for your assertion that change must come from the outside of hunting - I can't be anything other than horrified about vigilantism on this matter. It is similar to groups of vigilantes outside mosques (and earlier in our history Sikh temples) or other minority or marginalised communities.  I have reason to feel very strongly about drink driving; people still do that with tragic consequences.  Do I arrange for a group of like minded people to hound everyone coming out of a pub?  Do I engage in harrassment of pub landlords (who undoubtedly contribute to drink driving offences)?.  Do I attack verbally or physically those people in my community that I suspect of drink driving?  Do I 'out' them to their work and family?  Of course not, though if I was certainly aware of someone drink driving I would report it to the police.  If they chose not to pursue that I might complain or campaign, possibly take it up with my MP.   Vigilantism has NO place in a democratic society.  Change must come from within and must come from the democratic process. I think you are profoundly wrong in so many ways.
		
Click to expand...

Just when I think oh we have some common ground you pop up with more piffle.

Hunting has to change from within.

Would I out a drink driver errr yes and have done.

Would I shame a landlord for serving drinks and watching as they drove off in a car errr yes have done….

There has been a permanent camp outside the company breeding beagle puppies for unnecessary experimentation, have I been there protesting yes.

The plight of greyhounds, protests for cameras and regulation in slaughter houses, animals in circus’s there are so many many plights for animals that sabs support.

And as for comparing sabs to people that commit hate crimes against religious communities, what an utterly outrageous comment that is, it’s actually a new low for you.


----------



## palo1 (24 October 2021)

tallyho! said:



			Excuse my naïvety....

Why can't people just pay landowners to ride over their land, pay hunt organisers to organise a "hunt" ride and be done with the whole dog thing. I'd subscribe a lot of money to be able have a good gallop around the countryside without having to wear itchy tweed and watch a load of dogs accidentally kill wild fluffy things. Everyone will be happy. Landowners will have company if that's what they want, hunt organisers will have something to do and riders will have somewhere to ride. Call it a paid hunting "experience" or even better call it open-riding or something else less naff. Surely this would raise a heck of a lot more money for conservation, towards landowners income (lets face it farmers could do with that!) and a well organised club. It would take one club to completely commercialise the whole outfit, open up country riding for a whole raft of people who would love to do it but would never follow a hunt and help towards countryside stewardship and help prop up equestrianism instead of tearing the whole horse community apart.
		
Click to expand...

Well it's a good idea for sure!! It wouldn't particularly appeal to me because the reason I go trail hunting is not to hang out in a gang of people galloping round the countryside (I think that is drag hunting...!!) but to watch hounds working a scent.  Still it is a good idea and some of the bigger landowners could certainly develop it and profit from that with, as you say, all sorts of other benefits.

ETA - I adore tweed so I wouldn't be giving that up.  In fact I love tweed so much I have a tweed riding coat (and for dog walking) that I had made a year or so ago.  I never need another coat now!!


----------



## paddy555 (24 October 2021)

tallyho! said:



			or even better call it open-riding or something else less naff.
		
Click to expand...

I thought we used to call those endurance rides or pleasure rides for those who wished to go slower and for shorter rides.


----------



## paddy555 (24 October 2021)

ester said:



			given the amount of merging that has occurred in recent years what are the current numbers of employees for it to be considerable? Genuinely wondering because I wouldnt' have thought it so.
		
Click to expand...

cannot see it would be many. Looking at our hunt which covers a large area I doubt there are many employees. Still trying to understand the land management mentioned in post 1411. Anyone?


----------



## AdorableAlice (24 October 2021)

paddy555 said:



			I thought we used to call those endurance rides or pleasure rides for those who wished to go slower and for shorter rides.
		
Click to expand...

We still do, organised by the hunt and a major fund raiser for the nominated charity.  Air Ambulance in my area.


----------



## Tiddlypom (24 October 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Don’t get over excited it’s taken years and years of hard work by monitors and sabs and the deaths of many foxes and dwindling fields and loss of support from landowners to get the Cheshire Hunts to even attempt to trial. All the hunts in Cheshire blatantly hunted foxes and it wasn’t out of the desire to no longer break the law that forced this action, they really had no choice.
		
Click to expand...

I have first hand knowledge of one Cheshire pack, and for that pack, Koweyka's post is absolutely true.

This will be IIRC the third season that the Cheshire Hunt has been genuinely trail hunting. Before that, they very much were not. It was indeed pressure from a major landowner which forced the switch after coverage of a lot of illegal hunting was plastered over FB, and the resultant bad publicity for landowners who permitted them access to their land to hunt foxes.

The antis, inc the group linked to earlier by Palo, are to be applauded for acknowledging that the CH had reformed, and for not disrupting the new trail hunting version as they find their way.

Hopefully both hunts and antis can learn from this. Hunts, stop fox hunting if you are still are at it, and antis, please recognise this if they do reform, and allow them to trail hunt legally.


----------



## palo1 (24 October 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Just when I think oh we have some common ground you pop up with more piffle.

Hunting has to change from within.

Would I out a drink driver errr yes and have done.

Would I shame a landlord for serving drinks and watching as they drove off in a car errr yes have done….

There has been a permanent camp outside the company breeding beagle puppies for unnecessary experimentation, have I been there protesting yes.

The plight of greyhounds, protests for cameras and regulation in slaughter houses, animals in circus’s there are so many many plights for animals that sabs support.

And as for comparing sabs to people that commit hate crimes against religious communities, what an utterly outrageous comment that is, it’s actually a new low for you.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, the communication between us is deeply tedious I have to admit.  The reason I compared sabs to people that commit hate crimes is clear; because attacking people, harrassing them etc for their beliefs and cultural practices in one setting is the same as doing it to another.  In a legislative society such as the one we live in, that is how it works.  The idea of a liberal democracy is for there to be tolerance for all groups of people and to use the democratic process to change things that become unbearable for that society, as the same time as protecting minority groups and interests.  I suggest you read what Daniel Greenberg (who drafted the Hunting Act) has to say about it.

Among other things he has said, very recently:  '  I was the drafter not only of the Hunting Act 2004 but of all the Government Bills that preceded it over a period of some years, and I well remember being struck by the fact that of all the legislation in which I had been involved since joining the Parliamentary Counsel Office, including Bills on matters medical, constitutional, social, fiscal and criminal, the first project in relation to which I felt seriously troubled from a moral perspective was over such an outwardly trivial matter in some respects as hunting.  Let me be clear: the prohibition of hunting did not trouble me from a personal moral perspective: I do not hunt myself, and I would even go so far as to doubt whether I would personally be ethically justified in doing so, as I do not belong to a community in which it forms either a necessary part of pest control or a cherished cultural tradition.  What troubled me was the fact that for the first time in my immediate professional experience the mechanism of the law was being deployed not to further some public policy objective – whether well-founded or not – but to inflict on the whole country the personal moral perspective of the 600 or so citizens who happened to find themselves in the House of Commons at the time....
If this had really been an animal welfare measure we would most likely have opted for a regulatory approach, possibly based around a licensing system: doubtless Of-fox would have been very popular, and the Chief Commissioner for Feral Foxes – or Foxcom – would have been a much sought-after sinecure.  Joking aside, I suspect that most if not all organised hunts would actively have welcomed a properly founded licensing system as a way of showing their respect for the law, and for the welfare of all the animals and humans involved in the hunting tradition, which irrespective of whether the observer herself or himself chooses to hunt is clearly recognisable as being as respectable as any other community or cultural tradition, and a good deal more respectable than many.

Instead of an effective measure, therefore, the Act and the Bills for it were largely an exercise in what it has now become fashionable to describe as “virtue signalling” by persons who happened to draw their line in the sand of morality in one place in connection with animals, and many of whom would doubtless be incensed if a fortuitous majority of vegetarians in the House of Commons on another occasion sought to outlaw all those whose personal line in the sand stopped short of refraining from eating meat.

*An exercise in intolerance, at a time when diversity and cultural sensitivity are meant to be more socially cherished and legally protected than at any other time in the history of the United Kingdom, indeed possibly in the history of the world.''*

Of course, he has said more on this subject if you care to read it.  THAT is why I compare intolerance of one group of people to another.  I am very well aware of what hate crime constitutes and what it's history is in this country.  I am glad to hear you are actively involved in campaigning and I hope peaceful, legal action on animal welfare; there is much more work to be done on that score in several areas of life.


----------



## AdorableAlice (24 October 2021)

palo1 said:



			Yes, the communication between us is deeply tedious I have to admit.  The reason I compared sabs to people that commit hate crimes is clear; because attacking people, harrassing them etc for their beliefs and cultural practices in one setting is the same as doing it to another.  In a legislative society such as the one we live in, that is how it works.  The idea of a liberal democracy is for their to be tolerance for all groups of people and to use the democratic process to change things that become unbearable for that society, as the same time as protecting minority groups and interests.  I suggest you read what Daniel Greenberg (who drafted the Hunting Act) has to say about it.

Among other things he has said, very recently:  '  I was the drafter not only of the Hunting Act 2004 but of all the Government Bills that preceded it over a period of some years, and I well remember being struck by the fact that of all the legislation in which I had been involved since joining the Parliamentary Counsel Office, including Bills on matters medical, constitutional, social, fiscal and criminal, the first project in relation to which I felt seriously troubled from a moral perspective was over such an outwardly trivial matter in some respects as hunting.  Let me be clear: the prohibition of hunting did not trouble me from a personal moral perspective: I do not hunt myself, and I would even go so far as to doubt whether I would personally be ethically justified in doing so, as I do not belong to a community in which it forms either a necessary part of pest control or a cherished cultural tradition.  What troubled me was the fact that for the first time in my immediate professional experience the mechanism of the law was being deployed not to further some public policy objective – whether well-founded or not – but to inflict on the whole country the personal moral perspective of the 600 or so citizens who happened to find themselves in the House of Commons at the time....
If this had really been an animal welfare measure we would most likely have opted for a regulatory approach, possibly based around a licensing system: doubtless Of-fox would have been very popular, and the Chief Commissioner for Feral Foxes – or Foxcom – would have been a much sought-after sinecure.  Joking aside, I suspect that most if not all organised hunts would actively have welcomed a properly founded licensing system as a way of showing their respect for the law, and for the welfare of all the animals and humans involved in the hunting tradition, which irrespective of whether the observer herself or himself chooses to hunt is clearly recognisable as being as respectable as any other community or cultural tradition, and a good deal more respectable than many.

Instead of an effective measure, therefore, the Act and the Bills for it were largely an exercise in what it has now become fashionable to describe as “virtue signalling” by persons who happened to draw their line in the sand of morality in one place in connection with animals, and many of whom would doubtless be incensed if a fortuitous majority of vegetarians in the House of Commons on another occasion sought to outlaw all those whose personal line in the sand stopped short of refraining from eating meat.

*An exercise in intolerance, at a time when diversity and cultural sensitivity are meant to be more socially cherished and legally protected than at any other time in the history of the United Kingdom, indeed possibly in the history of the world.''*

Of course, he has said more on this subject if you care to read it.  THAT is why I compare intolerance of one group of people to another.  I am very well aware of what hate crime constitutes and what it's history is in this country.  I am glad to hear you are actively involved in campaigning and I hope peaceful, legal action on animal welfare; there is much more work to be done on that score in several areas of life.
		
Click to expand...

Very very wise words.  In terms of licensing, would you expect or hope to see, legislation in line with the  recent DEFRA 2018/Animal Welfare Act 2006, or totally new/stand alone licensing legislation for field sports ?  and would you hope/expect to see the legislation administered at local or central Government level.


----------



## palo1 (24 October 2021)

AdorableAlice said:



			Very very wise words.  In terms of licensing, would you expect or hope to see, legislation in line with the  recent DEFRA 2018/Animal Welfare Act 2006, or totally new/stand alone licensing legislation for field sports ?  and would you hope/expect to see the legislation administered at local or central Government level.
		
Click to expand...

Gosh, that is an interesting question...I am not sure I have enough knowledge of licensing legislation etc to really have an informed opinion but I suspect that a somewhat more 'future proof' and identifiable licensing scheme would be aimed at field sports/aspects of land management that actively involve wildlife.  That might help to provide a framework for some really difficult things including trapping etc which sometimes need to be carried out for wildlife protection and which have not had nearly enough rational discussion in my view.  This may also be useful where large scale rewilding schemes find that they need to either cull or enable weak stock to fail and die (definitely not my preference).

Another example of where licensed management would be useful would be the LACS estate at Baronsdown where deer are so overstocked (through lack of management) that they are either escaping to their neighbours farms, causing some consternation as well as local disgust and upset at the level of cruelty and suffering.  The licensing of management for wildlife and/or fieldsports might help to avoid those kinds of incidents across the board - from starving hill/feral ponies to active field sports situations.

It is horribly complex I think and of course the whole issue is locked into a static and somewhat polarised state.


----------



## DizzyDoughnut (24 October 2021)

palo1 said:



			As for those hunting against the law, I believe that landowners, farmers and hunters are all complicit in that as well as, in some places, an attitude that the exemptions to the law (accidents etc) are entirely legitimate 'get arounds'.  For example farmers on the Welsh hills, parts of the North (fells etc) and other uplands want foxes to be killed, many want the hunt because of the community element and because they resent, very deeply, being told that they can't do what they have always done and are not convinced that this is a 'wrong' thing to do; in spite of the law.  The Hunting Act and the Burns Report as well as other research and reports never convinced some people that fox hunting was, in fact, cruel.   Hill farmers have long campaigned to have exemptions to the Hunting Act for fox control.  In some places (including the Welsh Government for example)  there is really no consensus that hunting with hounds is not the best way to deal with that.
		
Click to expand...

I've been hunting a few times pre ban but don't really know much about it, it was only because I worked on a private PTP yard at the time and we had to go out to qualify the pointers and we generally just followed along at the back and tried not to disgrace ourselves. But I always wondered the people that says it's needed to control the fox numbers, why is shooting them not an option instead, hunting seemed to be a long winded way of doing something that could be done a lot quicker and easier with a bullet?


----------



## tallyho! (24 October 2021)

paddy555 said:



			I thought we used to call those endurance rides or pleasure rides for those who wished to go slower and for shorter rides.
		
Click to expand...

I already do those and they are minimal, and diminishing apart from those open by by goodwill and a lot of volunteers!! 

I’m talking about the scale hunting is now, fully subscribed and managed as a viable commercial operation. Partnered with those preserving countryside. Incentivising stewardship maybe with paid roles. 

I learned to ride as a child long ago on hunts but I never saw the horrible stuff and i wouldn’t like to now - if we are to continue the equestrian lifestyle without the old fashioned outdated stuff, train kids to be a bit less millennial about riding maybe we need to look to the next generation. Upgrade riding and make it work. 

Hunts years ago killed foxes as a service to the rural community… perhaps hunts could provide a different kind of service and make riders welcome again through income.

P.s. tweed optional 😉 we shouldn’t restrict people to just Lycra as is the craze these days… don’t want to look like cyclists on horses now would we


----------



## palo1 (24 October 2021)

DizzyDoughnut said:



			I've been hunting a few times pre ban but don't really know much about it, it was only because I worked on a private PTP yard at the time and we had to go out to qualify the pointers and we generally just followed along at the back and tried not to disgrace ourselves. But I always wondered the people that says it's needed to control the fox numbers, why is shooting them not an option instead, hunting seemed to be a long winded way of doing something that could be done a lot quicker and easier with a bullet?
		
Click to expand...

Well yes, shooting is an option of course.  There has been some research around that which suggests that shooting does not offer a gurantee of no-suffering.  You really need a high velocity rifle to do that and there are plenty of folk who want to shoot foxes.  That may, in fact, account for some of the drop in fox numbers since the hunting ban.  Shotguns are not favourable though and that is the kind of weapon that most farmers etc own; a high velocity rifle is an exceptionally dangerous weapon potentially and is far more specialist than a bog-standard shotgun.  Most farmers don't want or need a rifle but it is easy to get people in who have a rifle and want to shoot foxes.  It is a 'sport' in itself these days.

Back in the day of fox hunting it was never about the number of foxes killed but the way in which hunting with hounds affected fox behaviour; this is a phenomenon that has been widely studied and reported; not by hunters but by ecologists etc and the way in which a trophic cascade works is something people are really interested in currently - particularly around re-wilding and the benefits of that for an eco-system.  The basic idea is that having a 'top predator' (simulated by a pack of hounds when fox hunting was legal) changes the behaviour of animals all the way down the chain, generally for the better of the entire ecosystem.  The key place this has been studied is in Yellowstone National Park following the very controversial re-introduction of wolves.  The idea of a trophic cascade is pretty established but aspects of it remain, as always, somewhat contested!

Hunting with hounds 'benefit' if you like, for foxes and their populations had a number of different impacts.  For individual foxes, the outcome of a hunt was entirely binary - the hunted fox either got away (and learned lessons in survival) or died.  Foxes were not hunted during the breeding season so vixens feeding cubs were not hunted, nor young cubs.  Fox cubs have always been killed actually in other ways by a variety of people, as have feeding vixens but that was certainly not a part of hunting culture.  The seasonal nature of hunting ensured a healthy number of foxes in any hunt country.

Weak, old or sick foxes were hunted easily thus ensuring that competition for resources, mating etc remained amongst a more healthy stock of animals.

Predation on foxes by hounds mimicked very closely what foxes were evolved to cope with; predation by a larger pack of animals such as wolves.  Whilst being hunted was undoubtedly stressful it was not unnatural for a fox nor essentially 'different' to the wholly natural experience foxes had in more pristine environments.


----------



## Gallop_Away (24 October 2021)

Would just like to point out, I would not be so concerned with employment within the hunting industry if all forms of hunting were banned (although this would obviously affect the livelihoods of many people and is a legitimate concern), but rather what happens to the tens of thousands of hounds? They can't simply be rehomed and would more than likely be pts.
Surely if we accept antis are in it for the purposes of saving animals then by saying they want to see all trail hunting banned, their argument falls flat on its face. What about the lives of hounds or do they not matter?


----------



## AdorableAlice (24 October 2021)

Gallop_Away said:



			Would just like to point out, I would not be so concerned with employment within the hunting industry if all forms of hunting were banned (although this would obviously affect the livelihoods of many people and is a legitimate concern), but rather what happens to the tens of thousands of hounds? They can't simply be rehomed and would more than likely be pts.
Surely if we accept antis are in it for the purposes of saving animals then by saying they want to see all trail hunting banned, their argument falls flat on its face. What about the lives of hounds or do they not matter?
		
Click to expand...

I think you will find the welfare of hounds and horses are not top of the list.  You only have to watch the organised anti hunt groups calling hounds onto roads or throwing ball bearings under horses. So no, the lives of hounds don't matter and they certainly won't make pets.

Aside from on the massive privately owned estates, the lack of country will eventually see the demise of all hunting and other horse sport.  Green belt is being built on big time regardless of what Johnson says.  Many of the smaller packs have amalgamated but country is ever closing in, ie, the HS2 route.


----------



## tallyho! (24 October 2021)

Gallop_Away said:



			Would just like to point out, I would not be so concerned with employment within the hunting industry if all forms of hunting were banned (although this would obviously affect the livelihoods of many people and is a legitimate concern), but rather what happens to the tens of thousands of hounds? They can't simply be rehomed and would more than likely be pts.
Surely if we accept antis are in it for the purposes of saving animals then by saying they want to see all trail hunting banned, their argument falls flat on its face. What about the lives of hounds or do they not matter?
		
Click to expand...

If the lives of foxes matter then so should the hounds and horses and I’m sure they will find a place.


----------



## AdorableAlice (24 October 2021)

tallyho! said:



			If the lives of foxes matter then so should the hounds and horses and I’m sure they will find a place.
		
Click to expand...

Where do you suggest a few thousand hounds are rehomed ?


----------



## Gallop_Away (24 October 2021)

AdorableAlice said:



			I think you will find the welfare of hounds and horses are not top of the list.  You only have to watch the organised anti hunt groups calling hounds onto roads or throwing ball bearings under horses. So no, the lives of hounds don't matter and they certainly won't make pets.

Aside from on the massive privately owned estates, the lack of country will eventually see the demise of all hunting and other horse sport.  Green belt is being built on big time regardless of what Johnson says.  Many of the smaller packs have amalgamated but country is ever closing in, ie, the HS2 route.
		
Click to expand...


Adorable Alice i very much agree with you, as in my own experience antis don't really care about saving animals. 
It's something I have always wondered, when they claim to be in it for the animals, why the lives of foxes matter, but not the lives of the horses or hounds? Perhaps some of the "Monitors" on here could enlighten me? 

I've no issue with anyone saying hunting needs to change. I completely agree that that illegal hunting needs to be condemned by all if hunting has any hope of a future. But I would be devastated to see the sight and sounds of hounds disappearing from our countryside forever. 

There is much work to be done.


----------



## Gallop_Away (24 October 2021)

tallyho! said:



			If the lives of foxes matter then so should the hounds and horses and I’m sure they will find a place.
		
Click to expand...

Such as? These are working animals, not pets. Used to living in packs in kennels. Some maybe rehomed but not all. Where is their "place" then?


----------



## Sandstone1 (24 October 2021)

Gallop_Away said:



			Such as? These are working animals, not pets. Used to living in packs in kennels. Some maybe rehomed but not all. Where is their "place" then?
		
Click to expand...

Maybe hunts should start thinking ahead and slow down breeding now.   IF trail hunting is going to survive they are going to have to prove they are trail hunting.... Fox hunting has been illegal for years it has too stop.


----------



## tallyho! (24 October 2021)

I don’t have the answer to that I’m afraid but do you think it’s sustainable to keep on breeding and continuing in the current way? Lockdown has seen countless dogs abandoned and discarded, I’m not sure who’s that’s any different? We have to sort the dog mess out too. I never said it was easy but where there a will there’s a way. Don’t give up.


----------



## paddy555 (24 October 2021)

Gallop_Away said:



			Such as? These are working animals, not pets. Used to living in packs in kennels. Some maybe rehomed but not all. Where is their "place" then?
		
Click to expand...

no they are certainly not pets and I suppose if the hunts cared so much for them they would retire them at their own premises for the rest of their lives or send them off to the people who puppy walked them but they don't. 

I see the countryside alliance admitted 3000 were killed each year and welfare groups think the number is higher. So it is not as if they go on to live a cosy life after their working life is over. Once they get past their point of usefulness they get the chop. 
It's fine saying the antis don't care about the lives of hounds but in fact the hunts don't either once their working life is over. Of course the hunts cannot do anything else except kill them but it is important to take into account large numbers are killed each year anyway.


----------



## Tiddlypom (24 October 2021)

The future of hound breeding is in the hands of hunting itself.

Demonstrate that you are not fox hunting and that any pack who continues to hunt illegally will be compulsorily disbanded, and there may be a future for hunting and for hounds.

Continue to ignore the widespread reality of illegal hunting and you sign their death warrants, as all hunting with hounds will be banned.


----------



## tallyho! (24 October 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			Maybe hunts should start thinking ahead and slow down breeding now.   IF trail hunting is going to survive they are going to have to prove they are trail hunting.... Fox hunting has been illegal for years it has too stop.
		
Click to expand...

That’s an incredibly valid point 

I think probably at some point the pouting  bottom lip of the hunting fraternity has to be ignored and society has to move on. It isn’t 1698 any longer and it’s nigh on time folk just came to terms with it all.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (24 October 2021)

Gallop_Away said:



			Would just like to point out, I would not be so concerned with employment within the hunting industry if all forms of hunting were banned (although this would obviously affect the livelihoods of many people and is a legitimate concern), but rather what happens to the tens of thousands of hounds? They can't simply be rehomed and would more than likely be pts.
Surely if we accept antis are in it for the purposes of saving animals then by saying they want to see all trail hunting banned, their argument falls flat on its face. What about the lives of hounds or do they not matter?
		
Click to expand...

These dogs are culled by hunts themselves long before reaching the end of their natural lifespan so not sure how this could be considered a valid point?


----------



## Jellymoon (24 October 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Errrr ok I don’t give half a hoot what you believe about me because you are completely wrong and are giving many people that do know me quite a giggle.

I was a member of this forum many years ago as I needed some advice about one of the many horses I own, some people were helpful and knowledgeable, I lost my log in details, though I wonder are you going to stalk all the other thousands of members on here and ask why they are here if they aren’t hunting ?
		
Click to expand...

Doesn’t bother me at all if people on here hunt or not, what a silly thing to say.


Koweyka said:



			Errrr ok I don’t give half a hoot what you believe about me because you are completely wrong and are giving many people that do know me quite a giggle.

I was a member of this forum many years ago as I needed some advice about one of the many horses I own, some people were helpful and knowledgeable, I lost my log in details, though I wonder are you going to stalk all the other thousands of members on here and ask why they are here if they aren’t hunting ?
		
Click to expand...

oh sorry, I didn’t mean to cause confusion, I’m not at all bothered if people on this forum hunt or not, it’s just that the magazine is pro hunting. See this week’s issue for example - the hunting special. So when we post on the forum, it adds to the number of people/clicks who go on the magazine’s website. This makes it more attractive to advertisers, making the magazine more money. I was interested to see if you are actually a normal forum user, or someone who has simply logged on because you and your friends have seen there’s a debate about hunting and you want to have some ‘sport’ laughing at hunting folk. If you really care about animal welfare, I don’t think you would want to be adding to the coffers of a pro hunting magazine, one which has a whole article encouraging people to hunt. 
And I still don’t believe you have ‘many’ horses!!


----------



## Gallop_Away (24 October 2021)

CrunchieBoi said:



			These dogs are culled by hunts themselves long before reaching the end of their natural lifespan so not sure how this could be considered a valid point?
		
Click to expand...

It is a perfectly valid point. Antis are calling for an out right ban because they claim that they care about animals. But however way you dress it up, an outright ban WILL result in hounds needing to be pts. So why would they want to ban it to protect foxes but then indirectly result in the death of thousands of hounds? As I asked do they not matter to these people who claim they want to protect animals?


----------



## Gallop_Away (24 October 2021)

For what its worth i don't disagree that hunts need to ease up on what they are breeding, but I am talking about the tens of thousands of hounds that are already here!?


----------



## CrunchieBoi (24 October 2021)

Gallop_Away said:



			It is a perfectly valid point. Antis are calling for an out right ban because they claim that they care about animals. But however way you dress it up, an outright ban WILL result in hounds needing to be pts. So why would they want to ban it to protect foxes but then indirectly result in the death of thousands of hounds? As I asked do they not matter to these people who claim they want to protect animals?
		
Click to expand...

I suspect anyone with that view would simply argue that the dogs will be culled regardless so it doesn't really matter if they're culled at 1 or 5 years of age.

At the end of the day it's not antis who are continually breeding and culling them.


----------



## Gallop_Away (24 October 2021)

CrunchieBoi said:



			I suspect anyone with that view would simply argue that the dogs will be culled regardless so it doesn't really matter if they're culled at 1 or 5 years of age.

At the end of the day it's not antis who are continually breeding and culling them.
		
Click to expand...

And equally a fox will probably get run over at some point....so what does that matter?

I don't agree with hunting foxes by the way and I hunt with a LEGAL trail hunt and a drag pack,  but I'm just pointing out how hypocritical this view is.


----------



## Miss_Millie (25 October 2021)

What concerns me the most about the use of dogs, even if the hunt are genuinely legally trail hunting, is that surely these dogs have it bred into them to chase a fox or deer out of pure instinct? So it almost seems like a cheeky way of getting to fox hunt if they 'accidentally' come across one.

We have also seen how many times hounds have killed pets (domestic dogs and cats) or killed livestock. I was reading on a farming forum that a farmer banned the local hunt from his land after they left a trail of dead sheep across his field. I would not be able to live with myself if I was in any way involved with something like that happening, I truly don't understand how people continue to justify what seems to me, a huge risk.

At the end of the day, dogs are extremely unpredictable animals. 'Working' dogs may have a level of loyalty to their owner, but as many have pointed out they also aren't pets, they very much act on instinct and pack mentality. I've had enough close calls with aggressive domestic dogs, to feel that a whole pack of dogs loose, is a really bad idea.

I also personally think it is sad/wrong that they are bred for the purpose of hunting, to me it is exploitative that they are culled when they are no longer up to it. I don't like the attitude towards any animal that it is disposable/easily replaceable.


----------



## ycbm (25 October 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			What concerns me the most about the use of dogs, even if the hunt are genuinely legally trail hunting, is that surely these dogs have it bred into them to chase a fox or deer out of pure instinct? So it almost seems like a cheeky way of getting to fox hunt if they 'accidentally' come across one.

We have also seen how many times hounds have killed pets (domestic dogs and cats) or killed livestock. I was reading on a farming forum that a farmer banned the local hunt from his land after they left a trail of dead sheep across his field. I would not be able to live with myself if I was in any way involved with something like that happening, I truly don't understand how people continue to justify what seems to me, a huge risk.

At the end of the day, dogs are extremely unpredictable animals. 'Working' dogs may have a level of loyalty to their owner, but as many have pointed out they also aren't pets, they very much act on instinct and pack mentality. I've had enough close calls with aggressive domestic dogs, to feel that a whole pack of dogs loose, is a really bad idea.

I also personally think it is sad/wrong that they are bred for the purpose of hunting, to me it is exploitative that they are culled when they are no longer up to it. I don't like the attitude towards any animal that it is disposable/easily replaceable.
		
Click to expand...


Drag hunts use fox hounds and have no problems stopping them from chasing foxes or deer.  It's about training and how the trail is laid.  I have seen a lamb killed but it was a bad decision to lay a tail through a field with lambs in it.  
.


----------



## Miss_Millie (25 October 2021)

ycbm said:



			Drag hunts use fox hounds and have no problems stopping them from chasing foxes or deer.  It's about training and how the trail is laid.  I have seen a lamb killed but it was a bad decision to lay a tail through a field with lambs in it. 
.
		
Click to expand...

So presumably the dog killed the lamb out of instinct? Thus acting on instinct, regardless of training.


----------



## Indy (25 October 2021)

C


AdorableAlice said:



			I refer you back to land management.[/QUOTE can you elaborate or quote the post referring to land management please
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Indy (25 October 2021)

Indy said:



			C
		
Click to expand...

Can you elaborate on the land management side of things please


----------



## ester (25 October 2021)

And the number of employees for the loss of jobs to be considerable but it's all gone quiet on that front too.


----------



## palo1 (25 October 2021)

It is interesting too that no-one who opposes hunting has responded to the views of Daniel Greenberg who is not a hunt supporter but a legislator.   I would like to read those responses. 


There is some information about the number of people who would be impacted by a ban on trail hunting though that in itself is difficult as it needs all of the supporting industries to calculate what proportion of their business is directly associated with hunting.   That would be similar to any equestrian discipline; does your farrier identify you as an eventer when you pop round an unaffiiliated 60cm course or a hunter when you do an open Hunter Trial?  Does your feed merchant know what you do with your horses and why you might need higher energy feed at any particular time?
Does your saddle fitter have any way of inputting data about what you do with your horse or whether you might hunt 3 times a year or 2 days a week all season?

If some of the top eventers use hunting opportunities to train, fitten etc their horses how do they quantify the loss of that?  What impact would that have financially and in employment terms for their business - can they quantify that by identifying a replacement activity or do they just lose that opportunity?

When Carl Hester turns up to support his local hunt, that calls in other people to that local town on that day - they support the town by visiting and probably some purchases or refreshments; how is that quantified?

When someone who is eventing or showing or anything else buys a tweed jacket that they also intend to use for hunting how is that quantified; they may or may not spend more or less money - who knows?  When tack shops sell tack do they know whether that is for hunting or something else?  Do we buy more expensive tack if we are hunting as opposed to hacking out?  I certainly make sure that anything that I buy for trail hunting activities is going to last well and be the best quality - if I was just hacking out I might just go for a simple webbing bridle and cotton numnah.  As it is, I have a M2M saddle and sheepskin numnahs.  There is a huge difference in the expenditure of those things.

I am just one example of course but I am definitely not alone in my consumption behaviour.  Removing hunting would certainly have an impact on jobs and lives. Again, in my own situation, we have 3 horses who are shod only for hunting; without hunting we would maintain their feet unshod all year and my farrier would lose those 3 horses off his books entirely.  We use the farrier to trim and maintain purely because we need him to shoe in the winter.  He may be happy to lose 3 horses for 6 months but if you repeat that across the country then yes, there would be an impact on farriers for one thing.


----------



## palo1 (25 October 2021)

Indy said:



			Can you elaborate on the land management side of things please
		
Click to expand...

There has been so much written about this - both accepted and contested; on this forum and in other places.  If you are really interested, just go and find out!


----------



## ester (25 October 2021)

fwiw I do think it will have an impact on people, I'm just not convinced on how considerable said impact is overall/in the grand scheme of horse ownership. If there really isn't much data that would probably be a good idea going forwards (all my hunt stuff was loaned by another hhoer  except jods I think I had my own ones of those...)


----------



## AdorableAlice (25 October 2021)

Indy said:



			Can you elaborate on the land management side of things please
		
Click to expand...

Needing to ask indicates the lack of understanding of how any form of hunting, land owners, crop rotation, seasonal planting, the shooting season and land management is all linked.

Palo's comments cover the subject far better than mine.


----------



## Indy (25 October 2021)

AdorableAlice said:



			Needing to ask indicates the lack of understanding of how any form of hunting, land owners, crop rotation, seasonal planting, the shooting season and land management is all linked.

Palo's comments cover the subject far better than mine.
		
Click to expand...

I was just after your perspective that's all. I know about the farming side of things but I'm not sure how the hunt help us with land management


----------



## palo1 (25 October 2021)

CrunchieBoi said:



			These dogs are culled by hunts themselves long before reaching the end of their natural lifespan so not sure how this could be considered a valid point?
		
Click to expand...

That is such a misrepresentation of the truth...Would you also suggest that no-one should be breeding sheep dogs or other working dogs as they too are 'culled' before the end of their natural lifespan?


----------



## palo1 (25 October 2021)

ester said:



			fwiw I do think it will have an impact on people, I'm just not convinced on how considerable said impact is overall/in the grand scheme of horse ownership. If there really isn't much data that would probably be a good idea going forwards (all my hunt stuff was loaned by another hhoer  except jods I think I had my own ones of those...)
		
Click to expand...

Before the ban came in there was considerable research done about the impact of a complete ban on livelihoods etc and that was certainly one mitigating factor in the extent and nature of the Hunting Act. However that is not up to date although the CA have fairly recently identified that more people hunt (either regularly or occasionally) now than they did at the time of the ban.


----------



## Koweyka (25 October 2021)

palo1 said:



			That is such a misrepresentation of the truth...Would you also suggest that no-one should be breeding sheep dogs or other working dogs as they too are 'culled' before the end of their natural lifespan?
		
Click to expand...

There is a hunt up north that culled 18 perfectly healthy hounds before the start of last season, beautiful healthy hounds, MFHA got involved, huntsman reprimanded but made no difference 8 more were then shot. Hopefully the details will come out soon, because this particular huntsman should never be near a hound again.


----------



## ester (25 October 2021)

palo1 said:



			Before the ban came in there was considerable research done about the impact of a complete ban on livelihoods etc and that was certainly one mitigating factor in the extent and nature of the Hunting Act. However that is not up to date although the CA have fairly recently identified that more people hunt (either regularly or occasionally) now than they did at the time of the ban.
		
Click to expand...

yup I was thinking post ban, I figured they would have generated figures pre ban.


----------



## Fellewell (25 October 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			So presumably the dog killed the lamb out of instinct? Thus acting on instinct, regardless of training.
		
Click to expand...

But we can't just get rid of all animals on that basis, surely?
Our friendly yard cat kills voles, moles, birds and rabbits on a regular basis with practised skill. Unfortunately she draws the line at rats, which was her intended purpose but that's cats for you.
David Attenborough made a living out of following big cats and other predators for our entertainment and he's a national treasure. It's of no consolation to the zebra that it gets eaten.
Anyone who believes that The Hunting Act has improved the lot of the fox is very, very misguided. It was about political grandstanding, getting rid of what was perceived as 'the old guard' and plain old fashioned nimbyism. Up and down the country dozens of foxes are trapped and killed in urban areas all year round and Palo has illustrated what happens to those in rural areas far more eloquently than I could.


----------



## Tiddlypom (25 October 2021)

AdorableAlice said:



			Needing to ask indicates the lack of understanding of how any form of hunting, land owners, crop rotation, seasonal planting, the shooting season and land management is all linked.
		
Click to expand...

Wow, that was an unnecessarily patronising and unhelpful response, AA .

Hunting shooting itself in the foot again.



Fellewell said:



			Anyone who believes that The Hunting Act has improved the lot of the fox is very, very misguided.
		
Click to expand...

As I've posted before, I fully agree with this view. Back in the days of legal hunting the countryside in general, and the fox population in particular, were better managed simply to provide the best sport.

Many might despise the motives for this, but it is true.

But we are where we are, and fox hunting has been banned since the Hunting Act of 2004...


----------



## Koweyka (25 October 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			Wow, that was an unnecessarily patronising and unhelpful response, AA .

Hunting shooting itself in the foot again.
		
Click to expand...

Have you seen the latest hunting leaks about the Cheshire Hunt ? Fascinating reading, though very sad about the hound killed on the road chasing a fox…this was when they had supposedly started trailing. I know people who witnessed it, the screams from the hound were horrendous, yet another victim of hunting.


----------



## The Fuzzy Furry (25 October 2021)

palo1 said:



			Well it's a good idea for sure!! It wouldn't particularly appeal to me because the reason I go trail hunting is not to hang out in a gang of people galloping round the countryside (I think that is drag hunting...!!) but to watch hounds working a scent.
		
Click to expand...

Drag hunting hounds still follow a scent, its great watching them work to find the lines. The runner is usually very fit, picks up and puts down the scent which is dragged behind, over fences too, interesting to watch when going over streams etc to see hounds working to pick up the scent trail again.
Big difference is that the master will often likely know the routes, so the field can whizz round fields, take wider lines on open common land - and find all the hedges, fences etc whilst watching hounds work a little further away.


----------



## palo1 (25 October 2021)

Koweyka said:



			There is a hunt up north that culled 18 perfectly healthy hounds before the start of last season, beautiful healthy hounds, MFHA got involved, huntsman reprimanded but made no difference 8 more were then shot. Hopefully the details will come out soon, because this particular huntsman should never be near a hound again.
		
Click to expand...

I hadn't heard about this and have no idea why 18 perfectly healthy hounds would be killed; that is so far outside any experience or understanding I have of hunting practices.  Hounds are killed/culled/euthanased for a variety of reasons; do you know why those hounds were killed?  Had those hounds rioted or did they have some contagious and potentially dangerous illness (ie to cattle or sheep - neospora perhaps?) 

Whilst that is utterly dire, it is not usual.  Hounds ARE killed for sure but not before their time unless there is a good reason; unmanageable aggression, illness or behaviour that can't be managed within the infrastructure and a number DO return to their puppy walkers.  I had a retired hound for 12 years; she didn't enjoy trail hunting so I had her at home.  She was blooming awkward and would NOT have made a great pet for anyone who didn't understand her background.  She wasn't especially bothered about being part of a pack (she would have been a better hound if she had been!) but never really 'cared' about house-training, was the most appalling thief, selectively deaf, rather territorial about where she chose to lie down and with the stamina of a blooming endurance animal...We adored her and entirely tolerated her foibles but they really would not be for most people wanting a pet.


----------



## palo1 (25 October 2021)

The Fuzzy Furry said:



			Drag hunting hounds still follow a scent, its great watching them work to find the lines. The runner is usually very fit, picks up and puts down the scent which is dragged behind, over fences too, interesting to watch when going over streams etc to see hounds working to pick up the scent trail again.
Big difference is that the master will often likely know the routes, so the field can whizz round fields, take wider lines on open common land - and find all the hedges, fences etc whilst watching hounds work a little further away.
		
Click to expand...

Yes I have been drag hunting on a number of occasions. Every drag pack presumably has their own style.  In my experience the trail laid is very simple - designed to keep hounds running and to keep the field moving - usually at speed over decent going and plenty of jumps.  I haven't seen particularly complex trails laid tbh though I would like to go out with a pack that presented more challenging trailing.  Bloodhounding is good fun too though.


----------



## ycbm (25 October 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			So presumably the dog killed the lamb out of instinct? Thus acting on instinct, regardless of training.
		
Click to expand...

The lamb was standing on the trail, I really can't blame the dog in this instance it was entirely the fault of whoever decided to lay a trail through a field full of sheep with lambs at foot in March.  The dog did not run riot.
.


----------



## Koweyka (25 October 2021)

palo1 said:



			I hadn't heard about this and have no idea why 18 perfectly healthy hounds would be killed; that is so far outside any experience or understanding I have of hunting practices.  Hounds are killed/culled/euthanased for a variety of reasons; do you know why those hounds were killed?  Had those hounds rioted or did they have some contagious and potentially dangerous illness (ie to cattle or sheep - neospora perhaps?)

Whilst that is utterly dire, it is not usual.  Hounds ARE killed for sure but not before their time unless there is a good reason; unmanageable aggression, illness or behaviour that can't be managed within the infrastructure and a number DO return to their puppy walkers.  I had a retired hound for 12 years; she didn't enjoy trail hunting so I had her at home.  She was blooming awkward and would NOT have made a great pet for anyone who didn't understand her background.  She wasn't especially bothered about being part of a pack (she would have been a better hound if she had been!) but never really 'cared' about house-training, was the most appalling thief, selectively deaf, rather territorial about where she chose to lie down and with the stamina of a blooming endurance animal...We adored her and entirely tolerated her foibles but they really would not be for most people wanting a pet.
		
Click to expand...

They hadn’t done anything wrong, perfectly healthy, great condition, never rioted, beautiful temperaments but they just didn’t fit in with the plans of this particular huntsman, let’s say he DIDN’T want to trail and these hounds did. It’s a disgrace, I sincerely hope in the near future he is named and shamed and shunned.


----------



## The Fuzzy Furry (25 October 2021)

palo1 said:



			Yes I have been drag hunting on a number of occasions. Every drag pack presumably has their own style.  In my experience the trail laid is very simple - designed to keep hounds running and to keep the field moving - usually at speed over decent going and plenty of jumps.  I haven't seen particularly complex trails laid tbh though I would like to go out with a pack that presented more challenging trailing.  Bloodhounding is good fun too though.
		
Click to expand...

I find the onward bound direct trails are weekends, more elaborate lines during the week. 
My most local drag pack used to take errant fox hounds as a 'last ditch' attempt to get them working, but this stopped well over 20 years ago,  They have bred their own ever since


----------



## Gallop_Away (25 October 2021)

ycbm said:



			Drag hunts use fox hounds and have no problems stopping them from chasing foxes or deer.  It's about training and how the trail is laid.  I have seen a lamb killed but it was a bad decision to lay a tail through a field with lambs in it.
.
		
Click to expand...

Well put!

This is why it is so important to have a master with excellent control and skills with their hounds.
I can not recall ever seeing either of the packs I hunt with have hounds harm another animal/pet/livestock etc. Thats not to say they never veered off the trail. It happens. But this is where our whips and hunt master show superb skill and recall and regather hounds.
Also as ycbm points out above you also need to use common sense where you lay your trails.
All this involves a great deal of work but I personally think its very much worth the effort.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (25 October 2021)

palo1 said:



			That is such a misrepresentation of the truth...Would you also suggest that no-one should be breeding sheep dogs or other working dogs as they too are 'culled' before the end of their natural lifespan?
		
Click to expand...

I personally differentiate between hounds bred for trail hunting (a hobby) and working dogs doing some form of essential job to be honest. Also the gun dogs and sheepdogs I know were all looked after until old age.


----------



## ycbm (25 October 2021)

palo1 said:



			That is such a misrepresentation of the truth...Would you also suggest that no-one should be breeding sheep dogs or other working dogs as they too are 'culled' before the end of their natural lifespan?
		
Click to expand...


I know a few of shepherds and I don't know any that cull their dogs, they just retire them.  
.


----------



## Miss_Millie (25 October 2021)

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-10-25...l-wildlife-crime-unit-membership-under-review

In the news today...

'Former Dyfed Powys Police Chief Inspector Phil Davies has been suspended as a member of the UK Priority Delivery Groups (PDGs) for wildlife crime after a judge drew attention to words he used in an online hunting webinar.'


----------



## palo1 (25 October 2021)

That may be a good thing.


----------



## palo1 (25 October 2021)

ycbm said:



			I know a few of shepherds and I don't know any that cull their dogs, they just retire them. 
.
		
Click to expand...

Equally, I know of shepherds that cull their old dogs.  Sometimes because the dog is miserable being left at home when it is too old to work, sometimes because they need medical treatment that can't be afforded, sometimes because with perhaps 7 or 8 dogs the space in kennels is  needed for working dogs.  

In any case culling hounds or dogs is not illegal nor the issue in question.  People have healthy animals killed or euthanased for many reasons and doing that or not can both be contentious. A lot of people don't like to support the Dogs  Trust for example because of their stance that they never put a healthy dog down.  For some people that isn't considered appropriate if the dog spends the rest of it's life confined in a rescue centre.  If we are going to consider the morality of killing animals then we are in the territory of ethical veganism which is an entirely other discussion.


----------



## palo1 (25 October 2021)

CrunchieBoi said:



			I personally differentiate between hounds bred for trail hunting (a hobby) and working dogs doing some form of essential job to be honest. Also the gun dogs and sheepdogs I know were all looked after until old age.
		
Click to expand...

Well the definition of 'essential' is entirely subjective.  An ethical vegan would not accept that any dog's 'work' was esssential in fact but possibly always exploitative.  Your values and judgements are not necessarily universal and for a trail huntsman who has tied accomodation, his hounds are absolutely essential to his livelihood and possibly that of his family in exactly the same way as a shepherd or gamekeepers dogs are.


----------



## palo1 (25 October 2021)

ycbm said:



			The lamb was standing on the trail, I really can't blame the dog in this instance it was entirely the fault of whoever decided to lay a trail through a field full of sheep with lambs at foot in March.  The dog did not run riot.
.
		
Click to expand...

Well if it killed a lamb it was rioting!  Most hounds under a decent huntsman (including my old retired girl) don't look twice at sheep even if the sheep are standing in their path.  An attack on livestock, wherever that livestock is, is riot and must be taken extremely seriously.


----------



## ycbm (25 October 2021)

palo1 said:



			Well if it killed a lamb it was rioting!
		
Click to expand...

I didn't realise you were there. 
.


----------



## palo1 (25 October 2021)

ycbm said:



			I didn't realise you were there.
.
		
Click to expand...

I wasn't - I've never seen a hound kill a sheep or lamb.  Sorry, have I got the wrong end of the stick in relation to your post?!


----------



## CrunchieBoi (25 October 2021)

palo1 said:



			Well the definition of 'essential' is entirely subjective.  An ethical vegan would not accept that any dog's 'work' was esssential in fact but possibly always exploitative.  Your values and judgements are not necessarily universal and for a trail huntsman who has tied accomodation, his hounds are absolutely essential to his livelihood and possibly that of his family in exactly the same way as a shepherd or gamekeepers dogs are.
		
Click to expand...

At no point did I claim my views were universal, in fact I even used the phrase "I personally..." 

There's little point in me continuing the discussion with you because there's nothing positive you can tell me about the activity known as "trail hunting". As far as I'm concerned, it's just been proved to be what I'd always suspected it to be. 

Having a nosey on pro-hunting Facebook groups reveal an awful lot of folk commenting along the lines that heads should be kept down until this latest scandal blows over and ultimately carry on as normal.


----------



## palo1 (25 October 2021)

CrunchieBoi said:



			At no point did I claim my views were universal, in fact I even used the phrase "I personally..."

There's little point in me continuing the discussion with you because there's nothing positive you can tell me about the activity known as "trail hunting". As far as I'm concerned, it's just been proved to be what I'd always suspected it to be.

Having a nosey on pro-hubting Facebook groups reveal an awful lot of folk commenting along the lines that heads should be kept down until this latest scandal blows over and ultimately carry on as normal.
		
Click to expand...

That is fair enough - I think I feel similarly that positions on both sides of the debate are polarised and 'set' in emotional and philosophical concrete.  It is difficult to actually achieve a discussion.  The tropes around hunters and antis are so incredibly established that I don't really know when or how there can be a dialogue with any integrity.  I loathe these threads in honesty. 

If you were in the middle of a storm, largely or entirely NOT of your making and felt that you didn't know how to address issues or wanting to engage with the other side, what would you do?  Most people's natural response is, indeed, to keep their head down.  Please believe me when I say that all of the grass roots hunters that I know, huntsmen and other hunt staff never wanted their lifestyle to be brought into disrepute, never wanted to face the barrage of attention on them and just want to work in the best way they can under a law that is appalling whichever side you sit on. People like me who are prepared to endlessly take the stick for supporting hunting are not so many; because it is so difficult to communicate and we are constantly told we are lying, ignorant, deluded, cruel, bloodthirsty etc (just on this thread actually!).  That isn't a good day out tbh, even when you are not being physically or verbally abused, harrassed etc.   I know that anti-hunters also loathe the way they are portrayed often.  There is a reality of violence, aggression, intimidation and other deeply anti-social and unpleasant stuff there too but there are indeed hunt monitors and those who want to see the end of all hunting (including drag hunting) who are kind, reasonable, decent people working within established boundaries of legal access and campaigning.

I believe that honest, respectful debate and discussion are the only way to move forward but I don't ask anyone else to take that position;  you do what works best for you.  I want to put my view and experience forward and thankfully live somewhere that is entirely possible.


----------



## palo1 (25 October 2021)

I am still wondering how anti hunters here respond to Daniel Greenberg's words; I think it is really telling that literally not a single poster has been able to respond to his assertions around intolerance...


----------



## palo1 (25 October 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			Wow, that was an unnecessarily patronising and unhelpful response, AA .

Hunting shooting itself in the foot again.

As I've posted before, I fully agree with this view. Back in the days of legal hunting the countryside in general, and the fox population in particular, were better managed simply to provide the best sport.

Many might despise the motives for this, but it is true.

But we are where we are, and fox hunting has been banned since the Hunting Act of 2004...
		
Click to expand...

'Hunting shooting itself in the foot again.'

I do wonder sometimes @Tiddlypom if you ever re-read your own posts... I have known you to be incredibly patronising and dismissive so I think this is a case of 'Pot, meet Kettle...'  I don't think @AdorableAlice meant to be at all patronising but was simply stating that if someone was unaware of how hunting impacted on land management then it demonstrated a lack of knowledge that isn't particularly helpful in this debate. Also, to be honest, there is so much information available on the subject from both sides that anyone who is genuinely interested in the issues, rather than just stating their view without being informed, or just having a pop would have probably been aware of them.  I am not suggesting that @Indy just wanted to have a pop btw; it is just an observation.


----------



## Dizzy socks (25 October 2021)

palo1 said:



			I am still wondering how anti hunters here respond to Daniel Greenberg's words; I think it is really telling that literally not a single poster has been able to respond to his assertions around intolerance...
		
Click to expand...


Okay - I’ll bite. I’ve been trying not get involved in this thread, because I don’t think it’s especially productive, but here are my thoughts having read what you’ve quoted. I’m not sure why you think it’s of such relevance - I also agree the Act is badly drafted, but this thread has now gone beyond a discussion of the rights and wrongs of hunting, and into the more nuanced questions of whether trail hunting can/should survive.

While it may be arguable that hunting may have been cultural significant, and that activities deemed culturally significant have value, this is not of ultimate importance - if it were, we’d still have cockfights. 

Sometimes, certain values must be prioritised over others - and I think that animal welfare should triumph over historical enjoyment/culture. I don’t think you’d disagree with this assertion?

Ultimately, we’re back at the age-old question of whether fox hunting is cruel, and we are no further on. If you think it isn’t, then yes there is an argument for its preservation, but if you think it is, then preventing animal cruelty should triumph.

I don’t think the comparison to vegetarians is effective - while only a small proportion may have campaigned against hunting, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a majority who do consider hunting cruel. I have a fairly diverse group of friends (I like to think!), grew up in the country and now live in the city, and can’t think of a single person who supports fox hunting (and yes, it’s a discussion I’ve had often. I felt more ambivalent before I researched further in recent years). 

Protest is *necessary* to enact change - look at the civil rights protests. Certain things are deemed sufficiently intolerable that leave and leave alone cannot be allowed, nor can ‘we have always done it this way’. Perceptions change, things which were permissible at one time will not always be.

I still think the comparison to hate crime isn’t appropriate and is perhaps offensive - protected groups are protected for a reason, and hunting in no way meets these standards.


----------



## ester (25 October 2021)

It's always nice if people can respond to questions though


----------



## Tiddlypom (25 October 2021)

palo1 said:



			I don't think @AdorableAlice meant to be at all patronising but was simply stating that if someone was unaware of how hunting impacted on land management then it demonstrated a lack of knowledge that isn't particularly helpful in this debate.
		
Click to expand...

An opportunity was lost to put forward the benefit of hunting, and there are some.

Hunting does, or rather it did when it was legal, have many positive aspects re land management to facilitate the sport.

Instead, a politely worded enquiry was rebuffed 🤷‍♀️.


----------



## palo1 (26 October 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			An opportunity was lost to put forward the benefit of hunting, and there are some.

Hunting does, or rather it did when it was legal, have many positive aspects re land management to facilitate the sport.

Instead, a politely worded enquiry was rebuffed 🤷‍♀️.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Tiddlypom (26 October 2021)

And on a positive note for hunting, my local pack is now issuing meet cards again! Hurray! A very good PR move to reinstate them .

The meet card is just like the old ones, except understandably only the name of the village or locality where the meet is to be held is given, rather than the name of the farm/pub whatever. That's no problem.

It means that I can work out, like I always used to do, on which days the hunt is almost certain to be here, might be here, or won't be here. Then I can plan how best to manage my animals on those days. As long I have good notice, I have no problem with the hunt being here.

The most recent meet card that I have from before this is from the 2017/18 season, so it's been a long gap.


----------



## Tiddlypom (11 November 2021)

Hunting has been right up in the news lately, and not in a good way, has it. 

No discussions here at admin's order request, please, of the latest issue from last weekend.

However, a very pertinent comment was put on the pro hunt This is Hunting UK FB page, which attracted 22 likes. Has the Countryside Alliance gone to ground?

_'By the way, but is the Countryside Alliance actually representing the hunting community anymore? Their silence is deafening!'_


----------



## Rowreach (11 November 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			Hunting has been right up in the news lately, and not in a good way, has it. 

No discussions here at admin's order request, please, of the latest issue from last weekend.

However, a very pertinent comment was put on the pro hunt This is Hunting UK FB page, which attracted 22 likes. Has the Countryside Alliance gone to ground?

_'By the way, but is the Countryside Alliance actually representing the hunting community anymore? Their silence is deafening!'_

Click to expand...

They commented fully on the National Trust vote.


----------



## Tiddlypom (11 November 2021)

One out of three major recent adverse issues for hunting, then? 

They did give a fair bit of publicity to the then upcoming National Trust vote and tbf, the result.

Did I miss them commenting on the Mark Hankinson verdict? Can't see anything on the website or their FB page, but maybe I'm not looking hard enough.


----------



## AShetlandBitMeOnce (23 November 2021)

Reviving yet another thread that had fizzled out but came across this video and thought that it was showing exactly the standard of obedience and control the public should expect from a hunt and their pack..

(Sorry, I don’t think I can embed the media clip so you’ll have to click on the link if you can) ETA: think I managed it


----------



## Tiddlypom (23 November 2021)

Yes, that clip is being lauded by pro hunt as showing outstanding hound control, but it simply shows how hounds can be correctly trained to ignore distractions and to not riot, as long as the work is put in.

It's what all packs should be like all the time, and not a cause of great self congratulation that on this occasion a pack was filmed under tight control and ignoring a deer. That should be normal, expected everyday practice 🤷‍♀️.

If hunt staff don't put the work in and don't have the respect and attention of the hounds, which is all too common, then they have no business taking hounds out in public.

Remember the video of the High Peak hounds rioting onto the calf? That should never have happened, but it did.


----------



## Koweyka (23 November 2021)

Yes it’s quite remarkable but certainly not the norm….

https://www.keeptheban.uk/post/deer...UGVG7BzpfIeyOE7--nU1ieTiV9OZxXDKzKM-U6hip71Bw


----------



## Koweyka (25 November 2021)




----------



## ycbm (25 November 2021)

I can't "like" that because I want to trail hunt,  but trail hunting has no-one to blame but itself for not distancing itself from what it knew was happening in its name. So that's most?  of Wales gone,  and all NT land.  What next?
.


----------



## Tiddlypom (25 November 2021)

Another 'what on earth does this mean?' comment from a prominent pro hunt name in response to the announcement about the National Trust banning trail hunting.

National Trust bans trail hunting on its land https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59420935

_Tim Bonner, chief executive of the Countryside Alliance said: "The inability of trustees to differentiate between the legal use of hounds and the governance of hunting is extremely regrettable and breaks the basic principle of access to National Trust land for legitimate activities." _

Err, Mr Bonner, the whole point is that the governance of hunting has been caught and convicted red handed of advising hunts on how to pretend to hunt legally while hunting illegally. So nothing pro hunt can say re hunting legally can now (or indeed ever could be) trusted, and they certainly couldn't/can't be trusted to use National Trust land for "legitimate activities".

You are very much part of the norty old guard who havd been caught out fair and square, yet you're still bleating on about the legal use of use of hounds? Who on earth do you expect will believe you? Why are you and the rest of the old guard who are responsible for this state of affairs still in office?


----------



## palo1 (25 November 2021)

Hmm, I am disappointed but not astonished by the withdrawal of licensing.  I think both organisations are wrong and all of this will play into the hands of unregistered packs who will be hunting illegally and who will prove far more difficult to identify and prosecute.  Where there are determined fox hunting elements in the registered packs they are potentially likely to remove themselves to an unregistered one.    I have heard of several people taking this option in fact.   Without horses, those packs of hounds are more likely to be welcomed by farmers or at least ignored by them too.  The general public, if disturbed by these packs which is not especially likely, will have no way of identifying anything about the hounds or the human individuals involved.   One of the major handbrakes on those packs in the past has been the registered packs who have legitimacy and who will challenge (and often recognise) the unregistered/pirate packs. The greatest attention of the sabs/anti hunt lobby has been on these registered, accountable packs but there are increasing numbers of pirate packs of hounds which are totally unaccountable.   These withdrawals of licences for registered hunts who could be brought to task and who are likely to want to protect their country from unregistered packs won't help foxes, it won't stop illegal access to NT or NRW land and it will likely cause further trouble in all manner of ways.  To my view this is short sighted and divisive policy.   Unregistered packs of hounds and their followers will be a very hard nut to crack and without the visual symbolism of traditional, registered packs very hard to appeal to the general public as 'an issue' - once the red and black coated riders are gone I will be astonished if anyone gives a fig what actually happens to foxes...

Anyhow, the antis will have moved on by then, to shooting and farming.


----------



## Koweyka (25 November 2021)

Hopefully the National Parks, United Utilities and Forestry Commission will step up and also ban it completely.

The webinars are the gifts that keep on giving alongside the head burying of those that knew what certain hunts were getting up to.


----------



## Koweyka (25 November 2021)

palo1 said:



			Hmm, I am disappointed but not astonished by the withdrawal of licensing.  I think both organisations are wrong and all of this will play into the hands of unregistered packs who will be hunting illegally and who will prove far more difficult to identify and prosecute.  Where there are determined fox hunting elements in the registered packs they are potentially likely to remove themselves to an unregistered one.    I have heard of several people taking this option in fact.   Without horses, those packs of hounds are more likely to be welcomed by farmers or at least ignored by them too.  The general public, if disturbed by these packs which is not especially likely, will have no way of identifying anything about the hounds or the human individuals involved.   One of the major handbrakes on those packs in the past has been the registered packs who have legitimacy and who will challenge (and often recognise) the unregistered/pirate packs. The greatest attention of the sabs/anti hunt lobby has been on these registered, accountable packs but there are increasing numbers of pirate packs of hounds which are totally unaccountable.   These withdrawals of licences for registered hunts who could be brought to task and who are likely to want to protect their country from unregistered packs won't help foxes, it won't stop illegal access to NT or NRW land and it will likely cause further trouble in all manner of ways.  To my view this is short sighted and divisive policy.   Unregistered packs of hounds and their followers will be a very hard nut to crack and without the visual symbolism of traditional, registered packs very hard to appeal to the general public as 'an issue' - once the red and black coated riders are gone I will be astonished if anyone gives a fig what actually happens to foxes...

Anyhow, the antis will have moved on by then, to shooting and farming.
		
Click to expand...

Prepare to be astonished as antis don’t actually give a fig about red or black or green or tweed coats ….it’s all about the fox and the cruelly killing of animals, the public will be equally disgusted.


----------



## palo1 (25 November 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Hopefully the National Parks, United Utilities and Forestry Commission will step up and also ban it completely.

The webinars are the gifts that keep on giving alongside the head burying of those that knew what certain hunts were getting up to.
		
Click to expand...

And what will sabs do about those unregistered packs of foxhounds I have mentioned?


----------



## ycbm (25 November 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Hopefully the National Parks, United Utilities and Forestry Commission will step up and also ban it completely.
		
Click to expand...

Nobody has the power to ban hunting in the National Parks, the land is privately owned.  
.


----------



## paddy555 (25 November 2021)

palo1 said:



			Hmm, I am disappointed but not astonished by the withdrawal of licensing.  I think both organisations are wrong and all of this will play into the hands of unregistered packs who will be hunting illegally and who will prove far more difficult to identify and prosecute.  Where there are determined fox hunting elements in the registered packs they are potentially likely to remove themselves to an unregistered one.    I have heard of several people taking this option in fact.   Without horses, those packs of hounds are more likely to be welcomed by farmers or at least ignored by them too.  The general public, if disturbed by these packs which is not especially likely, will have no way of identifying anything about the hounds or the human individuals involved.   One of the major handbrakes on those packs in the past has been the registered packs who have legitimacy and who will challenge (and often recognise) the unregistered/pirate packs. The greatest attention of the sabs/anti hunt lobby has been on these registered, accountable packs but there are increasing numbers of pirate packs of hounds which are totally unaccountable.   These withdrawals of licences for registered hunts who could be brought to task and who are likely to want to protect their country from unregistered packs won't help foxes, it won't stop illegal access to NT or NRW land and it will likely cause further trouble in all manner of ways.  To my view this is short sighted and divisive policy.   Unregistered packs of hounds and their followers will be a very hard nut to crack and without the visual symbolism of traditional, registered packs very hard to appeal to the general public as 'an issue' - once the red and black coated riders are gone I will be astonished if anyone gives a fig what actually happens to foxes...

Anyhow, the antis will have moved on by then, to shooting and farming.
		
Click to expand...

I am afraid your post does little for hunting. It just comes across as if we cannot do it legally then s*d it  we will just carry on illegally whether people like it or not. You say where there are determined fox hunting elements. Surely using dogs to chase/kill foxes was made illegal by the 2004 act. So if people cannot hunt on NT land they will take their revenge and do it anyway. Is there any wonder that the public are just so anti hunting with that sort of attitude. 

I think the only way is to ban the whole lot lock, stock and barrel. Perhaps also ban ownership of packs of hounds, or to stop individuals each owning one hound ban gatherings of more than 3 fox hounds.   That will show unregistered packs and the antis will be able to concentrate their efforts. 

Yes it is pathetic to have to think of doing that but if a hard core won't behave and trail or drag hunt legally then the whole lot will have to pay the price for it. 
the penalty would be very simple, hounds engaged in illegal activity would be confiscated and destroyed. 

With the attitudes described in your post I think it really is a time to put this whole thing to bed forever.


----------



## Koweyka (25 November 2021)

palo1 said:



			And what will sabs do about those unregistered packs of foxhounds I have mentioned?
		
Click to expand...

And what are you going to do for all the masses of job losses when all the horses are got rid of,  this is what you claimed would happen if hunting was banned, now you are turning it on us again with your what aboutery, to me you have just confirmed it’s all about the killing, always looking for a way to carry on hunting. 
Registered or unregistered it makes no difference to us.


----------



## Sandstone1 (25 November 2021)

palo1 said:



			Hmm, I am disappointed but not astonished by the withdrawal of licensing.  I think both organisations are wrong and all of this will play into the hands of unregistered packs who will be hunting illegally and who will prove far more difficult to identify and prosecute.  Where there are determined fox hunting elements in the registered packs they are potentially likely to remove themselves to an unregistered one.    I have heard of several people taking this option in fact.   Without horses, those packs of hounds are more likely to be welcomed by farmers or at least ignored by them too.  The general public, if disturbed by these packs which is not especially likely, will have no way of identifying anything about the hounds or the human individuals involved.   One of the majorWhat  handbrakes on those packs in the past has been the registered packs who have legitimacy and who will challenge (and often recognise) the unregistered/pirate packs. The greatest attention of the sabs/anti hunt lobby has been on these registered, accountable packs but there are increasing numbers of pirate packs of hounds which are totally unaccountable.   These withdrawals of licences for registered hunts who could be brought to task and who are likely to want to protect their country from unregistered packs won't help foxes, it won't stop illegal access to NT or NRW land and it will likely cause further trouble in all manner of ways.  To my view this is short sighted and divisive policy.   Unregistered packs of hounds and their followers will be a very hard nut to crack and without the visual symbolism of traditional, registered packs very hard to appeal to the general public as 'an issue' - once the red and black coated riders are gone I will be astonished if anyone gives a fig what actually happens to foxes...

Anyhow, the antis will have moved on by then, to shooting and farming.
		
Click to expand...

What a load of tosh.  Do you really think antis care whos hunting?  They care about the fact that animals are being hunted illegally.


----------



## Sandstone1 (25 November 2021)

paddy555 said:



			I am afraid your post does little for hunting. It just comes across as if we cannot do it legally then s*d it  we will just carry on illegally whether people like it or not. You say where there are determined fox hunting elements. Surely using dogs to chase/kill foxes was made illegal by the 2004 act. So if people cannot hunt on NT land they will take their revenge and do it anyway. Is there any wonder that the public are just so anti hunting with that sort of attitude.

I think the only way is to ban the whole lot lock, stock and barrel. Perhaps also ban ownership of packs of hounds, or to stop individuals each owning one hound ban gatherings of more than 3 fox hounds.   That will show unregistered packs and the antis will be able to concentrate their efforts.

Yes it is pathetic to have to think of doing that but if a hard core won't behave and trail or drag hunt legally then the whole lot will have to pay the price for it.
the penalty would be very simple, hounds engaged in illegal activity would be confiscated and destroyed.

With the attitudes described in your post I think it really is a time to put this whole thing to bed forever.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly.  Just completely shown that they just care about the killing.


----------



## paddy555 (25 November 2021)

ycbm said:



			Nobody has the power to ban hunting in the National Parks, the land is privately owned. 
.
		
Click to expand...

well I can't really see Charlie banning hunting nor many of the landowners. .


----------



## Koweyka (25 November 2021)

paddy555 said:



			well I can't really see Charlie banning hunting nor many of the landowners. .
		
Click to expand...

We have noticed a lot of smaller landowners have banned our local hunts and those that haven’t have been watching what’s going on, it’s making it difficult to plan a full days hunting and they are repeatedly going to the same areas.


----------



## paddy555 (25 November 2021)

Koweyka said:



			We have noticed a lot of smaller landowners have banned our local hunts and those that haven’t have been watching what’s going on, it’s making it difficult to plan a full days hunting and they are repeatedly going to the same areas.
		
Click to expand...

afraid I cannot see that happening here.  There is hunting on Duchy tenants land like it or not and the landowners are large on the moorland areas.


----------



## Amymay (25 November 2021)

ycbm said:



			Nobody has the power to ban hunting in the National Parks, the land is privately owned. 
.
		
Click to expand...

Not all of it.


----------



## ycbm (25 November 2021)

Amymay said:



			Not all of it.
		
Click to expand...

I sorry I meant that the governing body of a national park does not own the land within it.  The majority is in private ownership,  the rest by people like NT.  Unless the other parks are different from the Peak?
.


----------



## palo1 (25 November 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Hopefully the National Parks, United Utilities and Forestry Commission will step up and also ban it completely.

The webinars are the gifts that keep on giving alongside the head burying of those that knew what certain hunts were getting up to.
		
Click to expand...




paddy555 said:



			I am afraid your post does little for hunting. It just comes across as if we cannot do it legally then s*d it  we will just carry on illegally whether people like it or not. You say where there are determined fox hunting elements. Surely using dogs to chase/kill foxes was made illegal by the 2004 act. So if people cannot hunt on NT land they will take their revenge and do it anyway. Is there any wonder that the public are just so anti hunting with that sort of attitude.

I think the only way is to ban the whole lot lock, stock and barrel. Perhaps also ban ownership of packs of hounds, or to stop individuals each owning one hound ban gatherings of more than 3 fox hounds.   That will show unregistered packs and the antis will be able to concentrate their efforts.

Yes it is pathetic to have to think of doing that but if a hard core won't behave and trail or drag hunt legally then the whole lot will have to pay the price for it.
the penalty would be very simple, hounds engaged in illegal activity would be confiscated and destroyed.

With the attitudes described in your post I think it really is a time to put this whole thing to bed forever.
		
Click to expand...

It is not my attitude actually - I was just stating what I know.  I don't think banning keeping a pack of hounds would be feasible tbh.  I sort of feel a bit insulted (that is likely deliberate) after numerous attempts to clearly articulate that I don't support illegal hunting that you would suggest that I would want to support an unregistered fox hound pack.  Oh well.


----------



## palo1 (25 November 2021)

Koweyka said:



			And what are you going to do for all the masses of job losses when all the horses are got rid of,  this is what you claimed would happen if hunting was banned, now you are turning it on us again with your what aboutery, to me you have just confirmed it’s all about the killing, always looking for a way to carry on hunting.
Registered or unregistered it makes no difference to us.
		
Click to expand...

But I have supported legal trail hunting and have done nothing to bring hunting into disrepute.   I am asking what will anti fox hunters do about illegal, unregistered fox hound packs.


----------



## Tiddlypom (25 November 2021)

I'm not sure how the legalities pan out, but the Lake District National Park suspended trail hunting on all its land in Nov '20, pending the outcome of police investigation into the leaked webinars.

Lake District National Park suspends trail hunting amid investigation https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-55115897


----------



## Koweyka (25 November 2021)

palo1 said:



			But I have supported legal trail hunting and have done nothing to bring hunting into disrepute.   I am asking what will anti fox hunters do about illegal, unregistered fox hound packs.
		
Click to expand...

And I will refer you back to your previous posts where you have repeatedly stated that if hunting is banned how it will cost thousands of jobs etc I am asking what you will do about that under the circumstances you describe.
Do you think antis ignore unregistered packs when we receive tip offs regarding them ?


----------



## Sandstone1 (25 November 2021)

The whole point is fox hunting has been banned for years,  we all know it has gone on under the guise of trail hunting.  Now because its become so clear to the general public that in fact it is still going on trail hunting will either be banned or it will become impossible to do because of the lack of land and willing landowners.  This is all because of pro hunters who think they can continue as if fox hunting was never banned at all!
The " turn a blind eye" attitude has got to stop.


----------



## teapot (25 November 2021)

Not sure how you'd enforce a ban in the South Downs National Park - it's the most farmed national park in the UK, for the most part on private land, and a number of powerful estates are slap bang in the middle of it - Goodwood, Cowdray, the Norfolks...


----------



## Fred66 (25 November 2021)

There is a possibility that NT can’t ban trail hunting on all their land.
Much of their land was gifted and there are quite a few instances where the gift either expressly stated that hunting across the land was to be granted or where the sporting rights were withheld.
So in some instances whilst NT might own the land they might not control the right to hunt across it.


----------



## teapot (25 November 2021)

Fred66 said:



			There is a possibility that NT can’t ban trail hunting on all their land.
Much of their land was gifted and there are quite a few instances where the gift either expressly stated that hunting across the land was to be granted or where the sporting rights were withheld.
So in some instances whilst NT might own the land they might not control the right to hunt across it.
		
Click to expand...

See this is an interesting one - my local hunt usually has its opening meet at a NT property literally a stone's throw from the kennels. Despite the wishes of the family who live on site/own the land, the NT still said no.


----------



## stangs (25 November 2021)

All this has got me wondering whether hunting will ever be banned in Ireland too.


----------



## palo1 (25 November 2021)

teapot said:



			See this is an interesting one - my local hunt usually has its opening meet at a NT property literally a stone's throw from the kennels. Despite the wishes of the family live on site/own the land, the NT still said no.
		
Click to expand...

That is tricky for the NT!!


----------



## Clodagh (25 November 2021)

palo1 said:



			That is tricky for the NT!!
		
Click to expand...

Well I don’t think it is by my understanding, NT farms are tenanted so the landowner, the Trust, gets to say what happens.
No different to a large estate having tenant farmers and them having to abide by the landowners rules.


----------



## Clodagh (25 November 2021)

teapot said:



			Not sure how you'd enforce a ban in the South Downs National Park - it's the most farmed national park in the UK, for the most part on private land, and a number of powerful estates are slap bang in the middle of it - Goodwood, Cowdray, the Norfolks...
		
Click to expand...

National Parks are privately owned land, so the landowner top trumps the NP Authority.


----------



## teapot (25 November 2021)

Clodagh said:



			National Parks are privately owned land, so the landowner top trumps the NP Authority.
		
Click to expand...

That's my point - good luck getting some land owners on board!


----------



## Clodagh (25 November 2021)

teapot said:



			That's my point - good luck getting some land owners on board!
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, I only read the last bit of the thread. 
I wonder if NPs own the common land?


----------



## paddy555 (25 November 2021)

Clodagh said:



			Sorry, I only read the last bit of the thread.
I wonder if NPs own the common land?
		
Click to expand...

this is who owns Dartmoor. (In between the moorland are of course the privately owned farms and farmland)
https://whoownsengland.org/2021/03/22/who-owns-dartmoor/

ETA many of those privately owned farms are actually owned by the duchy and tenanted.


----------



## paddy555 (25 November 2021)

teapot said:



			See this is an interesting one - my local hunt usually has its opening meet at a NT property literally a stone's throw from the kennels. Despite the wishes of the family who live on site/own the land, the NT still said no.
		
Click to expand...

presumably the NT own the farm which is tenanted to the family. If that is the case will  be up to the NT as landowners. It is the opposite in some areas where the farmers don't want the hunt but the landlord does.


----------



## teapot (25 November 2021)

paddy555 said:



			presumably the NT own the farm which is tenanted to the family. If that is the case will  be up to the NT as landowners. It is the opposite in some areas where the farmers don't want the hunt but the landlord does.
		
Click to expand...

Not a farm, a rather well known house and estate. The NT merely manage the house for the general public, while the family live in one of the wings.


----------



## palo1 (25 November 2021)

Clodagh said:



			Well I don’t think it is by my understanding, NT farms are tenanted so the landowner, the Trust, gets to say what happens.
No different to a large estate having tenant farmers and them having to abide by the landowners rules.
		
Click to expand...

deleted - just read @teapot's last post which clarified.


----------



## Clodagh (26 November 2021)

paddy555 said:



			this is who owns Dartmoor. (In between the moorland are of course the privately owned farms and farmland)
https://whoownsengland.org/2021/03/22/who-owns-dartmoor/

ETA many of those privately owned farms are actually owned by the duchy and tenanted.
		
Click to expand...

Well I can’t see Charles wanting to ban hunting. That’s interesting, though, thank you.


----------



## Tiddlypom (26 November 2021)

Clodagh said:



			Well I can’t see Charles wanting to ban hunting. That’s interesting, though, thank you.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed, but you'd hope that he would be proactive in insisting that only strictly legal hunting takes place on Duchy land. It is rightly getting much harder for landowners to turn a blind eye to illegal hunting taking place on their land and pretending that its nothing to do with them.

The message from all landowners should be shape up, hunt legally or shove off. Which is just what my local sporting estate, with its numerous tenanted farms all with sporting rights retained by the estate, did. It's nowhere near as big as the Duchy estate, but it's pretty big beans and well known hereabouts.

It is much less hassle for the landowner just to ban all trail hunting on their land altogether, though, like the NT, rather than to trust a dubious hunt access to not flout the law.


----------



## palo1 (26 November 2021)

It is also interesting that at the end of October the NT stated that their position on trailhunting was that 'Making it illegal is a matter for the government' (that does not prevent them from refusing to issue licences though of course) - also that the trust were satisfied that trail hunting caused no more trouble than any other legal activity on their land. 

They have now clarified that they will still allow some 'ceremonial meets' (Ie I guess some meets to take place but then move off NT land to trail hunt elsewhere) as well as that they must allow trail hunts access via PROWs to cross their land.  That is going to work well then isn't it?!  What a mess.

This is what the Lake District NP Authority have to say on understanding the management of trail hunting:-

We issue licences for activities taking place on common land owned by the Lake District National Park Authority. This is a blank trail hunting licence for the 2020-2021 season.
The Lake District National Park Authority (LDNPA) does not have any overall power or responsibility to manage this activity on land owned by others in the National Park.
Several fell packs have traditionally used areas of Common Land that is now owned by the LDNPA (amounting to about 4 per cent of land in the National Park) and this use has continued under licence from us.
We issue licences for a wide variety of activities on our land and those issued to the fell packs are designed to enable them to maintain their traditional activity within the law, whilst minimising inconvenience to other users of the land.


----------



## palo1 (26 November 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			Indeed, but you'd hope that he would be proactive in insisting that only strictly legal hunting takes place on Duchy land. It is rightly getting much harder for landowners to turn a blind eye to illegal hunting taking place on their land and pretending that its nothing to do with them.

The message from all landowners should be shape up, hunt legally or shove off. Which is just what my local sporting estate, with its numerous tenanted farms all with sporting rights retained by the estate, did. It's nowhere near as big as the Duchy estate, but it's pretty big beans and well known hereabouts.

It is much less hassle for the landowner just to ban all trail hunting on their land altogether, though, like the NT, rather than to trust a dubious hunt access to flout the law.
		
Click to expand...

Well yes, telling hunts to sort themselves out is the sensible thing to do.  Except where landowners themselves do not want trail hunting but want fox hunting or will tolerate it for whatever reason they may have.  I have no idea how many landowners take that position in fact but I suspect that some do at least.  I know that people will feel outraged by this but the reality of the Hunting Act is that some people who hunted traditionally pre-ban never saw any evidence that hunting foxes with hounds was in fact inhumane and the Act itself is so dire that, as we know, that has allowed exemptions to the law and for every single allegation of illegal hunting requiring to be contested by both sides.  It is dire in so many ways.


----------



## ycbm (26 November 2021)

palo1 said:



			What a mess.
		
Click to expand...

I agree.  What I can't guage from any of your responses on this or other hunting threads is whether you accept that the mess is of trail hunting's own making.
.


----------



## ycbm (26 November 2021)

palo1 said:



			the Act.... is so dire that, as we know, that has allowed exemptions to the law and for every single allegation of illegal hunting requiring to be contested by both sides. It [the situation] is dire in so many ways.
		
Click to expand...

The situation is dire because people chose to use leaway in the law, which was meant to ensure that honest accidents weren't criminalised, to carry on wholesale activities which they knew full well were in contravention of the law.
.


----------



## paddy555 (26 November 2021)

palo1 said:



			s but the reality of the Hunting Act is that some people who hunted traditionally pre-ban never saw any evidence that hunting foxes with hounds was in fact inhumane
		
Click to expand...

but why did they have to? It comes across as we didn't see any problem with our activity before, we still don't so it doesn't really apply to us. That is the attitude that your posts are putting across to me. And yes the Act is dire.


----------



## paddy555 (26 November 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			Indeed, but you'd hope that he would be proactive in insisting that only strictly legal hunting takes place on Duchy land. It is rightly getting much harder for landowners to turn a blind eye to illegal hunting taking place on their land and pretending that its nothing to do with them.

T.
		
Click to expand...

Really? I would doubt he has the slightest interest and I know of one occasion when it didn't on a duchy farm. 
Both Charles and Camilla hunted before the ban.


----------



## Tiddlypom (26 November 2021)

paddy555 said:



			Really? I would doubt he has the slightest interest and I know of one occasion when it didn't on a duchy farm.
Both Charles and Camilla hunted before the ban.
		
Click to expand...

I know they hunted (a lot, especially Camilla), and I imagine that both would prefer that fox hunting was still legal.

I'm sure that Prince Charles is still closely following the travails of hunting. In his position as heir to the throne he can't be seen to be facilitating or complicit in allowing illegal activities to take place on land he owns. The question is to the extent that he will step in and make sure that all parties are clear on that.

He could shrug his shoulders and leave it to his local estate managers to sort out, but he seems to be pretty hands in other respects on re the ethos that the Duchy estate management follows, so that would be out of character.


----------



## Fred66 (26 November 2021)

Not that I advocate this but the refrain that is frequently heard from hunt saboteurs when told that they are trespassing is “trespass is a civil matter”, I wonder whether they will be so comfortable with that response if hunts start giving it ? 😉


----------



## palo1 (26 November 2021)

ycbm said:



			I agree.  What I can't guage from any of your responses on this or other hunting threads is whether you accept that the mess is of trail hunting's own making.
.
		
Click to expand...

The mess is of trail hunting's making yes, that of the MFHA and within the context of the Hunting Act which has been universally acknowledged as unworkable.  I cannot lay the blame for this at the feet of ordinary people and hunts who have wanted to and have done their best to work within the law and support what is legal.


----------



## ycbm (26 November 2021)

I don't agree that the law is universally described as unworkable.  It's crystal clear what the law intends.  "Difficult to obtain proof beyond reasonable doubt" applies to many laws. It doesn't make those laws wrong.  

I agree with you that ordinary people who trail hunt are not responsible for the difficulty trail hunting is in,   but I don't think that is true of ordinary hunts.  The organisers of ordinary hunts knew full well what other hunts were doing,  but allowed themselves to continue under the management of some of the very people who they knew were doing it.  That falure to speak out and  to break away is,  possibly going to be the downfall of trail hunting.  I hope not,  it isn't too late,  but I don't hear of  any of the necessary changes happening. 
.


----------



## palo1 (26 November 2021)

ycbm said:



			I don't agree that the law is universally described as unworkable.  It's crystal clear what the law intends.  "Difficult to obtain proof beyond reasonable doubt" applies to many laws. It doesn't make those laws wrong. 

I agree with you that ordinary people who trail hunt are not responsible for the difficulty trail hunting is in,   but I don't think that is true of ordinary hunts.  The organisers of ordinary hunts knew full well what other hunts were doing,  but allowed themselves to continue under the management of some of the very people who they knew were doing it.  That falure to speak out and  to break away is,  possibly going to be the downfall of trail hunting.  I hope not,  it isn't too late,  but I don't hear of  any of the necessary changes happening.
.
		
Click to expand...

I think you have not understood the way that hunting is/has been 'managed' if you like.  It has never really been the case that hunts which are individual and often highly individual entities 'come together'; there is no real mechanism for ordinary hunts to 'speak out' or to break away unless they turn 'pirate'.  I have no idea how any hunt would decide that it could go solo or set up a breakaway organisation.  That would remove them from any engagement with a wider community, the various forms of support that provides and also wouldn't allow for the recording of hound breeding, drafting of hounds and access to hound shows/hound judging which is very very important to huntsmen.   Hounds and the formally recognised breeding and achievement of hounds on the flags or in the field are absolutely the core of hunting in formal sense.  There would be very, very few huntsmen or masters that would banish themselves from that.

I have heard people say that a particular issue is very historic - that under the control of the highly esteemed Ronnie Wallace, hunt staff were somewhat cowed as he ruled with a rod of iron, albeit in a way that many admired in hunting terms.   This weakened any dissent from hunts and left the door open for poor, unchallenged decision making and governance which, coupled with the Hunting Act brings us to where we are.  I don't actually know anyone that doesn't want real change, good governance, discipline and due diligence in place in hunting.  Both old and new hunters can see that the MFHA are not dealing with the situation that hunting is in.  There are ongoing efforts to make change happen and I hope and am somewhat optimistic that we will see those changes.

As for the law - I have never heard anyone say it is useful or decent in legislative terms.


----------



## ycbm (26 November 2021)

So many excuses, Palo. Trail hunting is going to die if it keeps making so many excuses. As someone who wants to trail hunt in future it's incredibly frustrating to sit and watch. 




palo1 said:



			As for the law - I have never heard anyone say it is useful or decent in legislative terms
		
Click to expand...

You've heard lots of people on this forum but you aren't listening. 
.


----------



## palo1 (26 November 2021)

ycbm said:



			So many excuses, Palo. Trail hunting is going to die if it keeps making so many excuses. As someone who wants to trail hunt in future it's incredibly frustrating to sit and watch.




You've heard lots of people on this forum but you aren't listening.
.
		
Click to expand...

 @ycbm - Those are not excuses but reasons for why the governance of hunting has been found so wanting.  There are usually structural reasons for problems and failings in any setting - I was just explaining what I understand of those and I can't see how you can say they are excuses.   I have not heard anyone say here that the Hunting Act is fit for purpose - the antis continually express how poor it is and how they want it revisited by Parliament.  Yet it was what they wanted and lobbied for originally.


----------



## ycbm (26 November 2021)

You baffle me Palo, I admit.  You give the recording the breeding of fox hounds as a reason why trail hunters sat by and watched while illegal hunting continued, putting trail hunting at terrible risk, then quibble about it being called an excuse. 

You have heard many people on here express approval of the recent convictions for inciting illegal hunting and previous convictions for illegal hunting and yet you say that nobody says the law is useful. 

The law would have been sufficiently  fit for purpose if there had not been a widespread and very determined conspiracy to flout it.  

I'm so frustrated that you can't see that if your views are widespread at leadership level in trail hunting (and I think they are)  that you will lose your sport altogether


----------



## palo1 (26 November 2021)

ycbm said:



			You baffle me Palo, I admit.  You give the recording the breeding of fox hounds as a reason why trail hunters sat by and watched while illegal hunting continued, putting trail hunting at terrible risk, then quibble about it being called an excuse.

You have heard many people on here express approval of the recent convictions for inciting illegal hunting and previous convictions for illegal hunting and yet you say that nobody says the law is useful.

The law would have been sufficiently  fit for purpose if there had not been a widespread and very determined conspiracy to flout it.

I'm so frustrated that you can't see that if your views are widespread at leadership level in trail hunting (and I think they are)  that you will lose your sport altogether 

Click to expand...

Yes, I too am baffled @ycbm that you insist on a level of disingenousness that is just unhelpful and pointless in a real discussion.  I have not said that hound breeding is the reason for problems in hunting.  I have said that the existing structures of hunting have not allowed for real grass roots dissent and disatisfaction to be brought to bear on the leadership.  I have said that as hound breeding is so important to hunters they would NOT want to step outside the existing framework of hunting management and form a different hunting set up.  You are conflating the things I have written. 

I am not going to bother answering you about the Hunting Act tbh as I am quite sure you are aware of it's problems for both anti-hunters and pro-hunters.  I just think you are being 'awkward'.  But feel free...


----------



## The Fuzzy Furry (26 November 2021)

palo1 said:



			Yes, I too am baffled @ycbm that you insist on a level of disingenousness that is just unhelpful and pointless in a real discussion.  I have not said that hound breeding is the reason for problems in hunting.  I have said that the existing structures of hunting have not allowed for real grass roots dissent and disatisfaction to be brought to bear on the leadership.  I have said that as hound breeding is so important to hunters they would NOT want to step outside the existing framework of hunting management and form a different hunting set up.  You are conflating the things I have written. 

I am not going to bother answering you about the Hunting Act tbh as I am quite sure you are aware of it's problems for both anti-hunters and pro-hunters.  I just think you are being 'awkward' tbh!!  But feel free...

Click to expand...

Reading the above posts, I completely agree with you palo1.  Awkward is an apt word,  dogged on labouring points that apparently you are responsible for...... 
I only wandered back here to see what new fuss was happening.  Seems same 3 or 4 with same agenda again, so I'll pootle back off again as to my mind, there is nothing one can say that wont have each and every bone picked and thrown back.....


----------



## palo1 (26 November 2021)

ycbm said:



			The situation is dire because people chose to use leaway in the law, which was meant to ensure that honest accidents weren't criminalised, to carry on wholesale activities which they knew full well were in contravention of the law.
.
		
Click to expand...

Gawd, I really don't want to do this but you know, the 'leeway' in the law you mention was there because there was a level of pragmatism and lack of conviction about a whole range of hunting issues in drafting the Hunting Act that totally 'enabled' people to interpret it as licence to continue hunting and in fact it IS still legal under exemptions for a fox to be hunted.  The act only scraped it's way into legislation via the Parliament Act and because of these exemptions.   In relation to other laws this is sometimes called 'Constructive ambiguity' as it allows both parties to feel that they have not 'lost'.  The Hunting Act however has not resolved any level of conflict over the issue - antis continually assert that the law allows for the breaking of it, pro hunters assert that the law puts them in jeopardy depending on any particular interpretation of legal activity.  You should read what those involved in drafting and getting the HA over the line have to say about it.


----------



## ycbm (26 November 2021)

I am not being disingenuous. I am genuinely baffled that you don't see why or how I have drawn the conclusions that I have from what you write. I am baffled that you can't see that the current problems are a result of hunts around the country seeking to use the weakness of the law to continue an activity which they know full well is illegal.  I am baffled that you don't believe that the conviction from the webinars is a safe one (though I accept that you respect the decision by the court). 

You are absolutely right,  in the face of all that bafflement,  there is simply no point in anyone continuing to discuss hunting. 

I can only sit helplessly and hope that trail hunting survives in this area long enough for me to get some days on Joe. With the current attitudes at the top,  that seems increasingly unlikely. 
.


----------



## Upthecreek (26 November 2021)

ycbm said:



			I am not being disingenuous. I am genuinely baffled that you don't see why or how I have drawn the conclusions that I have from what you write. I am baffled that you can't see that the current problems are a result of hunts around the country seeking to use the weakness of the law to continue an activity which they know full well is illegal.  I am baffled that you don't believe that the conviction from the webinars is a safe one (though I accept that you respect the decision by the court).

You are absolutely right,  in the face of all that bafflement,  there is simply no point in anyone continuing to discuss hunting.

I can only sit helplessly and hope that trail hunting survives in this area long enough for me to get some days on Joe. With the current attitudes at the top,  that seems increasingly unlikely.
.
		
Click to expand...

Why are you are so desperate to trail hunt?


----------



## Fellewell (26 November 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Prepare to be astonished as antis don’t actually give a fig about red or black or green or tweed coats ….it’s all about the fox and the cruelly killing of animals, the public will be equally disgusted.
		
Click to expand...

I have a real problem with laws and decisions that are made as a result of bullying and coercion. Even the NT admitted that they were very concerned about their reputation having quickly realised that AR will stop at nothing to wreck a reputation. Time and time again companies have had to bow to the will of people who call themselves animal rights campaigners but have shown that they are quite willing to harm/kill an animal in their pursuit of attention.

I can remember when thousands of mink were released into the very place they would do most damage, thereby decimating local wildlife including several species already endangered. The local minkhound packs immediately offered their help but it was post-ban and they were refused. Another example of how PR decisions are made to the detriment of local wildlife.

I am sick of the AR lie that it is 'all about the fox'. I am seeing fewer foxes year on year in my area. Foxes are still hunted all year round by different methods and far more frequently.

Perhaps I should acknowledge the efforts of campaigners who released 10 urban foxes onto an Exmoor farm a few years back. The farmer shot dead 8 foxes in one field but not before thirty-three of his lambs had been killed in just one night. As a member of the public I was pretty disgusted by that.


----------



## ycbm (26 November 2021)

Upthecreek said:



			Why are you are so desperate to trail hunt?
		
Click to expand...

Desperate is not the right word, keen is a better one to describe how I feel. For exactly the same reason most people trail hunt,  that  riding cross country, over land and fences there isn't normally any access to, in the company of others,  is great fun and I'd like to do some more of it before I'm too old.
.


----------



## Upthecreek (27 November 2021)

ycbm said:



			Desperate is not the right word, keen is a better one to describe how I feel. For exactly the same reason most people trail hunt,  that  riding cross country, over land and fences there isn't normally any access to, in the company of others,  is great fun and I'd like to do some more of it before I'm too old.
.
		
Click to expand...

I feel the same, but I decided long ago that I didn’t want to be associated with them and I would feel like a hypocrite to do it for the fun of it when I know they are breaking the rules. I guess it depends on the reputations of your local hunts, but I could not participate in it when I know they are not hunting within the law.


----------



## ycbm (27 November 2021)

Upthecreek said:



			I feel the same, but I decided long ago that I didn’t want to be associated with them and I would feel like a hypocrite to do it for the fun of it when I know they are breaking the rules. I guess it depends on the reputations of your local hunts, but I could not participate in it when I know they are not hunting within the law.
		
Click to expand...

Me neither,  it's why I haven't been for years since the drag hunts shut down,  I trust Tiddleypom though,  if she says they are definitely hunting with the law now in my area.  
.


----------



## palo1 (28 November 2021)

ycbm said:



			Me neither,  it's why I haven't been for years since the drag hunts shut down,  I trust Tiddleypom though,  if she says they are definitely hunting with the law now in my area.
.
		
Click to expand...

Deleted.


----------



## ycbm (28 November 2021)

Why did you reply to me on this, Palo?  Especially since you said you don't want to discuss this with me any more and accused me of being disingenuous.

I have never denied that some hunts were hunting legally. Unfortunately none were within my travelling distance in spite of that area covering at least 3 hunts.  That situation has now,  apparently,  changed with 2 of them and I can trust TP that is the case,  when I certainly couldn't trust anyone who was in charge of any of the hunts.
.


----------



## Tiddlypom (28 November 2021)

Of those two packs local to us, ycbm, one to the best of my knowledge has tried to go legal for the last 3 seasons, inc the current one. The one closer to you has, I believe, had a more, err, disjointed and inconsistent path to going fully legal, though it made a promising start. It's off my immediate patch, though, so I am partly relaying what I've picked up on hearsay for that pack, rather than from first hand intelligence.

Caution is advised.


----------



## Koweyka (28 November 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			Of those two packs local to us, ycbm, one to the best of my knowledge has tried to go legal for the last 3 seasons, inc the current one. The one closer to you has, I believe, had a more, err, disjointed and inconsistent path to going fully legal, though it made a promising start. It's off my immediate patch, though, so I am partly relaying what I've picked up on hearsay for that pack, rather than from first hand intelligence.

Caution is advised.
		
Click to expand...

Caution is definitely advised, I have heard that’s at least two of the hunts near you have been reported to the police by members of the public for incidents involving foxes in the last week alone and the other hunt near you is a bit of a “shambles” and is being heavily watched again. 

Palo I saw your deleted reply, it’s not a case of a huge swathe of hunts being left alone because they are hunting legally, it’s more because unfortunately we don’t have enough monitoring or sab groups to cover them all. When a hunt that is never usually watched gets a visit from anti’s 9 times out of 10 they panic and pack up immediately. So the hunts that are blatantly hunting illegally are the main focus. 

As it stands now I know of one hunt that is going way above what you would expect to prove it’s trailing, but again that’s from outside pressure in the past, although I have heard of more hunts contacting local antis wanting to work together in this last week. At least some hunts are finally realising the game is now up.


----------



## Sandstone1 (3 December 2021)

__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=901620723823875



This has been posted on the west mids hunt sabs facebook page.    Now whatever you think about hunting for or against this can not be acceptable behaviour.  I have no connection to anyone in the video by the way.

IF thats not stalking I dont know what is.  I understand that it is edited, however the sabs were not at a meet and to be followed like that is really not on.
They were clearly following and harassing sabs, pretty sure some driving and using a phone rules also being broken.  Bullying and stalking.  I hope the police have seen this.


----------



## Koweyka (3 December 2021)

I have come across him before, not the most pleasant “person” you want to meet, he was at a different hunt back then.

It’s outrageous behaviour, though it’s common after a hunt and we have learned never to drive home the same way and go around roundabouts twice etc  One of my colleagues, before we took such measures opened her door to a severed fox tail on her doorstep. Pure intimidation tactics.


----------



## Sandstone1 (3 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			I have come across him before, not the most pleasant “person” you want to meet, he was at a different hunt back then.

It’s outrageous behaviour, though it’s common after a hunt and we have learned never to drive home the same way and go around roundabouts twice etc  One of my colleagues, before we took such measures opened her door to a severed fox tail on her doorstep. Pure intimidation tactics.
		
Click to expand...

I just think its disgusting behaviour.    Its not even at a meet.   Surely the Police should do something about it?   Its stalking, dangerous driving and intimidation.  I am shocked to be honest.   They are clearly not the sharpest but even so they must know thats wrong.


----------



## Koweyka (3 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			I just think its disgusting behaviour.    Its not even at a meet.   Surely the Police should do something about it?   Its stalking, dangerous driving and intimidation.  I am shocked to be honest.   They are clearly not the sharpest but even so they must know thats wrong.
		
Click to expand...

And the pro hunt make a big deal about Sabs and Monitors masking up and this is exactly why as I know she doesn’t.


----------



## Sandstone1 (3 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			And the pro hunt make a big deal about Sabs and Monitors masking up and this is exactly why as I know she doesn’t.
		
Click to expand...

Nasty bullying thugs is all I can say.


----------



## Sandstone1 (3 December 2021)

Strange all the pro hunting people are no where to be seen!


----------



## I'm Dun (3 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:






__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=901620723823875



This has been posted on the west mids hunt sabs facebook page.    Now whatever you think about hunting for or against this can not be acceptable behaviour.  I have no connection to anyone in the video by the way.

IF thats not stalking I dont know what is.  I understand that it is edited, however the sabs were not at a meet and to be followed like that is really not on.
They were clearly following and harassing sabs, pretty sure some driving and using a phone rules also being broken.  Bullying and stalking.  I hope the police have seen this.
		
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but this proves nothing. Its a heavily edited video from a biased source.


----------



## Sandstone1 (3 December 2021)

I'm Dun said:



			I'm sorry but this proves nothing. Its a heavily edited video from a biased source.[/QU
You are joking?  Yes its edited but clearly they are following the sabs, tail gaiting and stalking. Dont think the editing can change that....
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Fred66 (4 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			This has been posted on the west mids hunt sabs facebook page.    Now whatever you think about hunting for or against this can not be acceptable behaviour.  I have no connection to anyone in the video by the way.

IF thats not stalking I dont know what is.  I understand that it is edited, however the sabs were not at a meet and to be followed like that is really not on.
They were clearly following and harassing sabs, pretty sure some driving and using a phone rules also being broken.  Bullying and stalking.  I hope the police have seen this.
		
Click to expand...

I personally wouldn’t take this action as it is pointless, however from what I saw (couldn get your one to play so had to go to what I think was the original also fast forwarded through some of it) then there appears to be little difference between their actions and those of hunt sabs week in and week out. Neither are right.


----------



## Sandstone1 (4 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			I personally wouldn’t take this action as it is pointless, however from what I saw (couldn get your one to play so had to go to what I think was the original also fast forwarded through some of it) then there appears to be little difference between their actions and those of hunt sabs week in and week out. Neither are right.
		
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure that sabs dont follow hunters while they go shopping or fill up with petrol etc.   They follow them while they are hunting I agree but that is to monitor whats going on and often to stop a illegal activity which we all know goes on.  To actually follow them like this is really not on.  Gives a really bad impression of  hunting when they really need to be whiter than white if they want to continue.


----------



## shortstuff99 (4 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			I am pretty sure that sabs dont follow hunters while they go shopping or fill up with petrol etc.   They follow them while they are hunting I agree but that is to monitor whats going on and often to stop a illegal activity which we all know goes on.  To actually follow them like this is really not on.  Gives a really bad impression of  hunting when they really need to be whiter than white if they want to continue.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of hunting, but sabs do follow hunters outside of hunts. Further down the page from where that video is from, is them showing a business that a former hunt staff runs and how they should all get it shut down.


----------



## Sandstone1 (4 December 2021)

I just think its bullying and intimidation not to mention dangerous.  They are tailgaiting and clearly following the sabs.  Possibly following them home.   How would you like someone following you home?   Whatever you think about sabs and I have no doubt there are faults on both sides this can not be right.  Its no good saying what about this and what about that... Two wrongs dont make a right.  If I did that to someone I would get arrested!


----------



## Tiddlypom (4 December 2021)

I haven't watched that particular video.There is inexcusable bad behaviour by some very unpleasant nutters on both sides of the pro/anti hunting divide.


----------



## Rosietaz (4 December 2021)

Sorry to pull this thread up again!
Some of the local hunt have just not long come through our property. They do not have permission to come into our land to “lay trails”, as we have horses and sheep. We have never given them permission to use our land pre/post ban for any activity. 
They cut the two top wires of our boundary fence and rode through our fields of sheep and ponies and then down our driveway and out to the road… My father asked them how they got in and if they damaged any fences, to which they replied “they jumped over the fence and any damages will be rectified”. The fences were absolutely cut. 
What would people do in this situation?
It is clear that they were not following a trail. This group have a reputation as it is anyway.


----------



## Koweyka (4 December 2021)

Report them to the police, take photos of the damage and if you can get photos of the hunt on your land.

I hope the ponies and sheep are ok ?


----------



## Rosietaz (4 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Report them to the police, take photos of the damage and if you can get photos of the hunt on your land.

I hope the ponies and sheep are ok ?
		
Click to expand...

Thank you. The ponies in those fields are my geriatric little ones, so stayed away from the drama and seem fine. The sheep were a little upset. It’s breeding season so I hope that isn’t effected. They laughed as they were trotting up the driveway after speaking to my dad! The cheek


----------



## I'm Dun (4 December 2021)

Rosietaz said:



			Sorry to pull this thread up again!
Some of the local hunt have just not long come through our property. They do not have permission to come into our land to “lay trails”, as we have horses and sheep. We have never given them permission to use our land pre/post ban for any activity.
They cut the two top wires of our boundary fence and rode through our fields of sheep and ponies and then down our driveway and out to the road… My father asked them how they got in and if they damaged any fences, to which they replied “they jumped over the fence and any damages will be rectified”. The fences were absolutely cut.
What would people do in this situation?
It is clear that they were not following a trail. This group have a reputation as it is anyway.
		
Click to expand...

I'd report them too. Its not on to do that. If I was a hunt hunting legally I would be absolutely raging at the way some of these hunts behave. I'm from a hunting family and its sad that we've lost the right to hunt legally, but we have and therefore EVERY hunt needs to hunt within the law or be heavily penalised. Whether thats in a criminal court, or ideally by their own governing body. If they dont do something very quickly there wont be any hunting legal or not.


----------



## Rosietaz (4 December 2021)

I'm Dun said:



			I'd report them too. Its not on to do that. If I was a hunt hunting legally I would be absolutely raging at the way some of these hunts behave. I'm from a hunting family and its sad that we've lost the right to hunt legally, but we have and therefore EVERY hunt needs to hunt within the law or be heavily penalised. Whether thats in a criminal court, or ideally by their own governing body. If they dont do something very quickly there wont be any hunting legal or not.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you. I agree. It’s such a kick in the teeth for those who genuinely do follow the rules.


----------



## Tiddlypom (4 December 2021)

Rosietaz, I'm sorry but not surprised to hear what's just happened to you today. It's far too common. How ruddy dare they cut your fences and brazenly trespass on your land without permission. I hope that your animals suffer no ill effects. Do report it to the police and get a crime number.

If hunting had any sort of effective governing body then any hunt that behaved so badly would be dealt with very firmly in house and if necessary, disbanded. But as we all know, there is no such thing as an effective governing body for hunting and the norty hunts behave with impunity.


----------



## Rosietaz (4 December 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			Rosietaz, I'm sorry but not surprised to hear what's just happened to you today. It's far too common. How ruddy dare they cut your fences and brazenly trespass on your land without permission. I hope that your animals suffer no ill effects. Do report it to the police and get a crime number.

If hunting had any sort of effective governing body then any hunt that behaved so badly would be dealt with very firmly in house and if necessary, disbanded. But as we all know, there is no such thing as an effective governing body for hunting and the norty hunts behave with impunity.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you. Yes I wasn’t sure who to report it to - whether it would be a police matter or some other governing body but as you say, there isn’t one! They came back just now and have fixed the fence. My big horses in the neighbouring field were going mad at the sound of the quad bike and the strange lights in the dusk!


----------



## Parrotperson (4 December 2021)

Name and shame Rosietaz!

and cutting your wire is surely criminal damage. Report to the police.

put up v strongly worded notices to stop them next time.

given the public feeling being overwhelmingly against them this is just stupidity of the highest order.


----------



## Rosietaz (4 December 2021)

Parrotperson said:



			Name and shame Rosietaz!

and cutting your wire is surely criminal damage. Report to the police.

put up v strongly worded notices to stop them next time.

given the public feeling being overwhelmingly against them this is just stupidity of the highest order.
		
Click to expand...

People won’t be shocked to hear that it was Kimblewick


----------



## ycbm (4 December 2021)

Rosietaz said:



			Sorry to pull this thread up again!
Some of the local hunt have just not long come through our property. They do not have permission to come into our land to “lay trails”, as we have horses and sheep. We have never given them permission to use our land pre/post ban for any activity.
They cut the two top wires of our boundary fence and rode through our fields of sheep and ponies and then down our driveway and out to the road… My father asked them how they got in and if they damaged any fences, to which they replied “they jumped over the fence and any damages will be rectified”. The fences were absolutely cut.
What would people do in this situation?
It is clear that they were not following a trail. This group have a reputation as it is anyway.
		
Click to expand...


Cutting your fences is a criminal offence called criminal damage.  I would report them to the police and get a crime number and at the very least they should get a talking to by the police even if they have mended them now.

I would also take pictures of the fence mends and the footprints in your fields and go to the papers with this,  either local or the Daily Mail.

I would also be tempted to write to the hunt and point out that you are entitled to shoot loose dogs on your land near your livestock and will not hesitate to do so if they trespass on your land again. 
.


----------



## Amymay (4 December 2021)

Rosietaz said:



			People won’t be shocked to hear that it was Kimblewick
		
Click to expand...

As well as the police, a very strongly worded letter of complaint to the Hunts Master and MFHA.  All followed up with a letter from your solicitor.  Also warn them that if any sheep abort the hunt will be responsible for costs.  Same for any veterinary costs associated with any damage to you horses.


----------



## Tiddlypom (4 December 2021)

As Anymay and ycbm suggest. 

Although they are as much use as a chocolate teapot, do notify the MFHA.

Copy in the head of hunting for the Countryside Alliance, who hunts with the Kimblewick...


----------



## SEL (4 December 2021)

Rosietaz said:



			Sorry to pull this thread up again!
Some of the local hunt have just not long come through our property. They do not have permission to come into our land to “lay trails”, as we have horses and sheep. We have never given them permission to use our land pre/post ban for any activity. 
They cut the two top wires of our boundary fence and rode through our fields of sheep and ponies and then down our driveway and out to the road… My father asked them how they got in and if they damaged any fences, to which they replied “they jumped over the fence and any damages will be rectified”. The fences were absolutely cut. 
What would people do in this situation?
It is clear that they were not following a trail. This group have a reputation as it is anyway.
		
Click to expand...

You must be very local to me. Was this today? Hounds in my top field 

The previous owner of my land had problems with them cutting fences too


----------



## Rosietaz (4 December 2021)

SEL said:



			You must be very local to me. Was this today? Hounds in my top field

The previous owner of my land had problems with them cutting fences too
		
Click to expand...

Yes today at about 1pm


----------



## Clodagh (5 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			I am pretty sure that sabs dont follow hunters while they go shopping or fill up with petrol etc.   They follow them while they are hunting I agree but that is to monitor whats going on and often to stop a illegal activity which we all know goes on.  To actually follow them like this is really not on.  Gives a really bad impression of  hunting when they really need to be whiter than white if they want to continue.
		
Click to expand...

They do, and stake out private homes, make threats to children, follow mothers doing the school run. It’s wrong from either side.


----------



## Clodagh (5 December 2021)

Rosietaz said:



			Yes today at about 1pm
		
Click to expand...

That is absolutely appalling and arrogance of the first order.


----------



## Red-1 (5 December 2021)

I would be furious. 

Yes, I would report criminal damage to the Police. 

They will try to tell you that it is a civil matter of trespass, don't allow them to sway you, they deliberately cut the wire in order to do a civil wrong, the cutting of the wire was criminal not civil, despite the trespass itself being civil. 

If the Police won't take it, and give you a crime number (not an incident number) make a complaint, that has to be taken by an inspector or above. 

They won't prosecute, but at least they will call the hunt and inform them of the complaint, which will hopefully prevent them from doing the same again, which is what you are after. 

That could have been sorted if they had just apologised profusely and told you that, now they know of your wishes, they won't enter your land again. You kind of have to take it further in order to protect your animals, as they obviously don't give two hoots. I would also send a solicitor's letter about damages if the sheep abort. It may concentrate the mind.


----------



## Tiddlypom (5 December 2021)

^^^^ Excellent post from Red-1 re the criminal damage issue. The trespass is bad enough, but the criminal damage to your fencing is even worse. Plus the hunt's attitude to it all. Please do report it all to the police.

Link for the MFHA @ The Hunting Office

https://thehuntingoffice.org.uk/Home/MFHA#


_'The MFHA has a number of accepted policies and documents in place such as strict Rules and Codes of Conduct which give details of how hunts and hunting should be conducted. They have been written to promote standards of best practice in kennels and the field and to show the accountability of member packs. All Masters of Foxhounds packs are members of the MFHA and have to agree to abide by the Association's Rules, Codes of Conduct and Instructions. The Hunting Office manages and implements the Governance Frameworks under the authority of the MFHA and other Hunting Associations.'_


----------



## MurphysMinder (5 December 2021)

I hunted for many years in my youth,  and in later years followed by car,  but have to say that the attitude of many of the mounted and car followers leave a lot to be desired,  be it trail hunting or illegal hunting.
Just yesterday a friend (who also used to hunt) came across a stray hound on quite a busy road,   would have been one of the packs local to Tiddlypom.   She put the hound on one of her own dogs leads and called a friend who used to work for the kennels for advice.  While she was waiting for him to get back to her some followers on their way home (trailer and car followers) arrived and decided they would take the hound.   They offered her no thanks,  and in fact when she asked that they didn't take her lead which was an expensive training lead, they were actually quite rude and asked how they were going to hold on to the hound.    She ended up giving them an old slip lead, again no thanks,  they just put the hound in the back of a car and drove off. 
You would have thought hunt supporters would be going out of their way to get the general public on side but it seems they really don't give a damn.


----------



## Tiddlypom (9 December 2021)

At last. Some sort of update re the way forward from the Hunting Office/MFHA post the Mark Hankinson conviction. It's been taken from the pro hunt This is Hunting UK FB page, so it would appear to be genuine. There are some promising proposals mooted which could lead to genuine reform. However, to reinforce the reason why reform is needed, look at the sentence in bold... Misrepresentation indeed .

_To: Masters, Chairmen, Secretaries and all Hunt Supporters

Update from the MFHA Chairman 

I wanted to take the opportunity to update all members of the MFHA, and the wider Hunting community about plans we have been working on recently.  *As all supporters of hunting know, the infiltration and subsequent misrepresentation of a trail hunting webinar and the prosecution of a Director has been used to try and cause great harm to our way of life. *On behalf of all of the Hunting Office team, I would like to apologise to all Hunts and members for the fallout that has resulted. Having taken over the Chairmanship in June of this year, it has been extremely difficult to move forward with my fundamental goal of ensuring that our sport can continue in this ever-changing world. 

We have been working hard since then to plan the way forward, and the purpose of this email is to share these plans with you. I have met face to face with over 150 huntsmen to discuss the way forward. This has been extremely constructive and, being an ex-huntsman myself, we have been able to talk in detail about the challenges of hunting hounds in the 17 years since the Hunting Act came into force. Since those initial meetings, I set up three consultation meetings in London where a broad swathe of people from the hunting world met to discuss the way forward. These meetings not only involved members of the MFHA, but also Hunt Chairmen, Secretaries, Subscribers from the AMHB, MBHA, MDHA, CCFP, CA board members and a number of senior and junior Hunt Staff.

The general consensus was that there is a need for change in the areas of hunting governance, and the perception of our hunting activities. Therefore, as a matter of urgency, I am in the process of setting up a review to evaluate and make recommendations about the governance of hunting with hounds and the perception of hunting activities, to make sure hunts are in a position to offer reassurance to landowners and other stakeholders that they are operating within the law.

The review will look at the potential for a new governing body, which will have authority and effective jurisdiction over its members, and ensure that the rules are appropriate, acceptable and enforceable. I believe there will always be a role for the MFHA and the other Hunting Associations, but the new body should be separate from them.

I believe that all hunts should be accredited members of this new organisation, as well as the Masters and other Hunt Officials. I also think it is time to bring Hunt Staff into such a membership, so they are stakeholders too. One of hunting's biggest assets is the many thousands of people who participate in our sport from all walks of life - it is time that we all played a part in the future of hunting with hounds.

Hunting with hounds has always held a key role within the countryside and the management of that countryside, especially in the modern world. It is essential we do not lose sight of this core principle, and the review will look at how the hunting community can better explain and promote all the good it does in the countryside.

I hope that the review panel will be able to report back to the Hunting Associations as soon as possible, at which point we can, with the approval of our members, act upon its recommendations and all move forward to preserve, promote and protect the sport we all love.

A further email will follow shortly to give details and timing of the review panel.  

Yours Sincerely 

Andrew Osborne 

MFHA Chairman_


----------



## I'm Dun (9 December 2021)

I despair! Just own it, distance yourself from the worst offenders and hope to god its not to late to salvage some form of legal hunting


----------



## ycbm (10 December 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			As all supporters of hunting know, the infiltration and subsequent misrepresentation of a trail hunting webinar and the prosecution of a Director has been used to try and cause great harm to our way of life.
		
Click to expand...

🙄

I don't get how they don't realise that their failure to distance themselves from law breakers is what is going to lead to the loss of their way of life.  
.


----------



## L&M (10 December 2021)

I would rather him cut the cr*p and just state:

- that all packs have to trail hunt
- that there will be a new governing body who enforces this
- that the same new body will also monitor this
- that hunts that are not abiding will be forced to disband

This is the only way forward for hunting - abide by the law or lose it.


----------



## Tiddlypom (10 December 2021)

L&M said:



			I would rather him cut the cr*p and just state:

- that all packs have to trail hunt
- that there will be a new governing body who enforces this
- that the same new body will also monitor this
- that hunts that are not abiding will be forced to disband

This is the only way forward for hunting - abide by the law or lose it.
		
Click to expand...

Extremely well said, L&M.


----------



## Sandstone1 (10 December 2021)

https://www.banburyguardian.co.uk/n...p8hExnJnUDCCcFO0lGs8tHi6s55i-sB6daI8yVEAG-tYs
They were trail hunting of course.


----------



## Miss_Millie (10 December 2021)

As someone who loves riding across the countryside and loves the social aspect of horses, in theory I would enjoy modern day, legal hunting (as in no foxes involved). However, the constant stories about trespass, damage to property and animals being killed paints a really bad picture.

Going back to Rosietaz's recent incident, I would be completely mortified if I was out on my horse with a group of people who thought cutting someone's fence on their private property was acceptable. I would never do that if I was out hacking with my mates, why do some people who hunt think it is acceptable to behave in such a way?


----------



## Miss_Millie (10 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



https://www.banburyguardian.co.uk/n...p8hExnJnUDCCcFO0lGs8tHi6s55i-sB6daI8yVEAG-tYs
They were trail hunting of course.
		
Click to expand...

And this sums up why I'm anti-hunt. Because there are clearly some people who are just THAT desperate to hunt foxes, they will continue to do so in plain sight. Really sad and ruins it for those who just want to trail hunt legally.


----------



## Nasicus (10 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



https://www.banburyguardian.co.uk/n...p8hExnJnUDCCcFO0lGs8tHi6s55i-sB6daI8yVEAG-tYs
They were trail hunting of course.
		
Click to expand...

Cor, that's a heck of a statement by the Warwickshire. Impossible to prevent? Way to load some ammo into your opposition's cannon. The argument can be made that if situations like this are impossible to prevent, then drag and trail hunting should be banned too to avoid breaking the law.
Also quite like the 'Oh we totally reported this impossible to avoid incident to the police, but also the sabs have been lying and editing!!!'. Like, either it happened and you reported it, or it didn't because the sabs made it up/manipulated the footage. Make your minds up


----------



## ycbm (10 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



https://www.banburyguardian.co.uk/n...p8hExnJnUDCCcFO0lGs8tHi6s55i-sB6daI8yVEAG-tYs
They were trail hunting of course.
		
Click to expand...


"Impossible to prevent". In all the times I went drag hunting over many years in different places,  I never once saw hounds chase,  never mind kill,  a fox.  
.


----------



## Koweyka (10 December 2021)

The Hunt Master of the Western Hunt has been found guilty of being in charge of dangerously out of control dogs that killed Little Mini the cat in her garden.

Then you have the vile Warwickshire Hunt that killed yet another fox and quite honestly it makes you wonder why large packs of hunting hounds are allowed to rampage around the country killing pets and wildlife.

Another nail in hunting’s coffin, I am sure many more will follow.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (10 December 2021)

Did wonder how long it'd take before one of them got done for having dogs dangerously out of control. 

I wonder if that's something that'll be used when a pack of hounds next wind up on a busy road/railway line/people's gardens.


----------



## Sandstone1 (10 December 2021)

If a kill is impossible to prevent then they are not in control of their hounds, if they are out of control they should not be out surely?  If I cant control my dog I would be in trouble.  This can not go on.......


----------



## suestowford (11 December 2021)

I've just been reading a report on the Western Hunt case, in the paper. Apparently they were on exercise, and were supposed to be using fields backing on to a housing estate. But several hounds left the pack and got in amongst the houses. Clearly they weren't under anyone's control at that point, so he was rightly done for this IMO.
But I think what upset a lot of people about this case is the callous way the hunt staff dealt with it, throwing the carcass of the cat over a fence as if it was just so much rubbish.


----------



## paddy555 (11 December 2021)

https://www.southwestfarmer.co.uk/n...ornwall-hunt-master-john-sampson-cat-mauling/


----------



## Koweyka (23 December 2021)

I hope this link works and I would dearly love to see what excuses the pro hunt trot out to defend this hunt master and her husband.

This is evil, pure utter evil, she should be charged as well.

Essex Police told ITV news it has “arrested a 48-year-old man from the Bures area after receiving reports of animal cruelty. He was arrested on suspicion of offences under the Hunting Act 2004, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Wild Mammal Protection Act 1996. He remains in custody at this time.”

Discretion is advised watching the video. 


https://fb.watch/a4GGzz0Iiw/


----------



## Sossigpoker (23 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			I hope this link works and I would dearly love to see what excuses the pro hunt trot out to defend this hunt master and her husband.

This is evil, pure utter evil, she should be charged as well.

Essex Police told ITV news it has “arrested a 48-year-old man from the Bures area after receiving reports of animal cruelty. He was arrested on suspicion of offences under the Hunting Act 2004, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Wild Mammal Protection Act 1996. He remains in custody at this time.”

Discretion is advised watching the video.


https://fb.watch/a4GGzz0Iiw/

Click to expand...

Jaysus Christ on a bike what the utter hell is wrong with these people?! Apart from being totally sick in the head , what purpose do they claim this torture has ?


----------



## Koweyka (23 December 2021)

Sossigpoker said:



			Jaysus Christ on a bike what the utter hell is wrong with these people?! Apart from being totally sick in the head , what purpose do they claim this torture has ?
		
Click to expand...

I have seen some shocking cruelty to foxes, but this beggars belief, the suffering that fox endured is unimaginable.


----------



## L&M (23 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			I hope this link works and I would dearly love to see what excuses the pro hunt trot out to defend this hunt master and her husband.

This is evil, pure utter evil, she should be charged as well.

Essex Police told ITV news it has “arrested a 48-year-old man from the Bures area after receiving reports of animal cruelty. He was arrested on suspicion of offences under the Hunting Act 2004, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Wild Mammal Protection Act 1996. He remains in custody at this time.”

Discretion is advised watching the video.


https://fb.watch/a4GGzz0Iiw/

Click to expand...

This behaviour is abhorrent and indefensible, there is no question about that.............but please do not assume all packs have members who would behave in such a manner.

I hope they get prosecuted.


----------



## Sossigpoker (23 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			I have seen some shocking cruelty to foxes, but this beggars belief, the suffering that fox endured is unimaginable.
		
Click to expand...

This has really shaken me , I can't bare to think of the poor fox.
Oh the things I'd do to that pair with a pitch fork...


----------



## GSD Woman (24 December 2021)

I can't watch the videos.  I don't want to have nightmares.

In my part of the US an actual kill is apparently quite rare.  Several of my friends who hunt have mentioned the kill isn't isn't necessary to watch the hounds work.


----------



## Terrayza (24 December 2021)

monkeymad said:



			I can remember seeing a clip on the BBC years ago when a I was a child, where a hunt had been filmed and one of the hunt members was holding a fox by the tail and he threw it into the pack of hounds, whilst the rest of the hunt clapped. I still see that as a turning point in my life, when I realised that some people actually found pleasure in causing other living creatures fear and pain. I will be happy to see an end to this outdated tradition.
		
Click to expand...

I agree completely


----------



## Queenbee (24 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			I hope this link works and I would dearly love to see what excuses the pro hunt trot out to defend this hunt master and her husband.

This is evil, pure utter evil, she should be charged as well.

Essex Police told ITV news it has “arrested a 48-year-old man from the Bures area after receiving reports of animal cruelty. He was arrested on suspicion of offences under the Hunting Act 2004, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Wild Mammal Protection Act 1996. He remains in custody at this time.”

Discretion is advised watching the video.


https://fb.watch/a4GGzz0Iiw/

Click to expand...

I agree this is utterly abhorrent and entirely indefensible but also agree with L&M with the statement that please do not assume that all hunts/huntmasters behave this way... this is utterly sickening but not illustrative of everyone who is *pro hunt* I hope these two are strung up and quartered!


----------



## Tiddlypom (24 December 2021)

Covert CCTV strikes again.

I saw the video last night, it is appalling beyond belief. I was nearly sick after watching it. I was going to post it on here once the police had commented, but behind a spoiler.

The cruelty shown here may be off the wall compared to other filmed incidents, but harvesting foxes from artificial earths for *insert nefarious purpose* is still happening. 

Of course there will be much hand wringing from pro hunt, as there always is, that such incidents are very rare.

Don't believe you. Lax governance and toleration/encouragement of illegal practices has facilitated this.


----------



## shortstuff99 (24 December 2021)

The hunts really need to stamp this cruelty out as it is now tarring drag hunts and bloodhounds. I've seen online how people have said drag hunts are different but members of the public still think that is also a smokescreen for hunting fox, if hunt people think they're going to be left alone as they're drag hunts etc I think they're going to be in for a surprise.

What I can't wrap my head around for traditional hunts is why they keep doing this? Do they actually enjoy torturing foxes? Madness.


----------



## Tiddlypom (24 December 2021)

shortstuff99 said:



			The hunts really need to stamp this cruelty out as it is now tarring drag hunts and bloodhounds.

What I can't wrap my head around for traditional hunts is why they keep doing this? Do they actually enjoy torturing foxes? Madness.
		
Click to expand...

The individual filmed torturing the fox in this video was clearly 'enjoying' inflicting as much pain as possible on the fox, and his sidekick facilitated his actions.

You're also right, and it's been said many times on here, that all hunts of whatever flavour, even bloodhounds,  will be tainted by this.


----------



## ycbm (24 December 2021)

Congratulations to the North London Hunt Saboteurs on obtaining that footage,  at considerable personal risk,   and the impending prosecution. 
.


----------



## Koweyka (24 December 2021)

The “individual” that did this was named by the East Essex Hunt as their “countryman” in an article in this months Horse and Hound magazine, yet when pressed the hunt denied all knowledge of knowing him.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (24 December 2021)

It's hard to imagine that there is any real appetite from the remaining hunts to switch to legitimate trail hunting when this sort of thing continually gets caught on covert camera. 

The recent statement from TiHUK confirmed as much for me. To claim the victim role in some big conspiracy instead of taking some responsibility and making it clear that changes would be made to ensure trail hunts comply with the law was obviously too big an ask. What we got was nothing more than a vague offer to mark their own homework and an assurance that this time would be different while offering no real detail on how they planned to make it different.

I really hope that proper legal hunts that do clean-boot and drag hunting are not pulled down along with them.


----------



## Clodagh (24 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			The “individual” that did this was named by the East Essex Hunt as their “countryman” in an article in this months Horse and Hound magazine, yet when pressed the hunt denied all knowledge of knowing him.
		
Click to expand...

semantics only and I’m not condoning what he did but I think (could be wrong) they said he wasn’t ‘employed’ by them and I imagine he doesn’t get paid for terrier work.


----------



## Koweyka (24 December 2021)

Clodagh said:



			semantics only and I’m not condoning what he did but I think (could be wrong) they said he wasn’t ‘employed’ by them and I imagine he doesn’t get paid for terrier work.
		
Click to expand...

I wonder if his wife knew what he and their daughter were getting up to in the woods, seems the East Essex hunt is a real family affair.


----------



## Tiddlypom (24 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			The “individual” that did this was named by the East Essex Hunt as their “countryman” in an article in this months Horse and Hound magazine, yet when pressed the hunt denied all knowledge of knowing him.
		
Click to expand...

Oops.

I can confirm that there is a four page colour spread featuring the East Essex Hunt in the 16 Dec 2021 edition of Horse and Hound titled 'A happy hunt'. I suspect that they are not a very happy hunt now that their sordid little secret is out.

The sabs have named him, but has his identity been officially confirmed yet? Assuming that the depraved individual who was caught on the video torturing the fox is indeed one of these people listed below, the E.Essex will have great difficulty distancing themselves from him .


----------



## L&M (24 December 2021)

Just a random thought that popped into my head - why on earth did the people filming it not stop them? 

If I witnessed any form of animal cruelty, whether wild or domestic, I wouldn't think twice about wading in.........


----------



## shortstuff99 (24 December 2021)

L&M said:



			Just a random thought that popped into my head - why on earth did the people filming it not stop them?

If I witnessed any form of animal cruelty, whether wild or domestic, I wouldn't think twice about wading in.........
		
Click to expand...

I think they were static cameras and the people weren't there.

Also if someone is happy to do that to a fox are they just going to let you go?


----------



## CrunchieBoi (24 December 2021)

L&M said:



			Just a random thought that popped into my head - why on earth did the people filming it not stop them? 

If I witnessed any form of animal cruelty, whether wild or domestic, I wouldn't think twice about wading in.........
		
Click to expand...

It will likely have been filmed on a trail camera (a camera attached to a tree or something which is triggered to film when it's motion sensor goes off). I don't think there would have actually been anyone present at the time of the incident aside from the awful people who were filmed.


----------



## suestowford (24 December 2021)

I'm not well informed on hunting terms, could someone please tell me what a 'countryman' does in a hunt?


----------



## Miss_Millie (24 December 2021)

Having read a description of what that depraved man did, I cannot bring myself to watch it. You've got to be totally sick in the head to torture an animal like that. I hope he spends a long time in jail.


----------



## Clodagh (24 December 2021)

suestowford said:



			I'm not well informed on hunting terms, could someone please tell me what a 'countryman' does in a hunt?
		
Click to expand...

New name for terrier man sfaia.


----------



## SEL (24 December 2021)

shortstuff99 said:



			The hunts really need to stamp this cruelty out as it is now tarring drag hunts and bloodhounds. I've seen online how people have said drag hunts are different but members of the public still think that is also a smokescreen for hunting fox, if hunt people think they're going to be left alone as they're drag hunts etc I think they're going to be in for a surprise.

What I can't wrap my head around for traditional hunts is why they keep doing this? Do they actually enjoy torturing foxes? Madness.
		
Click to expand...

I think if hunts don't get their act together soon there will be a blanket ban. I can't understand why H&H doesn't step up to the mark either. No point in 4 pages of "isn't it wonderful" content when the hunt is going to be named and shamed for a despicable act. They could lead from the front in demanding change


----------



## GSD Woman (24 December 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			I saw the video last night, it is appalling beyond belief. I was nearly sick after watching it. I was going to post it on here once the police had commented, but behind a spoiler.

The cruelty shown here may be off the wall compared to other filmed incidents, but harvesting foxes from artificial earths for *insert nefarious purpose* is still happening.

Of course there will be much hand wringing from pro hunt, as there always is, that such incidents are very rare
		
Click to expand...

This whole subject makes me want to vomit. It doesn't help that I'm eating breakfast. 
I don't know how the hunts in different parts of the country work, the US is a large country after all, but it doesn't sound like this at all.  I do know that where coyotes are common east of the Rockies they are hunted for the kill as they are considered vermin and a danger to livestock.


----------



## GSD Woman (24 December 2021)

L&M said:



			Just a random thought that popped into my head - why on earth did the people filming it not stop them?

If I witnessed any form of animal cruelty, whether wild or domestic, I wouldn't think twice about wading in.........
		
Click to expand...

Some AR groups film this stuff and keep from interrupting the action to make more sensational films.


----------



## Fred66 (24 December 2021)

This behaviour has no place within any hunt and I cannot think anyone from either side could think any different.
Even when hunting foxes with hounds was legal this behaviour would be abhorrent.
Whilst I continue to believe that hunting with hounds is no more cruel than other methods of fox control and wish that the ban had never occurred I do not countenance this behaviour in anyway.


----------



## Clodagh (24 December 2021)

GSD Woman said:



			I do know that where coyotes are common east of the Rockies they are hunted for the kill as they are considered vermin and a danger to livestock.
		
Click to expand...

As are foxes here. Well chickens and pheasants anyway.


----------



## Red-1 (24 December 2021)

Gosh, that video is grotesque.

It seems that, even if they say that the 'countryman' is not employed, if it is the named man, his wife is joint master. I would also think that, even if they don't 'employ' him, as in pay him, as they have been naming him as their 'countryman' they won't be able to wash their hands of it.

I also say, well done North London Hunt Sabs, although I normally deplore what sabs do (as opposed to monitors - they are different in my eyes, but I may be wrong).

They have an ITN news at 10 feature on it, on their FB page. ITN blanked out the faces, so maybe the identity is not quite as confirmed as people think?

I will link the video, but don't watch it if to avoid the torture, as it is featured.



Spoiler



Watch | Facebook


----------



## skinnydipper (24 December 2021)

So, have I got this right? 

Some sick b*stard builds an artificial earth to attract foxes to live there so they can kill them?


----------



## Red-1 (24 December 2021)

skinnydipper said:



			So, have I got this right?

Some sick b*stard builds an artificial earth to attract the foxes to live there so they can kill them?
		
Click to expand...

Not just kill them, flush one onto a net, let the dog bite it's ass, then take the dog off, hold it by the tail while it struggles and stab it repeatedly with a garden fork. I don't think it was even dead when he walked away, still holding it by the tail.


----------



## palo1 (24 December 2021)

It's just disgusting.  I have never seen an artificial earth tbh but entering 1 terrier to an earth for vermin control is legal.  What follows next is just utterly vile and left me thinking WTAF??  I have no idea why anyone would set out to do that.  Sickening.  The fox should (if it had been bolted for vermin control) have been shot immediately if that had been deemed necessary by the landowner.   I hope this vile couple have the book thrown at them and spend considerable time locked up.


----------



## Red-1 (24 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			It's just disgusting.  I have never seen an artificial earth tbh but entering 1 terrier to an earth for vermin control is legal.  What follows next is just utterly vile and left me thinking WTAF??  I have no idea why anyone would set out to do that.  Sickening.  The fox should (if it had been bolted for vermin control) have been shot immediately if that had been deemed necessary by the landowner.   I hope this vile couple have the book thrown at them and spend considerable time locked up.
		
Click to expand...

According to one report, the female is only 16, and isn't being named.


----------



## Clodagh (24 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			It's just disgusting.  I have never seen an artificial earth tbh but entering 1 terrier to an earth for vermin control is legal.  What follows next is just utterly vile and left me thinking WTAF??  I have no idea why anyone would set out to do that.  Sickening.  The fox should (if it had been bolted for vermin control) have been shot immediately if that had been deemed necessary by the landowner.   I hope this vile couple have the book thrown at them and spend considerable time locked up.
		
Click to expand...

They were quite common when I hunted. I totally agree that if it had been bolted to a net and shot it would all have been legal and ‘nothing to see here’. 
Artificials were provided as a place for foxes to live in countries where perhaps such places would not naturally occur.


----------



## Tiddlypom (24 December 2021)

.


skinnydipper said:



			So, have I got this right?

Some sick b*stard builds an artificial earth to attract foxes to live there so they can kill them?
		
Click to expand...

Partly right.

The artificial earth is built by the hunt to attract foxes.

This individual may just be getting his rocks off by torturing a wild animal, but I reckon that he had further plans for it.

How better to keep hounds keen to hunt live foxes in the future than by tossing the pack an injured, bleeding but not yet dead fox to give them an easy kill, and to remind them what they're being kept for?


----------



## palo1 (24 December 2021)

Red-1 said:



			According to one report, the female is only 16, and isn't being named.
		
Click to expand...

The thought of a 16 year old involved in that is enough to make anyone weep.


----------



## Clodagh (24 December 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			How better to keep hounds keen to hunt live foxes in the future than by tossing the pack an injured, bleeding but not yet dead fox to give them an easy kill. and to remind them what they're being kept for?
		
Click to expand...

I can’t see that it is necessary to do that. Hounds hunt, as dogs do, through instinct. I can’t see if it is dead at the end?  I have no idea what the intention was tbh.


----------



## palo1 (24 December 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			.

Partly right.

The artificial earth is built by the hunt to attract foxes.

This individual may just be getting his rocks off by torturing a wild animal, but I reckon that he had further plans for it.

How better to keep hounds keen to hunt live foxes in the future than by tossing the pack an injured, bleeding but not yet dead fox to give them an easy kill, and to remind them what they're being kept for?
		
Click to expand...

I can't see that as credible tbh.  What is on that footage is just torture.


----------



## Tiddlypom (24 December 2021)

It's torture, all right. Maybe that is 'all' it was, the enjoyment of deliberately causing terrible pain and suffering to a living animal.


----------



## skinnydipper (24 December 2021)

Whichever way you look at it, it's sickening.

If landowners don't want foxes on their land, and use that as an excuse for a hooley round the countryside in order to kill them, then why encourage the foxes to set up home on their land in the first place.

One could be forgiven for thinking they get pleasure from killing.


----------



## ycbm (24 December 2021)

Clodagh said:



			Artificials were provided as a place for foxes to live in countries where perhaps such places would not naturally occur.
		
Click to expand...

Clodagh I'm really sorry, I'm not having a go at you personally,   but I think there's a bit missing off the end of your sentence.  The full sentence should probably  read

"Artificials were provided as a place for foxes to live in countries where perhaps such places would not naturally occur, *so that they could then be hunted*."

Claims by some people (not you) that fox hunting was only ever about vermin control  are exposed as a lie by the use of artificial earths to encourage foxes to live in areas which people wanted to enjoy hunting. 
.


----------



## Tiddlypom (24 December 2021)

This is a deliberately fuzzy glimpse of the glowing 4 page spread on the East Essex Hunt in Horse and Hound magazine's last but one edition of 16/12/21.

Subtitled 'Hard work, enthusiasm and a great country for hounds mean the East Essex punches above its weight'.

H&H really does need to comment, not on this thread but on their website.


----------



## Miss_Millie (24 December 2021)

skinnydipper said:



			Whichever way you look at it, it's sickening.

If landowners don't want foxes on their land, and use that as an excuse for a hooley round the countryside in order to kill them, then why encourage the foxes to set up home on their land in the first place.

One could be forgiven for thinking they get pleasure from killing.
		
Click to expand...

I completely agree. I didn't even know that the artificial mounds were a thing, how disturbing. It's akin to saying you don't want rats in your stables and then setting up a little nesting box with food in it, only to have your dogs drag them out and kill them as soon as they find the cosy house you made for them. How totally messed up.


----------



## palo1 (24 December 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			I completely agree. I didn't even know that the artificial mounds were a thing, how disturbing. It's akin to saying you don't want rats in your stables and then setting up a little nesting box with food in it, only to have your dogs drag them out and kill them as soon as they find the cosy house you made for them. How totally messed up.
		
Click to expand...

Well yes, except that that would be legal and in fact rats don't need any encouragement to set up home anywhere. Killing rats with dogs is considered entirely appropriate in fact but attacking them with a garden fork is not.  Rats are killed in the most horrific ways actually with never a murmur but that is not the issue here.


----------



## Sandstone1 (24 December 2021)

How can anyone justify this disgusting cruelty?    Anyone connected to hunting should hang their heads in shame.  All hunts should be disbanded now.  This simply can not go on.


----------



## palo1 (24 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			How can anyone justify this disgusting cruelty?    Anyone connected to hunting should hang their heads in shame.  All hunts should be disbanded now.  This simply can not go on.
		
Click to expand...

Who is or has justified this? This was done by individuals and at this point a hunt per se has not been involved in any formal way. Not all hunts should be disbanded though you are entitled to your opinion.  There are many, many hunts that have done nothing wrong.


----------



## Tiddlypom (24 December 2021)

If the individual is the man as named by the sabs, then the hunt is very much implicated.


----------



## Sandstone1 (24 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Who is or has justified this? This was done by individuals and at this point a hunt per se has not been involved in any formal way. Not all hunts should be disbanded though you are entitled to your opinion.  There are many, many hunts that have done nothing wrong.
		
Click to expand...

That excuse is wearing thin now.   The man filmed needs to go to jail.   Trail hunting must now be banned as they cant be trusted.


----------



## Fred66 (24 December 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			If the individual is the man as named by the sabs, then the hunt is very much implicated.
		
Click to expand...

In what way are the hunt implicated? They have not sanctioned this (or do not appear to be), a member of a hunt has been shown to be acting in a cruel and abhorrent manner. Unless the hunt support this individual or attempt to excuse his behaviour then they are not responsible for his actions.


----------



## Tiddlypom (24 December 2021)

Are you aware of the individual's alleged identity, and of his connections to the hunt hierarchy?


----------



## paddy555 (24 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			In what way are the hunt implicated? They have not sanctioned this (or do not appear to be), a member of a hunt has been shown to be acting in a cruel and abhorrent manner. Unless the hunt support this individual or attempt to excuse his behaviour then they are not responsible for his actions.
		
Click to expand...

if he is one of the countrymen listed then he is basically one of the hunt staff who, by his actions, has brought the hunt into disrepute. I would expect them to keep their staff, paid or unpaid under control. In this case he had close family connections (presuming we have the right terrierman) and it would reasonable for the hunt masters to know what he got up to.


----------



## Fred66 (24 December 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			Are you aware of the individual's alleged identity, and of his connections to the hunt hierarchy?
		
Click to expand...

Just because someone holds an official role potentially of influence does not automatically mean that their actions are sanctioned. It is how the hunt responds that matters.


----------



## ycbm (24 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			Just because someone holds an official role potentially of influence does not automatically mean that their actions are sanctioned. It is how the hunt responds that matters.
		
Click to expand...

That would have been right when the ban first came in.  But after 16 years when  illegal hunting continued while other hunts said nothing even though they knew,  it will no longer pass muster. 

I believe this is not routine behaviour,  but a person would have to be closing their eyes very firmly not to see why sabs and the greater public think this is considered normal by people at the heart of hunting.  
.


----------



## L&M (24 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			Just because someone holds an official role potentially of influence does not automatically mean that their actions are sanctioned. It is how the hunt responds that matters.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree, Gary Thorpe, who is the huntsman for the East Essex, is an very active member/admin of a fb group called Tally ho (gone to ground), and although I am in no way implying he has anything to do with this, or condones the actions of these individuals, have found it interesting he has not yet commented on the incident.


----------



## Ceriann (24 December 2021)

I failed to avoid a small clip of this latest video on the news last night.  I cannot fathom how any sane person could inflict such pain on another sentient being.  It truly disturbs me.  It’s time for hunting - trail or otherwise -  to end.  Anything that enables (and I’m not saying condones) this or any other form of animal abuse to continue should be stopped.  If the minority can’t stop using the pretence of trail hunting etc to continue doing this sort of thing then end it all.


----------



## Fred66 (24 December 2021)

Ceriann said:



			I failed to avoid a small clip of this latest video on the news last night.  I cannot fathom how any sane person could inflict such pain on another sentient being.  It truly disturbs me.  It’s time for hunting - trail or otherwise -  to end.  Anything that enables (and I’m not saying condones) this or any other form of animal abuse to continue should be stopped.  If the minority can’t stop using the pretence of trail hunting etc to continue doing this sort of thing then end it all.
		
Click to expand...

This has absolutely nothing to do with trail hunting. It is some sick individuals who happen to be part of a hunt that have committed this act. If you followed your logic then we would have no teachers, no doctors and no nurses etc (as all these professions have had individuals that have committed multiple atrocities). These were isolated incidents committed by individuals that should not reflect upon the rest of their profession, anymore than this mans actions should reflect upon anyone but himself.


----------



## Amymay (24 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			Just because someone holds an official role potentially of influence does not automatically mean that their actions are sanctioned. It is how the hunt responds that matters.
		
Click to expand...

In that case, let’s hope his wife sanctions him 🙄


----------



## Ceriann (24 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			This has absolutely nothing to do with trail hunting. It is some sick individuals who happen to be part of a hunt that have committed this act. If you followed your logic then we would have no teachers, no doctors and no nurses etc (as all these professions have had individuals that have committed multiple atrocities). These were isolated incidents committed by individuals that should not reflect upon the rest of their profession, anymore than this mans actions should reflect upon anyone but himself.
		
Click to expand...

As you point out doctors, nurses and teachers are professionals - they deliver essential services to the public.  You cannot compare this to trail hunts that deliver nothing more than a hobby or chosen leisure sport.  It’s currently a front for continued cruelty and unacceptable practices.  I live near a “trail” hunt that hunts, prosecuted for related offences. If you truly trail hunt, and don’t support such barbaric behaviour, surely you can see this cannot continue.


----------



## Fred66 (24 December 2021)

Ceriann said:



			As you point out doctors, nurses and teachers are professionals - they deliver essential services to the public.  You cannot compare this to trail hunts that deliver nothing more than a hobby or chosen leisure sport.  It’s currently a front for continued cruelty and unacceptable practices.  I live near a “trail” hunt that hunts, prosecuted for related offences. If you truly trail hunt, and don’t support such barbaric behaviour, surely you can see this cannot continue.
		
Click to expand...

You are missing the point, in all walks of life there are people who commit vile acts, this doesn’t automatically mean that all around should be tarred by the same brush. 
It is simplistic and misguided to do so.


----------



## Ceriann (24 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			You are missing the point, in all walks of life there are people who commit vile acts, this doesn’t automatically mean that all around should be tarred by the same brush. 
It is simplistic and misguided to do so.
		
Click to expand...

I think you are missing the point.  If you have to tar everyone with the same brush in this instance so be it if it  helps stop such barbaric behaviour.  Comparing trail hunting to the health service is misguided.


----------



## Sandstone1 (24 December 2021)

How many times can things like this happen and excuses made?? Peoples pets killed, foxes hunted and killed by accident and down right barbaric cruelty?    Its 2021 its got to stop.  How anyone can excuse this is beyond me.


----------



## palo1 (24 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			How many times can things like this happen and excuses made?? Peoples pets killed, foxes hunted and killed by accident and down right barbaric cruelty?    Its 2021 its got to stop.  How anyone can excuse this is beyond me.
		
Click to expand...

No one is excusing it at all.


----------



## ycbm (24 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			This has absolutely nothing to do with trail hunting. It is some sick individuals who happen to be part of a hunt that have committed this act. If you followed your logic then we would have no teachers, no doctors and no nurses etc (as all these professions have had individuals that have committed multiple atrocities). These were isolated incidents committed by individuals that should not reflect upon the rest of their profession, anymore than this mans actions should reflect upon anyone but himself.
		
Click to expand...


Doctors and nurses and teachers have not stood by and carried on their profession while while hospitals and schools  in other areas break the law and they know it.  Hunts of all flavours have done this with illegal hunting for the last 16 years.

It is unreasonable now, especially after this year's conviction and the hunting response to it, to expect Sabs and Mr and Mrs Average to believe any assertion that this behaviour is not representative of hunting.
.


----------



## Fred66 (24 December 2021)

Ceriann said:



			I think you are missing the point.  If you have to tar everyone with the same brush in this instance so be it if it  helps stop such barbaric behaviour.  Comparing trail hunting to the health service is misguided.
		
Click to expand...

I wasn’t, I was stating that trying to connect actions of individuals in any sphere of life with the whole of that sphere is simplistic and lazy. The vast majority of the hunting community along with the vast majority of the rest of the population are appalled by the actions of this person. 
Trying to justify banning trail hunting on the back of this is opportunistic.


----------



## paddy555 (24 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			Just because someone holds an official role potentially of influence does not automatically mean that their actions are sanctioned. It is how the hunt responds that matters.
		
Click to expand...

can you give me a link to their response please? I have googled but cannot find one. It was released by the sabs 20 hours ago so obviously they have come up with a response by now? Presuming they do condemn it of course.


----------



## Ceriann (24 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			I wasn’t, I was stating that trying to connect actions of individuals in any sphere of life with the whole of that sphere is simplistic and lazy. The vast majority of the hunting community along with the vast majority of the rest of the population are appalled by the actions of this person. 
Trying to justify banning trail hunting on the back of this is opportunistic.
		
Click to expand...

I think its representative of the wider public view.  When you say the vast majority of the hunting community are appalled, the fact is most people no longer believe that and there is little to suggest they are wrong.  In the face of systemic abuse of the rules within “legal” hunting I struggle to see why it should be allowed to continue.  It is after all an occasional hobby, a bit of fun, the evolution of what was once (many moons ago) an acceptable pastime that is now no longer acceptable to the majority.


----------



## palo1 (24 December 2021)

Ceriann said:



			I think its representative of the wider public view.  When you say the vast majority of the hunting community are appalled, the fact is most people no longer believe that and there is little to suggest they are wrong.  In the face of systemic abuse of the rules within “legal” hunting I struggle to see why it should be allowed to continue.  It is after all an occasional hobby, a bit of fun, the evolution of what was once (many moons ago) an acceptable pastime that is now no longer acceptable to the majority.
		
Click to expand...

If any of what you say was true then all forms of hunting would have been consigned to the history books a very long time ago.  It would have been easy to get shot of hunting communities and cultures and it would not be so incredibly divisive and difficult as it is; those are the indicators of something that is 'live' and that 'matters'.   There is much you are failing to acknowledge or accept.  However,  there is NO justification for what was filmed in that video and I don't know any hunting person that would try to justify it.   There may or may not be a response from the local hunt; it may not be appropriate to comment on what is now a police matter.  This doesn't need to be another trial by social media as a real court should be dealing with it.


----------



## Ceriann (24 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			If any of what you say was true then all forms of hunting would have been consigned to the history books a very long time ago.  It would have been easy to get shot of hunting communities and cultures and it would not be so incredibly divisive and difficult as it is; those are the indicators of something that is 'live' and that 'matters'.   There is much you are failing to acknowledge or accept.  However,  there is NO justification for what was filmed in that video and I don't know any hunting person that would try to justify it.   There may or may not be a response from the local hunt; it may not be appropriate to comment on what is now a police matter.  This doesn't need to be another trial by social media as a real court should be dealing with it.
		
Click to expand...

Hunting is a relic of a bygone era - if “legal” hunting cannot control the factions in their midst that don’t or won’t accept that there will be nothing difficult or divisive about this.  You reference these cultures with pride - there is very little for these communities to be proud of in light of this latest issue (the latest in a long list).  I do not suggest all trail hunters condone this behaviour but they do enable it.  Animal abuse for sport or otherwise is socially unacceptable and abhorrent - there isn’t anything difficult about that.


----------



## canteron (24 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Who is or has justified this? This was done by individuals and at this point a hunt per se has not been involved in any formal way. Not all hunts should be disbanded though you are entitled to your opinion.  There are many, many hunts that have done nothing wrong.
		
Click to expand...

The problem is Palo that the hunts have had a long time to get their house in order and get some effective governance over the rouge element - but have failed to do this.

Essentially, if they want to survive, they have to set up a serious system with effective controls (as long as hunts exists there will be people looking to abuse it in the name of sport),  rather than having their leadership even hinting there are ways round the law.

Any ‘industry’ (and at its basic analysis it is just a minority sport) that is on the edge, either has to show good self governance, or face the consequence.


----------



## BlackHorseRider (24 December 2021)

Gary thorpe actually laid a trail today, what a coincidence


----------



## Koweyka (25 December 2021)

BlackHorseRider said:



			Gary thorpe actually laid a trail today, what a coincidence
		
Click to expand...

Clearly knew all eyes would be watching them …..


----------



## Koweyka (26 December 2021)

The truth about trail hunting….


----------



## Upthecreek (26 December 2021)

Quite possible I have missed it previously, but is this the sort of thing they usually put out about trail hunting?


----------



## Petmurf (26 December 2021)

Local hunt going on in the fields and woods behind my house as I type, 30+ men with guns on foot and a big pack of dogs running everywhere including peoples gardens


----------



## Koweyka (26 December 2021)

Petmurf said:



			Local hunt going on in the fields and woods behind my house as I type, 30+ men with guns on foot and a big pack of dogs running everywhere including peoples gardens
		
Click to expand...

Have the police been called ? Try and film the hounds running amok but only if it’s safe to do so. It needs to stop.


----------



## Clodagh (26 December 2021)

Petmurf said:



			Local hunt going on in the fields and woods behind my house as I type, 30+ men with guns on foot and a big pack of dogs running everywhere including peoples gardens
		
Click to expand...

There’s no recognised hunting on Sundays. Not saying it’s not happening but it won’t be an official pack.


----------



## SEL (26 December 2021)

Petmurf said:



			Local hunt going on in the fields and woods behind my house as I type, 30+ men with guns on foot and a big pack of dogs running everywhere including peoples gardens
		
Click to expand...

 do you know which hunt it is? Boxing Day hunts should be going out tomorrow.


----------



## Clodagh (26 December 2021)

SEL said:



			do you know which hunt it is? Boxing Day hunts should be going out tomorrow.
		
Click to expand...

Do they hunt or shoot in Ireland on Sundays?


----------



## Tiddlypom (26 December 2021)

Our local drag pack used to meet on Sundays. It's long since disbanded so I've no idea if that still happens.

Agree that all the packs that I know about are having their Boxing Day meets tomorrow.


----------



## SEL (26 December 2021)

Clodagh said:



			Do they hunt or shoot in Ireland on Sundays?
		
Click to expand...

I've no idea actually but I'd have thought Sunday was still sacrosanct for traditional field sports. Probably wrong!


----------



## Petmurf (26 December 2021)

Clodagh said:



			There’s no recognised hunting on Sundays. Not saying it’s not happening but it won’t be an official pack.
		
Click to expand...




SEL said:



			do you know which hunt it is? Boxing Day hunts should be going out tomorrow.
		
Click to expand...

Its just a local one that happens every Boxing Day here, organised by the guy up our lane who thinks he’s a farmer, he rents the land from the Dartmouth Estate


----------



## Upthecreek (26 December 2021)

Petmurf said:



			Local hunt going on in the fields and woods behind my house as I type, 30+ men with guns on foot and a big pack of dogs running everywhere including peoples gardens
		
Click to expand...

If they have guns it is surely a shoot and not a hunt?


----------



## Koweyka (26 December 2021)

There are plenty of “fox hunts” meeting today and not deferring until tomorrow.


----------



## Petmurf (26 December 2021)

Upthecreek said:



			If they have guns it is surely a shoot and not a hunt?
		
Click to expand...

They call it a hunt, either way pack of dogs chasing foxes


----------



## palo1 (26 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			There are plenty of “fox hunts” meeting today and not deferring until tomorrow.
		
Click to expand...




Petmurf said:



			Local hunt going on in the fields and woods behind my house as I type, 30+ men with guns on foot and a big pack of dogs running everywhere including peoples gardens
		
Click to expand...

I don't think they will be registered hunts meeting today.  It sounds as if it is a 'pirate' pack that are flushing foxes to guns.  They are allowed to do that with 2 hounds.   Are the dogs 'hounds' or a variety of shooting or other dogs? It sounds more like an informal shoot than a fox hunt.


----------



## Petmurf (26 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			I don't think they will be registered hunts meeting today.  It sounds as if it is a 'pirate' pack that are flushing foxes to guns.  They are allowed to do that with 2 hounds.   Are the dogs 'hounds' or a variety of shooting or other dogs? It sounds more like an informal shoot than a fox hunt.
		
Click to expand...

Definately hounds and a big pack of them


----------



## palo1 (26 December 2021)

Petmurf said:



			Definately hounds and a big pack of them
		
Click to expand...

They are unlikely to be a registered pack as Boxing Day hunt meetings have been arranged for tomorrow.   The number of guns sounds very unusual too for any kind of standard trail hunt - if they are carrying out vermin control, they may be allowed 2 hounds to flush foxes but that doesn't sound like what you have going on either!  Very peculiar.

The vast majority of convictions under the Hunting Act are outside the activities of organised trail hunts - this sounds a bit like the kind of situation where illegal hunting may be going on.  It certainly doesn't sound anything like an organised trail hunt and if you know who has organised it (the bloke up the road) then it probably is outside trail hunting auspices and conventions.

Sorry - second edit; information about hunting act convictions is available from The Ministry of Justice.


----------



## lannerch (26 December 2021)

Petmurf said:



			They call it a hunt, either way pack of dogs chasing foxes
		
Click to expand...

Any horses ?


----------



## YorksG (26 December 2021)

lannerch said:



			Any horses ?
		
Click to expand...

None of the local packs are mounted, wrong sort of country. Two registered and third local pirate pack, there was another pirate pack until a couple of years ago...


----------



## lannerch (26 December 2021)

FestiveG said:



			None of the local packs are mounted, wrong sort of country. Two registered and third local pirate pack, there was another pirate pack until a couple of years ago...
		
Click to expand...

How can they trail hunt on foot , a glorified dog walk! And I am a hunting supporter. ( but repulsed as most are by that thugs behaviour in the video)


----------



## YorksG (26 December 2021)

lannerch said:



			How can they trail hunt on foot , a glorified dog walk! And I am a hunting supporter. ( but repulsed as most are by that thugs behaviour in the video)
		
Click to expand...

In the same way as they can follow mounted. The established packs have been foot hunts for the entirety of their existence


----------



## Petmurf (26 December 2021)

FestiveG said:



			None of the local packs are mounted, wrong sort of country. Two registered and third local pirate pack, there was another pirate pack until a couple of years ago...
		
Click to expand...

No horses just about 20 + dogs and 30+ people.  Saw 2 Police cars heading up the hill late this afternoon but probably because they had blocked the road with their trucks badly parked


----------



## lannerch (26 December 2021)

FestiveG said:



			In the same way as they can follow mounted. The established packs have been foot hunts for the entirety of their existence
		
Click to expand...

How do they keep up .don’t get me wrong festiveG I do not doubt you for a minute just am amazed they actually have hunts on foot


----------



## CrunchieBoi (26 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			The truth about trail hunting….







Click to expand...

Meanwhile TiHUK have an article up on their Facebook page for their followers with advice on how to engage with the public on the subject of trail hunting. 

It's so bad it's actually really funny. 🤣


----------



## YorksG (26 December 2021)

Petmurf said:



			No horses just about 20 + dogs and 30+ people.  Saw 2 Police cars heading up the hill late this afternoon but probably because they had blocked the road with their trucks badly parked
		
Click to expand...

Yes a friend drove up and said that the idiots had parked all up the road, making it almost impassable, fools, as if the road isn't bad enough!


----------



## Petmurf (26 December 2021)

FestiveG said:



			Yes a friend drove up and said that the idiots had parked all up the road, making it almost impassable, fools, as if the road isn't bad enough!
		
Click to expand...

Do we live in the same village?


----------



## Tiddlypom (26 December 2021)

lannerch said:



			How do they keep up .don’t get me wrong festiveG I do not doubt you for a minute just am amazed they actually have hunts on foot
		
Click to expand...

There are a number of registered foot packs, mostly they cover rough upland terrain.

eg

http://blencathrafoxhounds.co.uk/

*'Because of the terrain, mounted hunting is not feasible in the Lake District. The Blencathra is one of six central fell packs, associated to (but not members of) the Masters of Foxhounds Association through the Central Committee of Fell Packs. The other five packs are the Coniston, Eskdale and Ennerdale, Lunesdale, Melbreak and Ullswater.*

Lakeland foxhounds are lighter and more agile than hounds bred by mounted packs. They are bred to cope with difficult terrain. During the summer closed season, hounds from all the fell packs are shown in competition at annual Lakeland shows including Rydal, Lowther and the Threlkeld Puppy Show.'


----------



## Mule (26 December 2021)

Clodagh said:



			Do they hunt or shoot in Ireland on Sundays?
		
Click to expand...

Hunts are on Sundays. Although that is in the Republic, I don't know about Northern Ireland. I would suspect they don't hunt on Sundays.


----------



## canteron (26 December 2021)

So can hunting save itself?? - ITV news article succinct and as I see it - the governing bodies really need so up their game.
https://apple.news/Akt1tDQcLTKi-TzEXl5LMUA


----------



## The Bouncing Bog Trotter (26 December 2021)

Hunting is in a huge spot of bother. Just look at today's Daily Fail - a report on a hunt with bloodhounds but you only need to look at the comments to see that the general public are totally unaware of the difference and hate hunting with a passion and 'despise the toffs that rip apart foxes'.

The whole article is wrong as it refers to the 100's of hunt followers that 'were out today', lazy journalism.

The hunting fraternity are sleepwalking into a bleak future with their eyes firmly closed. Clean up the act, root out those who walk close to or over the line, gain some empathy, launch a huge PR offensive and employ some mea culpa tactics or face a total ban.


----------



## Rowreach (26 December 2021)

A mule in a manger said:



			Hunts are on Sundays. Although that is in the Republic, I don't know about Northern Ireland. I would suspect they don't hunt on Sundays.
		
Click to expand...

Nope. NI “Boxing Day” meets are tomorrow.


----------



## Mule (26 December 2021)

Rowreach said:



			Nope. NI “Boxing Day” meets are tomorrow.
		
Click to expand...

What about shooting? Is it Friday's?


----------



## Rowreach (26 December 2021)

A mule in a manger said:



			What about shooting? Is it Friday's?
		
Click to expand...

Any day except Sunday (provided what you’re shooting at is in season).


----------



## GSD Woman (26 December 2021)

So people don't understand the difference between hunting on foot with guns vs trail hunting? I'm very confused.  Or am I the person not understanding the difference?


----------



## CrunchieBoi (27 December 2021)

Has the hunt in question condemned the actions of its named staff member yet? I can see they've chosen to cancel their boxing day meet but I've not seen a comment from them regarding the video of their staff torturing a live animal. That's been three days or so now hasn't it?


----------



## Sossigpoker (27 December 2021)

CrunchieBoi said:



			Has the hunt in question condemned the actions of its named staff member yet? I can see they've chosen to cancel their boxing day meet but I've not seen a comment from them regarding the video of their staff torturing a live animal. That's been three days or so now hasn't it?
		
Click to expand...

I think they were trying to claim that he's nothing to do with the hunt 🤦‍♀️🤣


----------



## Red-1 (27 December 2021)

CrunchieBoi said:



			Has the hunt in question condemned the actions of its named staff member yet? I can see they've chosen to cancel their boxing day meet but I've not seen a comment from them regarding the video of their staff torturing a live animal. That's been three days or so now hasn't it?
		
Click to expand...

Oh, I just looked that up and they say it is because the fields were waterlogged?


----------



## Clodagh (27 December 2021)

Red-1 said:



			Oh, I just looked that up and they say it is because the fields were waterlogged?
		
Click to expand...

Where did you find the information? On Boxing Day they would go to the meet to parade even if it was too wet to hunt, IMO.


----------



## Red-1 (27 December 2021)

Clodagh said:



			Where did you find the information? On Boxing Day they would go to the meet to parade even if it was too wet to hunt, IMO.
		
Click to expand...

Haha, you are right, I looked it up again and, without glasses, I mistook 2002 for 2022!

Essex: Waterlogged fields force cancellation of Boxing Day event | Gazette (gazette-news.co.uk)


----------



## Tiddlypom (27 December 2021)

Has the East Essex Hunt made any official statement on the fox torturing video since this initial one?

_A local hunt told ITV that they have "been made aware of an incident on December 4 which does not involve any of the hunt’s employees and is unrelated to any activities of the hunt who were not out hunting on that day. In light of this [we are] making further enquiries." _

Not even a generic statement agreeing with the universal revulsion and horror that all right minded individuals have expressed about it, whether they be pro or anti hunt?

Methinks the hunt hierarchy are bitterly regretting that recent 4 page spread which features them in H&H, which will make any back-pedalling re their involvement very tricky...

Because of the holiday period it may be a few days yet before the individual is formally named by police. That he will face charges of some sort is a given.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (27 December 2021)

Red-1 said:



			Oh, I just looked that up and they say it is because the fields were waterlogged?
		
Click to expand...

It's on the hunt master's FB page. Apparently a number of hunt staff are awaiting PCR test results.


----------



## TGM (27 December 2021)

The Bouncing Bog Trotter said:



			Hunting is in a huge spot of bother. Just look at today's Daily Fail - a report on a hunt with bloodhounds but you only need to look at the comments to see that the general public are totally unaware of the difference and hate hunting with a passion and 'despise the toffs that rip apart foxes'.

The whole article is wrong as it refers to the 100's of hunt followers that 'were out today', lazy journalism.
		
Click to expand...

That article is an example of the most appaling journalism.  They have mixed up a report of hunting with a 'clean boot' hunt, the South Down Bloodhounds, with information about a 'trail hunt' with a traditional foxhound pack.  The writing is so bad that you can't work out which is which.  Even worse, the captions of the photos they have published of the South Downs Bloodhounds say that they are 'trail hunting' rather than hunting the 'clean boot'.  I'm sure this is not the fault of the South Downs Bloodhounds who have submitted the photos to the paper in good faith, more likely the case of some lowly poorly paid intern who has cobbled together some a jumble of text and photos, without doing any background research first.


----------



## teapot (27 December 2021)

TGM said:



			That article is an example of the most appaling journalism.  They have mixed up a report of hunting with a 'clean boot' hunt, the South Down Bloodhounds, with information about a 'trail hunt' with a traditional foxhound pack.  The writing is so bad that you can't work out which is which.  Even worse, the captions of the photos they have published of the South Downs Bloodhounds say that they are 'trail hunting' rather than hunting the 'clean boot'.  I'm sure this is not the fault of the South Downs Bloodhounds who have submitted the photos to the paper in good faith, more likely the case of some lowly poorly paid intern who has cobbled together some a jumble of text and photos, without doing any background research first.
		
Click to expand...

Will be interested to see if the SDB post anything - they're usually very quick to promote their clean boot stance.

They might not have even submitted them given they're copyrighted to a local photographer, who's used the term on his facebook and instagram posts of those images...


----------



## paddy555 (27 December 2021)

CrunchieBoi said:



			It's on the hunt master's FB page. Apparently a number of hunt staff are awaiting PCR test results.
		
Click to expand...

nice to see they are so law abiding.


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Who is or has justified this? This was done by individuals and at this point a hunt per se has not been involved in any formal way. Not all hunts should be disbanded though you are entitled to your opinion.  There are many, many hunts that have done nothing wrong.
		
Click to expand...

Anyone who goes hunting is justifying it by default.   If you go hunting knowing that its not actually trail hunting and the hunt is using terrier man than you are also guilty in my opinion.  How anyone can be part of it is beyond me.


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			Anyone who goes hunting is justifying it by default.   If you go hunting knowing that its not actually trail hunting and the hunt is using terrier man than you are also guilty in my opinion.  How anyone can be part of it is beyond me.
		
Click to expand...

Well it's perfectly fine for you to hold that opinion.  Thankfully we live in a country where a diversity of views are possible.   No hunting person will justify what was on the video.  Yesterday there was a huge amount of support shown by ordinary people at hunt meets across the country - in small towns hundreds and thousands of people gathered to see horses and hounds and to show their support.  Whether you like it or not, there are a diversity of views on hunting.


----------



## Clodagh (28 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			Anyone who goes hunting is justifying it by default.   If you go hunting knowing that its not actually trail hunting and the hunt is using terrier man than you are also guilty in my opinion.  How anyone can be part of it is beyond me.
		
Click to expand...

Terrier men are not proof of illegal hunting, if hounds mark to ground (which they can do if looking for a trail or not) it is legal to dig to and shoot the fox if the landowner requests it.


----------



## Koweyka (28 December 2021)

There were also hundreds of people out protesting against it, many councils refused to allow meets to be held in town centres, the Wynnstay Hunt held an illegal gathering in Malpas yesterday and were moved on by the police. The Western Hunt that killed Mini had about three people turn out.  At the hunt I was at yesterday there were more antis than riders. 
It’s a dying “tradition” I hope this year is the last time this “gathering” is allowed.


----------



## Clodagh (28 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			There were also hundreds of people out protesting against it, many councils refused to allow meets to be held in town centres, the Wynnstay Hunt held an illegal gathering in Malpas yesterday and were moved on by the police. The Western Hunt that killed Mini had about three people turn out.  At the hunt I was at yesterday there were more antis than riders.
It’s a dying “tradition” I hope this year is the last time this “gathering” is allowed.
		
Click to expand...

i agree that it is on its last legs, mainly bought about by itself. When I hunted, pre ban, I remember the hunt master then saying that it would do itself in.


----------



## Koweyka (28 December 2021)

Clodagh said:



			Terrier men are not proof of illegal hunting, if hounds mark to ground (which they can do if looking for a trail or not) it is legal to dig to and shoot the fox if the landowner requests it.
		
Click to expand...

So when the terrier men are digging out (or filling in badger setts) on land that they have no permission to be on, which they frequently do, it’s just because they are bad at map reading ? Confused ? Or behaving exactly as described in the webinars….the soft underbelly


----------



## Clodagh (28 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			So when the terrier men are digging out (or filling in badger setts) on land that they have no permission to be on, which they frequently do, it’s just because they are bad at map reading ? Confused ? Or behaving exactly as described in the webinars….the soft underbelly
		
Click to expand...

I was just stating a legal fact.


----------



## Koweyka (28 December 2021)

Clodagh said:



			i agree that it is on its last legs, mainly bought about by itself. I hen I hunted, pre ban, I remember the hunt master then saying that it would do itself in.
		
Click to expand...

Hunting is destroying itself, look at yesterday with what happened with hounds all over the country. 

Many hounds killed or injured on the A18 after they “spilled out” onto the carriage way, causing a big accident, people were traumatised after hitting them. No Sabs we’re in the area, I hadn’t even heard of the hunt involved.

Again the Wynnstay yesterday, a hound was hit by a car with two young children in, who then watched the huntsman kick the dying hound to see if it was dead before throwing it on the back of a quad bike.

It’s not a one off hounds causing accidents, it’s tragic for the hounds, a trail leading on to an A road ? A trail laid close to an A road ? Or a four legged trail that also ran across.

This isn’t directed at you at you Clodagh, but it’s another example of just how wrong “trail” hunting is when the lives of the public including children are being put at risk on the roads for a “sport”


----------



## ycbm (28 December 2021)

Clodagh said:



			i agree that it is on its last legs, mainly bought about by itself. When I hunted, pre ban, I remember the hunt master then saying that it would do itself in.
		
Click to expand...


Indeed. There was some interesting footage on the news last night of hunting people in tweeds beating the shit out of a guy backed up against a wall, apparently for carrying an anti hunt placard.   I accept the footage might have been cut, and sabs are not wholly innocent victims, but there is no excuse for that kind of retaliation,  3 or more on one against a cornered man. Hunting has to find a way to stop this if it is to survive.  
.


----------



## lannerch (28 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			There were also hundreds of people out protesting against it, many councils refused to allow meets to be held in town centres, the Wynnstay Hunt held an illegal gathering in Malpas yesterday and were moved on by the police. The Western Hunt that killed Mini had about three people turn out.  At the hunt I was at yesterday there were more antis than riders.
It’s a dying “tradition” I hope this year is the last time this “gathering” is allowed.
		
Click to expand...

Not in my area there were not I saw a mass of support ( my area includes malpas ) and a fabulous turn out. Countryside traditions live on. https://fb.watch/aaD7X8dOmo/


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			There were also hundreds of people out protesting against it, many councils refused to allow meets to be held in town centres, the Wynnstay Hunt held an illegal gathering in Malpas yesterday and were moved on by the police. The Western Hunt that killed Mini had about three people turn out.  At the hunt I was at yesterday there were more antis than riders.
It’s a dying “tradition” I hope this year is the last time this “gathering” is allowed.
		
Click to expand...

There are very conflicting reports of the gathering in Malpas and the footage shows a different story to that of the antis.


----------



## lannerch (28 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Hunting is destroying itself, look at yesterday with what happened with hounds all over the country.

Many hounds killed or injured on the A18 after they “spilled out” onto the carriage way, causing a big accident, people were traumatised after hitting them. No Sabs we’re in the area, I hadn’t even heard of the hunt involved.

Again the Wynnstay yesterday, a hound was hit by a car with two young children in, who then watched the huntsman kick the dying hound to see if it was dead before throwing it on the back of a quad bike.

It’s not a one off hounds causing accidents, it’s tragic for the hounds, a trail leading on to an A road ? A trail laid close to an A road ? Or a four legged trail that also ran across.

This isn’t directed at you at you Clodagh, but it’s another example of just how wrong “trail” hunting is when the lives of the public including children are being put at risk on the roads for a “sport”
		
Click to expand...

I heard the story with many hounds being killed yesterday was taken down as it was a total misrepresentation, instead a rogue hound stepped out I think in front of a lorry so the paper who had written the story took the article down .


----------



## Koweyka (28 December 2021)

lannerch said:



			Not in my area there were not I saw a mass of support ( my area includes malpas ) and a fabulous turn out. Countryside traditions live on. https://fb.watch/aaD7X8dOmo/

Click to expand...

Yes what a resplendent day, the Wynnstay gathered illegally, were dispersed by the police, traumatised children when they hit a hound on the road, what a wonderful tradition when the lives of children are put at risk.
Though the Wynnstay killed a fox in a garden in front of children so clearly terrorising children is nothing new.


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			Indeed. There was some interesting footage on the news last night of hunting people in tweeds beating the shit out of a guy backed up against a wall, apparently for carrying an anti hunt placard.   I accept the footage might have been cut, and sabs are not wholly innocent victims, but there is no excuse for that kind of retaliation,  3 or more on one against a cornered man. Hunting has to find a way to stop this if it is to survive. 
.
		
Click to expand...

What you saw I think was in Lacock, Wiltshire and the police report is absolutely different to the version you are giving.  The initial assault was from a sab toward a hunt supporter.  The police had to 'deal' with the sab and were clearly hugely frustrated by their behaviour.


----------



## limestonelil (28 December 2021)

There was maybe 5 bloodhounds outside the Black Horse in Skipton High Street yesterday morning. Visitors and shoppers were keen enough to chat to the perceived 'countryfolk' with hounds, but not sure it could be termed support for hunting in any way.


----------



## Koweyka (28 December 2021)

lannerch said:



			I heard the story with many hounds being killed yesterday was taken down as it was a total misrepresentation, instead a rogue hound stepped out I think in front of a lorry so the paper who had written the story took the article down .
		
Click to expand...

There are a lot of eye witnesses saying different….rogue hound, I would put a laughing emoji if it wasn’t so tragic for the hound. Hounds are loose on roads all the time, if a pack contains rogue hounds then it shouldn’t be allowed out, the risks are too great.


----------



## lannerch (28 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			There are a lot of eye witnesses saying different….rogue hound, I would put a laughing emoji if it wasn’t so tragic for the hound. Hounds are loose on roads all the time, if a pack contains rogue hounds then it shouldn’t be allowed out, the risks are too great.
		
Click to expand...

Only in the antis page . If it had really happened why can I not find one reliable report of it, the original Grimsby article was withdrawn by the paper.


----------



## ycbm (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			What you saw I think was in Lacock, Wiltshire and the police report is absolutely different to the version you are giving.  The initial assault was from a sab toward a hunt supporter.  The police had to 'deal' with the sab and were clearly hugely frustrated by their behaviour.
		
Click to expand...

I fully accepted in my post that it was quite likely to have been in retaliation.

Do you accept that the hunt supporters wearing beautiful tweed beating seven bells out of a captive man up against a wall is an unacceptable response and will contribute to the death of all forms of hunting?

Hunt supporters and staff have to learn not to retaliate or they hand the sabs a PR coup on a big sliver platter.
.


----------



## Tiddlypom (28 December 2021)

lannerch said:



			Not in my area there were not I saw a mass of support ( my area includes malpas ) and a fabulous turn out. Countryside traditions live on. https://fb.watch/aaD7X8dOmo/

Click to expand...

In my area I could have chosen two different packs to support for their boxing day meets.

The pack who are genuinely trying to trail hunt, or the pack who continue to blatantly fox hunt and to feck with the consequences. Not everyone who turned up on foot yesterday to support the second pack will be aware of what they're up to, but all of the mounted field would be.

One pack has moved on with the times, while the other pack resolutely hasn't.


----------



## Sossigpoker (28 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			Indeed. There was some interesting footage on the news last night of hunting people in tweeds beating the shit out of a guy backed up against a wall, apparently for carrying an anti hunt placard.   I accept the footage might have been cut, and sabs are not wholly innocent victims, but there is no excuse for that kind of retaliation,  3 or more on one against a cornered man. Hunting has to find a way to stop this if it is to survive.  
.
		
Click to expand...

No it wasn't cut, it was utter chaos. Two police officers there,  one of them spent much time fraternising with the scum, planning her socials and arranging child care. Typical of Wiltshire Police i have to say.  One woman who was there simply holding up a placard was thrown to the floor inside the pub (the pub claim to be unbiased although they host these thugs every year ) and her glasses smashed.
No arrests made despite most of this chaos being filmed. Wiltshire Police are utterly incompetent and unwilling to take action on anything to do with animals,  and their so-called policing of this utter chaos was non-existent as part usual.

The hunt and its supporters are the Avon Vale ,.Google them and their hunt masters who are no strangers to badger sett digging and other delightful acts. 

It's uplifting to see many residents of the village in question stating their disgust of this tradition in the community boards.

I sincerely hope that the powers that be finally listen to the majority and ban all of this activity.

Meanwhile,  the RA Hunt was filmed killing a fox for the second time in a week. And no Police action.


----------



## Sossigpoker (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			What you saw I think was in Lacock, Wiltshire and the police report is absolutely different to the version you are giving.  The initial assault was from a sab toward a hunt supporter.  The police had to 'deal' with the sab and were clearly hugely frustrated by their behaviour.
		
Click to expand...

Oh come off it. If you were local or indeed were there you'd know this is far from the truth. What did the woman holding a placard do to deserve being thrown onto a stone floor and getting her glasses smashed? Stop repeating propaganda as facts when it couldn't be further from true. 
There were loads of ordinary people there simply wanting to show their disgust and the thugs couldn't handle it, particularly as the number of riders was rather embarrassing and apart from the thugs there was really no support shown for them.
In Pewsey the hunt reported much community support when about 11 people turned up for them. 🤣


----------



## CrunchieBoi (28 December 2021)

limestonelil said:



			There was maybe 5 bloodhounds outside the Black Horse in Skipton High Street yesterday morning. Visitors and shoppers were keen enough to chat to the perceived 'countryfolk' with hounds, but not sure it could be termed support for hunting in any way.
		
Click to expand...

Our local football team managed to win a major cup final in 2014. They took 15k fans to the game on the day but generally muster less than a third of that number for their league games. 
Indeed their first league game that season was played to less than 3250 fans (some of whom were fans of the opposition team).

I always find it pretty bizarre when boxing day is held up as an indicator of support for hunts when most of the "support" don't bother their backsides about hunting in normal circumstances.


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

Hunting people just need to get over the fact that its done.  Firstly is illegal, has been for years, secondly its barbaric.  Pest control?  Yes sure you need a field of riders to damage land and upset livestock not to mention killing pets to do pest control.   This is 2021.  Its time it stopped. People can argue all they like but we know illegal hunting goes on pretty much everytime a lot of hunts go out.  Hunting alongside and sometimes on busy roads?   Killing by accident?   If I had a pack of out of control dogs rampaging about the countryside I would be arrested.  If I had a dog loose on the road that caused a accident I would be in trouble.  Its always puzzled me that people who profess to love their own dogs and horses etc can happily go hunting to watch a terrified animal run for its life.


----------



## Sossigpoker (28 December 2021)

Killing by accident?
Pest control ?
No living being deserves to die like this !
(Warning shows fox being torn apart )
https://fb.watch/aaGD5flmlh/

About time this scum was dealt with by the law. Sadly certainly in Wiltshire we have a politicised police force that will take zero action on animal welfare and even less on illegal hunting.

The words 'wouldn't spit' and 'on fire' come to mind.


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

How can people who have dogs, horses and other animals enjoy killing for fun?
  Thats what it is after all.   You groom and plait up your horses, clean your tack and dress up smart to go out and terrify a animal, you get your fun riding across country and often cause upset to livestock.
Damage land and cause chaos on roads.  Stop traffic and delay people going about their legal business.  Pets have been killed and even trains delayed because of hounds on the railways.
Hounds trespassed in churchyards. Foxes hunted and killed by "accident" so very often.  Just so you can get your fun.  Stop and think for a second, how would you feel if it was your dog being chased across country by a pack of hounds to be caught and torn to bits while still alive?
Would that be cruel?  Think most people would thinks so.  Why is ok to do it to a fox?   Its pest control... Its tradition... Its the countryside.. Townies dont understand..... Sorry but I have lived in the countryside all my life, owned horses and ridden for most off it. Even been hunting pre ban and decided its not for me.  Owned other livestock too.  How would you convince me hunting is ok??


----------



## Koweyka (28 December 2021)

Sossigpoker said:



			Killing by accident?
Pest control ?
No living being deserves to die like this !
(Warning shows fox being torn apart )
https://fb.watch/aaGD5flmlh/

About time this scum was dealt with by the law. Sadly certainly in Wiltshire we have a politicised police force that will take zero action on animal welfare and even less on illegal hunting.

The words 'wouldn't spit' and 'on fire' come to mind.
		
Click to expand...

It’s just disgusting and the claim it’s a quick kill is a really bad sick excuse perpetrated by those who want to feel better about what they do. Why isn't that pack confined to kennels, two foxes in two meets shows utter reckless incompetence at best though more likely it’s deliberate hunting.


----------



## teapot (28 December 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			In my area I could have chosen two different packs to support for their boxing day meets.

The pack who are genuinely trying to trail hunt, or the pack who continue to blatantly fox hunt and to feck with the consequences. Not everyone who turned up on foot yesterday to support the second pack will be aware of what they're up to, but all of the mounted field would be.

One pack has moved on with the times, while the other pack resolutely hasn't.
		
Click to expand...

My local pack is making an active effort to be seen to be doing the right thing - no mention of the word 'hunt' now (bar the name on the website), promoting all the good community type stuff, and even their photographer has ditched the password protected photos unlike last year's.


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

Sossigpoker said:



			Oh come off it. If you were local or indeed were there you'd know this is far from the truth. What did the woman holding a placard do to deserve being thrown onto a stone floor and getting her glasses smashed? Stop repeating propaganda as facts when it couldn't be further from true.
There were loads of ordinary people there simply wanting to show their disgust and the thugs couldn't handle it, particularly as the number of riders was rather embarrassing and apart from the thugs there was really no support shown for them.
In Pewsey the hunt reported much community support when about 11 people turned up for them. 🤣
		
Click to expand...


Hmm, Police had to confront an angry protestor for sure and other accounts identify that protestors initiated the brawl. 

''Hunt saboteurs sparked a mass brawl with hunting supporters today as a traditional festive meet turned into a terrifying fight.

One of the activists punched one of the countrymen in the face as he tried to guide them away from the horses and hounds at the Avon Vale Hunt's Boxing Day ride.

The pro-hunter defended himself as others tried to round on him, with one demonstrator trying to choke him from behind during the vicious attack in Lacock, near Chippenham, in Wiltshire.'' 

The Tedworth had a great turnout  with hounds kept behind barriers so no idea what your statement is about.  Most hunts seem to have had a very positive reception and some of the national press is taking that up and reporting on it.   There were thousands in Ledbury and other places too though the Welsh hunts met with no spectators because of Covid regs.  Everyone I have spoken to across a number of hunts say there were very, very few antis protesting and happy faces and support on show (other than in Lacock where things were ugly thanks to protestors refusing to allow safe passage for the hunt). 

As the meeting in Lacock was entirely legal and planned for anyone disrupting that physically may be charged. The police were certainly frustrated with the attitudes and actions of protestors.


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

Another report of unnecessary anti/sab violence in the South East where a sab has now been charged for assault on a 15 year old boy (knocking him to the ground and kicking him as well as threatening a much younger child).  Those people were not connected to hunting but sabs possibly thought they were?


----------



## Koweyka (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Another report of unnecessary anti/sab violence in the South East where a sab has now been charged for assault on a 15 year old boy (knocking him to the ground and kicking him as well as threatening a much younger child).  Those people were not connected to hunting but sabs possibly thought they were?
		
Click to expand...

On Christmas Eve a hunt supporter spat in my face and then coughed on the other monitors, she thought it was hysterically funny, another monitor was kicked in the privates. The police are trying to identify the woman who spat on me. She was seen chatting to the huntsman but they claim not to know her. Another report of unnecessary pro hunt/wildlife killing thuggery, pro hunt are not paragons of virtue.


----------



## Fred66 (28 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			On Christmas Eve a hunt supporter spat in my face and then coughed on the other monitors, she thought it was hysterically funny, another monitor was kicked in the privates. The police are trying to identify the woman who spat on me. She was seen chatting to the huntsman but they claim not to know her. Another report of unnecessary pro hunt/wildlife killing thuggery, pro hunt are not paragons of virtue.
		
Click to expand...

If this happened then this is disgusting behaviour, would you equally condemn the sabs who ganged up and assaulted one of the field who left early leaving him needing surgery to reconstruct his jaw ?


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			On Christmas Eve a hunt supporter spat in my face and then coughed on the other monitors, she thought it was hysterically funny, another monitor was kicked in the privates. The police are trying to identify the woman who spat on me. She was seen chatting to the huntsman but they claim not to know her. Another report of unnecessary pro hunt/wildlife killing thuggery, pro hunt are not paragons of virtue.
		
Click to expand...

I hope they find the person that spat on you.  Disgusting at any time but in Covid times its a offence.


----------



## lannerch (28 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			If this happened then this is disgusting behaviour, would you equally condemn the sabs who ganged up and assaulted one of the field who left early leaving him needing surgery to reconstruct his jaw ?
		
Click to expand...

Agree violence on either side is unforgivable and needs prosecuting.


----------



## CanteringCarrot (28 December 2021)

I cannot believe how willingly blind some people are about this and the excuses made. Honestly, at this point, I don't even feel bad if it's totally banned altogether and isn't a thing anymore. 

I used to have no issue with it, but enough has gone on that I can't believe it's still going on, quite frankly.


----------



## Koweyka (28 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			If this happened then this is disgusting behaviour, would you equally condemn the sabs who ganged up and assaulted one of the field who left early leaving him needing surgery to reconstruct his jaw ?
		
Click to expand...

No if’s about it, it happened. She was completely unhinged.
I would condemn all violence, there is no need for it on any side.


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

CanteringCarrot said:



			I cannot believe how willingly blind some people are about this and the excuses made. Honestly, at this point, I don't even feel bad if it's totally banned altogether and isn't a thing anymore.

I used to have no issue with it, but enough has gone on that I can't believe it's still going on, quite frankly.
		
Click to expand...

It must be banned completely and it will be... It cant go on.


----------



## CanteringCarrot (28 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			It must be banned completely and it will be... It cant go on.
		
Click to expand...

I feel bad for those who do it honestly and legally, but how else can this other poor behavior be stopped? It's ridiculous the things some get away with.


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

CanteringCarrot said:



			I cannot believe how willingly blind some people are about this and the excuses made. Honestly, at this point, I don't even feel bad if it's totally banned altogether and isn't a thing anymore.

I used to have no issue with it, but enough has gone on that I can't believe it's still going on, quite frankly.
		
Click to expand...

I get the frustration with the violence and abuse from both sides I really do but anyone who says that this 'conflict' is about animal welfare is frankly deluded.  The vast majority of even Hunting Act offences are not related to trail hunting but are related to poaching etc.  Those statistics are available from the Ministry of Justice and are clear for anyone to view. (I have posted them previously). That means absolutely without doubt that animal welfare issues which are pressing, serious and prosecutable/actionable are entirely other to anything related to hunting.  Why on earth anyone would think otherwise is literally beyond me.  It is not the fault of trail hunts that the law is appalling and doesn't work for anyone.  

It is standard practice for sabs and antis to spread misinformation, provide 'edited' evidence and speculation as well as complain about the police, about police bias, about lack of will to address hunting issues but no one ever accepts that there are so much more serious and important things for tax payers money to be spent on, related to animal welfare, wildlife and a whole range of other things including puppy farming, environmental pollution etc etc. Vigilantism and attempts to prevent trail hunt meets in town centres on Boxing Day are utterly anti-social and do not represent any kind of liberal, democratic process.   The fact that people from all walks of life including vets, politicians, environmentalists (even those pesky rewilders!), artists, scientists, teachers,  all political parties and all manner of other social groupings are seen to support hunting should tell anti-hunters something that they have been deaf to for as long as the anti-hunt movement has existed.  Antis need to re-consider the reason people support hunting. (and not just trot out the usual 'psychopathic, sadistic, bloodthirsty inbred perverts line...it's old hat!!)   The culture wars in the countryside are NOT about animal welfare.   Doxxing and harrassing the hosts for trail hunt meets are despicable as are the lies and misinformation spread by some antis.  I support the right of anyone to protest but the anti-hunt/sab lobby are well beyond what is acceptable in a democratic country.  God forbid that these same extremists ever take on a more mainstream issue...


----------



## Fred66 (28 December 2021)

CanteringCarrot said:



			I feel bad for those who do it honestly and legally, but how else can this other poor behavior be stopped? It's ridiculous the things some get away with.
		
Click to expand...

I condemn violence from either side, but there is a lot of provocation from hunt sabs,  verbally, physically and frequently on private property directed at children. Some of the placards yesterday had obscene language written on them that had no place in any place, never mind in public.
No one should be able to intimidate others in this way. Vigilantism is not ok, lobby your mp, protest peacefully but do not bring violence, obscene language etc on to someone else’s property. There is no excuse


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			I get the frustration with the violence and abuse from both sides I really do but anyone who says that this 'conflict' is about animal welfare is frankly deluded.  The vast majority of even Hunting Act offences are not related to trail hunting but are related to poaching etc.  Those statistics are available from the Ministry of Justice and are clear for anyone to view. (I have posted them previously). That means absolutely without doubt that animal welfare issues which are pressing, serious and prosecutable/actionable are entirely other to anything related to hunting.  Why on earth anyone would think otherwise is literally beyond me.  It is not the fault of trail hunts that the law is appalling and doesn't work for anyone.

It is standard practice for sabs and antis to spread misinformation, provide 'edited' evidence and speculation as well as complain about the police, about police bias, about lack of will to address hunting issues but no one ever accepts that there are so much more serious and important things for tax payers money to be spent on, related to animal welfare, wildlife and a whole range of other things including puppy farming, environmental pollution etc etc. Vigilantism and attempts to prevent trail hunt meets in town centres on Boxing Day are utterly anti-social and do not represent any kind of liberal, democratic process.   The fact that people from all walks of life including vets, politicians, environmentalists (even those pesky rewilders!), artists, scientists, teachers,  all political parties and all manner of other social groupings are seen to support hunting should tell anti-hunters something that they have been deaf to for as long as the anti-hunt movement has existed.  Antis need to re-consider the reason people support hunting. (and not just trot out the usual 'psychopathic, sadistic, bloodthirsty inbred perverts line...it's old hat!!)   The culture wars in the countryside are NOT about animal welfare.   Doxxing and harrassing the hosts for trail hunt meets are despicable as are the lies and misinformation spread by some antis.  I support the right of anyone to protest but the anti-hunt/sab lobby are well beyond what is acceptable in a democratic country.  God forbid that these same extremists ever take on a more mainstream issue...
		
Click to expand...

You are so blind...  Ok one more time.  If trail hunting why oh why do they frequently end up along side or on main roads???  If trail hunting why are the so often  hunting foxes???  why do they end up on land they have been asked not to go on???  Why do they upset livestock and other horses??? why have they killed pets???? why do they end up on railway lines????  Can you please answer this without quoting reports at me?   If legal trail hunting why are they not laying and following a trail?   I can tell you why.  BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT TRAIL HUNTING.   If you think they are you must be incredibly lucky that your hunt does it legally or you have not actually been hunting recently or you are deluded.  I t has to be one of them.


----------



## CanteringCarrot (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			I get the frustration with the violence and abuse from both sides I really do but anyone who says that this 'conflict' is about animal welfare is frankly deluded.  The vast majority of even Hunting Act offences are not related to trail hunting but are related to poaching etc.  Those statistics are available from the Ministry of Justice and are clear for anyone to view. (I have posted them previously). That means absolutely without doubt that animal welfare issues which are pressing, serious and prosecutable/actionable are entirely other to anything related to hunting.  Why on earth anyone would think otherwise is literally beyond me.  It is not the fault of trail hunts that the law is appalling and doesn't work for anyone.

It is standard practice for sabs and antis to spread misinformation, provide 'edited' evidence and speculation as well as complain about the police, about police bias, about lack of will to address hunting issues but no one ever accepts that there are so much more serious and important things for tax payers money to be spent on, related to animal welfare, wildlife and a whole range of other things including puppy farming, environmental pollution etc etc. Vigilantism and attempts to prevent trail hunt meets in town centres on Boxing Day are utterly anti-social and do not represent any kind of liberal, democratic process.   The fact that people from all walks of life including vets, politicians, environmentalists (even those pesky rewilders!), artists, scientists, teachers,  all political parties and all manner of other social groupings are seen to support hunting should tell anti-hunters something that they have been deaf to for as long as the anti-hunt movement has existed.  Antis need to re-consider the reason people support hunting. (and not just trot out the usual 'psychopathic, sadistic, bloodthirsty inbred perverts line...it's old hat!!)   The culture wars in the countryside are NOT about animal welfare.   Doxxing and harrassing the hosts for trail hunt meets are despicable as are the lies and misinformation spread by some antis.  I support the right of anyone to protest but the anti-hunt/sab lobby are well beyond what is acceptable in a democratic country.  God forbid that these same extremists ever take on a more mainstream issue...
		
Click to expand...

Your opinion doesn't have to be the same as mine, but appreciate your explanation nonetheless.



Also, just for clarify because this apparently wasn't clear (because I didn't say this before), I don't support many of the actions taken by Sabs and don't deny that they provoke.


----------



## Fred66 (28 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			It must be banned completely and it will be... It cant go on.
		
Click to expand...

Actually trespass and this style of aggressive protest is what needs to be banned. It is not acceptable to intimidate others in this way. If a crime is committed then the police should deal with it not a group of vigilantes.


----------



## CanteringCarrot (28 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			I condemn violence from either side, but there is a lot of provocation from hunt sabs,  verbally, physically and frequently on private property directed at children. Some of the placards yesterday had obscene language written on them that had no place in any place, never mind in public.
No one should be able to intimidate others in this way. Vigilantism is not ok, lobby your mp, protest peacefully but do not bring violence, obsecene language etc on to someone else’s property. There is no excuse
		
Click to expand...

Not arguing with that.


Sad that it got to this point though, or that people felt the need to take it into their own hands. Perhaps if matters were dealt with or prevented, it might help in the future. Aka certain hunts don't do stupid things, to put it plainly. I'm not saying this justifies the Sabs and their actions though.


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			Actually trespass and this style of aggressive protest is what needs to be banned. It is not acceptable to intimidate others in this way. If a crime is committed then the police should deal with it not a group of vigilantes.
		
Click to expand...

I think you will find that fox hunting is already banned and the hunts themselves often trespass.


----------



## lannerch (28 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			You are so blind...
		
Click to expand...

Now I would argue it was you that was the blind one.


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			You are so blind...
		
Click to expand...

@Sandstone, I am not blind.  When I was a university student I would have identified quite strongly as an anti and had friends who were active sabs.  I never took the HSA coin because I didn't want to get involved in any physical conflict but I lived in a house with 2 very active (probably still now!) sabs (also, more rarely for that era, they were ethical vegans too)  who were very happy to be paid £20 a day for sabbing and had true conviction about the rightness and necessity of their action.  I saw their horror, the emotional distress they experienced and I felt then (pre-ban) that there was no need at all for hunting.  Post university and several other events, as a member of a rural community I saw a different set of ideas which I was quite happy to examine. I followed the hunt as a matter of 'neutral' interest - not having much money for one thing and being interested in horses!   I have truly seen both sides of the issue.  I have chosen to take the position I have after a lifetime's involvement and interest in wildlife, conservation and hunting issues which I have explored as fully as I can from both UK positions as well as a range of other cultural and moral/philosophical points of view.  I am not stupid, blind or cruel.  I am not ignorant about what 'message' the anti-hunt lobby want to spread but I fundamentally disagree with that lobby for a number of reasons.  

I think it is important to respect how other people feel and to try to understand their viewpoint.  I have done my best to see this issue from several sets of shoes.  I am not sure that many antis have.


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

lannerch said:



			Now I would argue it was you that was the blind one.[/Q
Really?  so illegal fox hunting is not going on?  They all happily trail hunt??  They do not hunt foxes and nicely follow a trail each time?  Get real.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Koweyka (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			I get the frustration with the violence and abuse from both sides I really do but anyone who says that this 'conflict' is about animal welfare is frankly deluded.  The vast majority of even Hunting Act offences are not related to trail hunting but are related to poaching etc.  Those statistics are available from the Ministry of Justice and are clear for anyone to view. (I have posted them previously). That means absolutely without doubt that animal welfare issues which are pressing, serious and prosecutable/actionable are entirely other to anything related to hunting.  Why on earth anyone would think otherwise is literally beyond me.  It is not the fault of trail hunts that the law is appalling and doesn't work for anyone.

It is standard practice for sabs and antis to spread misinformation, provide 'edited' evidence and speculation as well as complain about the police, about police bias, about lack of will to address hunting issues but no one ever accepts that there are so much more serious and important things for tax payers money to be spent on, related to animal welfare, wildlife and a whole range of other things including puppy farming, environmental pollution etc etc. Vigilantism and attempts to prevent trail hunt meets in town centres on Boxing Day are utterly anti-social and do not represent any kind of liberal, democratic process.   The fact that people from all walks of life including vets, politicians, environmentalists (even those pesky rewilders!), artists, scientists, teachers,  all political parties and all manner of other social groupings are seen to support hunting should tell anti-hunters something that they have been deaf to for as long as the anti-hunt movement has existed.  Antis need to re-consider the reason people support hunting. (and not just trot out the usual 'psychopathic, sadistic, bloodthirsty inbred perverts line...it's old hat!!)   The culture wars in the countryside are NOT about animal welfare.   Doxxing and harrassing the hosts for trail hunt meets are despicable as are the lies and misinformation spread by some antis.  I support the right of anyone to protest but the anti-hunt/sab lobby are well beyond what is acceptable in a democratic country.  God forbid that these same extremists ever take on a more mainstream issue...
		
Click to expand...

I am curious, you are mentioning vets, politicians, teachers supporting hunting what demographic are you suggesting makes up the anti movement?


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



@Sandstone, I am not blind.  When I was a university student I would have identified quite strongly as an anti and had friends who were active sabs.  I never took the HSA coin because I didn't want to get involved in any physical conflict but I lived in a house with 2 very active (probably still now!) sabs (also, more rarely for that era, they were ethical vegans too)  who were very happy to be paid £20 a day for sabbing and had true conviction about the rightness and necessity of their action.  I saw their horror, the emotional distress they experienced and I felt then (pre-ban) that there was no need at all for hunting.  Post university and several other events, as a member of a rural community I saw a different set of ideas which I was quite happy to examine. I followed the hunt as a matter of 'neutral' interest - not having much money for one thing and being interested in horses!   I have truly seen both sides of the issue.  I have chosen to take the position I have after a lifetime's involvement and interest in wildlife, conservation and hunting issues which I have explored as fully as I can from both UK positions as well as a range of other cultural and moral/philosophical points of view.  I am not stupid, blind or cruel.  I am not ignorant about what 'message' the anti-hunt lobby want to spread but I fundamentally disagree with that lobby for a number of reasons. 

I think it is important to respect how other people feel and to try to understand their viewpoint.  I have done my best to see this issue from several sets of shoes.  I am not sure that many antis have.
		
Click to expand...

As I have said before I have been hunting pre ban and live where the local hunt very openly hunts foxes.  I have seen both sides but the fact is hunting is illegal and has been for many years so why are they getting away with it?


----------



## Amymay (28 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			I am curious, you are mentioning vets, politicians, teachers supporting hunting what demographic are you suggesting makes up the anti movement?
		
Click to expand...

All professions on both sides.


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			I am curious, you are mentioning vets, politicians, teachers supporting hunting what demographic are you suggesting makes up the anti movement?
		
Click to expand...

The same folk, but just with a different opinion of course!


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			As I have said before I have been hunting pre ban and live where the local hunt very openly hunts foxes.  I have seen both sides but the fact is hunting is illegal and has been for many years so why are they getting away with it?
		
Click to expand...

Is your issue one of legality, animal welfare or something else?


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

lannerch said:



			Now I would argue it was you that was the blind one.
		
Click to expand...

I just typed a long reply and some how lost it.  Cant be bothered to waste my time re typing it but if you think fox hunting is not going on you must be blind.


----------



## Koweyka (28 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			I think you will find that fox hunting is already banned and the hunts themselves often trespass.
		
Click to expand...

We were made agents of the land at our hunt yesterday by a landowner desperate to get them off his land after the hunt has repeatedly trespassed over the season even though they were warned off after they killed a fox on it a few years ago.


----------



## paddy555 (28 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			Just because someone holds an official role potentially of influence does not automatically mean that their actions are sanctioned. It is how the hunt responds that matters.
		
Click to expand...


my post 1675 refers. I still cannot find the hunts response to the pitchfork incident. Tried googling but not there. Can  you help please? As you say it is how the hunt responds that matters.


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Is your issue one of legality, animal welfare or something else?
		
Click to expand...

Both actually,  Why is it that something thats been illegal for years be allowed to continue and why is it thought ok to kill wildlife in a barbaric way?  Plus cause distress to so may other animals and people in doing so.


----------



## Koweyka (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			The same folk, but just with a different opinion of course!
		
Click to expand...

This is what you said ….

The fact that people from all walks of life including vets, politicians, environmentalists (even those pesky rewilders!), artists, scientists, teachers, all political parties and all manner of other social groupings are seen to support hunting should tell anti-hunters something that they have been deaf to for as long as the anti-hunt movement has existed.

So the fact we have the same demographic of people in our “ranks” does that also tell all the “deaf” pro hunters something if they all oppose it ?


----------



## Fred66 (28 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			I think you will find that fox hunting is already banned and the hunts themselves often trespass.
		
Click to expand...

I am fully aware fox hunting with a pack of hounds is against the law, I am not aware that I have disputed this.

The hunt I follow spends a lot of time walking the country to ensure that trails laid are on land we have access to and rarely go on land they are not welcome on. 

However they certainly don’t deliberately trespass, they don’t refuse to leave when asked, they don’t go out dressed in black with faces obscured, and they don’t threaten the owners or their guests.

The level of threat and violence is escalating and personally I think this is unacceptable.


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			This is what you said ….

The fact that people from all walks of life including vets, politicians, environmentalists (even those pesky rewilders!), artists, scientists, teachers, all political parties and all manner of other social groupings are seen to support hunting should tell anti-hunters something that they have been deaf to for as long as the anti-hunt movement has existed.

So the fact we have the same demographic of people in our “ranks” does that also tell all the “deaf” pro hunters something if they all oppose it ?
		
Click to expand...

Well my experience of hunt supporters is that they do understand the issues that the anti hunt lobby are pressing but they entirely disagree.  The anti-hunt lobby makes an absolute speciality of yelling at every opportunity that they do *not *understand the perspective of pro-hunters.  There is considerable difference in those two positions.

ETA - I believe the reason that the anti-hunt lobby take their position is because as soon as they engaged with the real issues around hunting and their campaign, they know they would find themselves in a weak position.  I regularly read sab reports and tbh they are utter fantasy; about what they think has or is happening, about the people involved and about the issues but I understand that this will probably enrage you.  Sorry about that - I am just saying what I think.


----------



## ycbm (28 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			The hunt I follow spends a lot of time walking the country to ensure that trails laid are on land we have access to and *rarely go on land they are not welcome on.*

Click to expand...


Do you realise how what you wrote there sounds?

Why are they *ever* on land they are not welcome on?
.


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			We were made agents of the land at our hunt yesterday by a landowner desperate to get them off his land after the hunt has repeatedly trespassed over the season even though they were warned off after they killed a fox on it a few years ago.
		
Click to expand...

Erm, I could 'make' anyone an agent of my land, for any reason...this tells us nothing other than a landowner supports a group of sabs.   It might be a landowner of 40,000 acres or 4 acres but a large landowner is likely to already have an effective land agent.  If not, that agent should be sacked!!


----------



## Fred66 (28 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			Do you realise how what you wrote there sounds?

Why are they *ever* on land they are not welcome on?
.
		
Click to expand...

Yes I am aware of what I wrote, when laying a trail a number of factors are in play and occasionally hounds lose the trail they are meant to be on and some might stray onto adjacent land. Accidents do happen but as I say it very rarely happens.

Sometimes the landowners have no objection to the land being quietly crossed but don’t want full hunting, other landowners don’t want you on at all. We would certainly never cross land on horse that we are not welcome on (unless it is a bridleway).


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			Do you realise how what you wrote there sounds?

Why are they *ever* on land they are not welcome on?
.
		
Click to expand...

It can happen by mistake where ground from several landowners is mixed; one or two hounds can cross a fenceline whilst still on a trail (scent can be high and drifting).  Usually the best answer is for huntsman or whip to get off their horse and retrieve hounds on foot - ours do this so that they can apologise to the landowner if need be.


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			Do you realise how what you wrote there sounds?

Why are they *ever* on land they are not welcome on?
.
		
Click to expand...

As an aside, I don't want cats on my yard - my neighbour's cat regularly trespasses so he/she is regularly on land where she/he is not welcome.  I like cats but I like my songbirds too so I prefer not to have a cat on my yard/in my garden where the birds are vulnerable.

Animals don't always know where they are supposed to be....


----------



## ycbm (28 December 2021)

lannerch said:



			Not in my area there were not I saw a mass of support ( my area includes malpas ) and a fabulous turn out. Countryside traditions live on. https://fb.watch/aaD7X8dOmo/

Click to expand...

Do you hunt with the Wynnstay, if you hunt Malpas?

I'm reliably, (I think),  informed that the Wynnstay don't even try to hide that they are hunting fox.  So if you hunt with them does that mean you know that you are fox hunting? 
.


----------



## ycbm (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			As an aside, I don't want cats on my yard - my neighbour's cat regularly trespasses so he/she is regularly on land where she/he is not welcome.  I like cats but I like my songbirds too so I prefer not to have a cat on my yard/in my garden where the birds are vulnerable.

Animals don't always know where they are supposed to be....
		
Click to expand...


And we're right back round again to the same old argument Palo.

Lay your scent stronger and not smelling of fox and they'll know where they are supposed to be.
.


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			And we're right back round again to the same old argument Palo.

Last your scent stronger and not smelling of fox and they'll know where they are supposed to be.
.
		
Click to expand...

Well ok, but shouldn't that mean that cat owners should keep their cats in too?  So that wildlife is safeguarded from people who are aware that their animal might trespass or cause distress or kill another animal?


----------



## Koweyka (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Erm, I could 'make' anyone an agent of my land, for any reason...this tells us nothing other than a landowner supports a group of sabs.   It might be a landowner of 40,000 acres or 4 acres but a large landowner is likely to already have an effective land agent.  If not, that agent should be sacked!!
		
Click to expand...

It tells you that the landowner does not want hunts tresspassing on his land and the size of the acreage is utterly irrelevant,  what an arrogant attitude you just portrayed, hunts don’t care where they go during the pursuit of a fox and if the landowner does not want the hunt on his land then that decision should be respected and if he felt we could help protect his land then you should be respectful of that decision instead of being derogatory.


----------



## ycbm (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Well ok, but shouldn't that mean that cat owners should keep their cats in too?  So that wildlife is safeguarded from people who are aware that their animal might trespass or cause distress or kill another animal?
		
Click to expand...

Cats are irrelevant to this discussion as you well know.
.


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			Yes I am aware of what I wrote, when laying a trail a number of factors are in play and occasionally hounds lose the trail they are meant to be on and some might stray onto adjacent land. Accidents do happen but as I say it very rarely happens.

Sometimes the landowners have no objection to the land being quietly crossed but don’t want full hunting, other landowners don’t want you on at all. We would certainly never cross land on horse that we are not welcome on (unless it is a bridleway).
		
Click to expand...

Ok, how would you feel if I said something like this.. When walking my dogs I mostly stick to footpaths and rarely let them chase sheep!  How would that go down I wonder!


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



@Sandstone, I am not blind.  When I was a university student I would have identified quite strongly as an anti and had friends who were active sabs.  I never took the HSA coin because I didn't want to get involved in any physical conflict but I lived in a house with 2 very active (probably still now!) sabs (also, more rarely for that era, they were ethical vegans too)  who were very happy to be paid £20 a day for sabbing and had true conviction about the rightness and necessity of their action.  I saw their horror, the emotional distress they experienced and I felt then (pre-ban) that there was no need at all for hunting.  Post university and several other events, as a member of a rural community I saw a different set of ideas which I was quite happy to examine. I followed the hunt as a matter of 'neutral' interest - not having much money for one thing and being interested in horses!   I have truly seen both sides of the issue.  I have chosen to take the position I have after a lifetime's involvement and interest in wildlife, conservation and hunting issues which I have explored as fully as I can from both UK positions as well as a range of other cultural and moral/philosophical points of view.  I am not stupid, blind or cruel.  I am not ignorant about what 'message' the anti-hunt lobby want to spread but I fundamentally disagree with that lobby for a number of reasons. 

I think it is important to respect how other people feel and to try to understand their viewpoint.  I have done my best to see this issue from several sets of shoes.  I am not sure that many antis have.
		
Click to expand...

And yet you still do not answer my questions..


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

Deleted


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			It tells you that the landowner does not want hunts tresspassing on his land and the size of the acreage is utterly irrelevant,  what an arrogant attitude you just portrayed, hunts don’t care where they go during the pursuit of a fox and if the landowner does not want the hunt on his land then that decision should be respected and if he felt we could help protect his land then you should be respectful of that decision instead of being derogatory.
		
Click to expand...

My breath is truly taken...you have asked me, who is invariably polite and respectful in this discussion, not to be 'derogatory'!!??  After some of the insults you have hurled previously!  I have nowhere suggested anything other than making someone a land agent to help deal with the hunt indicates that the landowner doesn't want the hunt; you are totally misrepresenting what I wrote.


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			Cats are irrelevant to this discussion as you well know.
.
		
Click to expand...

Well they are not if we are talking about killing wildlife and being where they are not wanted. You know that too but it is inconvenient for you, a cat owner, to take that on.


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			And yet you still do not answer my questions..
		
Click to expand...

The statement 'You are so blind' is not a question...


----------



## lannerch (28 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			Do you hunt with the Wynnstay, if you hunt Malpas?

I'm reliably, (I think),  informed that the Wynnstay don't even try to hide that they are hunting fox.  So if you hunt with them does that mean you know that you are fox hunting?
.
		
Click to expand...

Where did I say I hunt?


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			The statement 'You are so blind' is not a question...
		
Click to expand...

So you must be blind as you have missed several questions that you have not answered.


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			You are so blind...  Ok one more time.  If trail hunting why oh why do they frequently end up along side or on main roads???  If trail hunting why are the so often  hunting foxes???  why do they end up on land they have been asked not to go on???  Why do they upset livestock and other horses??? why have they killed pets???? why do they end up on railway lines????  Can you please answer this without quoting reports at me?   If legal trail hunting why are they not laying and following a trail?   I can tell you why.  BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT TRAIL HUNTING.   If you think they are you must be incredibly lucky that your hunt does it legally or you have not actually been hunting recently or you are deluded.  I t has to be one of them.
		
Click to expand...

Palo1 please see the questions here.  Any chance that you could answer them?


----------



## lannerch (28 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			Palo1 please see the questions here.  Any chance that you could answer them?
		
Click to expand...

I think that reads more as a sab style rant than any real genuine question!


----------



## Fred66 (28 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			Ok, how would you feel if I said something like this.. When walking my dogs I mostly stick to footpaths and rarely let them chase sheep!  How would that go down I wonder!
		
Click to expand...

If your dogs were on your land or a friends land by invitation and strayed and you recalled them then I would suggest you apologized, made restitution and tried to ensure it didn’t happen again.

If you made the statement in your post then I would suggest you are being irresponsible and that you would leave yourself open to prosecution and your dog to being shot.


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

lannerch said:



			I think that reads more as a sab style rant than any real genuine question![/QUOTE
Well as I was not asking you I wouldnt worry about it, If its supposed to be a insult you are wide of the mark and as I have put question marks that does normally mean its a question and I have asked Palo1 to answer them with no luck.  Guess that means she/he does not know the answer then!
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Fred66 (28 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			Do you hunt with the Wynnstay, if you hunt Malpas?

I'm reliably, (I think),  informed that the Wynnstay don't even try to hide that they are hunting fox.  So if you hunt with them does that mean you know that you are fox hunting?
.
		
Click to expand...

Reliably informed by whom ?


----------



## Koweyka (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			My breath is truly taken...you have asked me, who is invariably polite and respectful in this discussion, not to be 'derogatory'!!??  After some of the insults you have hurled previously!  I have nowhere suggested anything other than making someone a land agent to help deal with the hunt indicates that the landowner doesn't want the hunt; you are totally misrepresenting what I wrote.
		
Click to expand...

No you are trying to dig yourself out of a hole of your own making. You said it tells you nothing other than the landowner supports a group of Sabs.


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			If your dogs were on your land or a friends land by invitation and strayed and you recalled them then I would suggest you apologized, made restitution and tried to ensure it didn’t happen again.

If you made the statement in your post then I would suggest you are being irresponsible and that you would leave yourself open to prosecution and your dog to being shot.[/QUOTE
 Hilarious
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Fred66 (28 December 2021)

In what way ?


----------



## Koweyka (28 December 2021)

The Warwickshire hunt have killed yet another fox today, terrierman dragged the body off, but don’t let your trail hunt procrastinating get in the way of the truth that foxes are dying horrifically because trail hunting is a lie.


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			In what way ?
		
Click to expand...

  If you can not see why Im not going to explain it


----------



## Sossigpoker (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Hmm, Police had to confront an angry protestor for sure and other accounts identify that protestors initiated the brawl. 

''Hunt saboteurs sparked a mass brawl with hunting supporters today as a traditional festive meet turned into a terrifying fight.

One of the activists punched one of the countrymen in the face as he tried to guide them away from the horses and hounds at the Avon Vale Hunt's Boxing Day ride.

The pro-hunter defended himself as others tried to round on him, with one demonstrator trying to choke him from behind during the vicious attack in Lacock, near Chippenham, in Wiltshire.'' 

The Tedworth had a great turnout  with hounds kept behind barriers so no idea what your statement is about.  Most hunts seem to have had a very positive reception and some of the national press is taking that up and reporting on it.   There were thousands in Ledbury and other places too though the Welsh hunts met with no spectators because of Covid regs.  Everyone I have spoken to across a number of hunts say there were very, very few antis protesting and happy faces and support on show (other than in Lacock where things were ugly thanks to protestors refusing to allow safe passage for the hunt). 

As the meeting in Lacock was entirely legal and planned for anyone disrupting that physically may be charged. The police were certainly frustrated with the attitudes and actions of protestors.
		
Click to expand...

You're just quoting what someone has written and chosen to accept it as a fact. Well good for you. Never mind any of us who are local and/or were there.


----------



## ycbm (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Well they are not if we are talking about killing wildlife and being where they are not wanted. You know that too but it is inconvenient for you, a cat owner, to take that on.
		
Click to expand...

The one thing that keeps on bringing me back to thinking that you secretly support/admire illegal fox hunting,  is your constant whataboutery about other animals.

Cats are subject to completely different laws than dogs,  which recognise the huge differences between training and controlling cats and training and controlling dogs.  You know this.

Cats are not set off in a pack,  by humans,  to hunt other animals,   largely for the fun of the humans.   You know this. 

Cats are irrelevant to any discussion of human organised hunting. You know this. 
.


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			The Warwickshire hunt have killed yet another fox today, terrierman dragged the body off, but don’t let your trail hunt procrastinating get in the way of the truth that foxes are dying horrifically because trail hunting is a lie.
		
Click to expand...

  Sadly, that is not uncommon for the warwickshire, but hey they are trail hunting dont you know..


----------



## Ceriann (28 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			I am fully aware fox hunting with a pack of hounds is against the law, I am not aware that I have disputed this.

The hunt I follow spends a lot of time walking the country to ensure that trails laid are on land we have access to and rarely go on land they are not welcome on. 

However they certainly don’t deliberately trespass, they don’t refuse to leave when asked, they don’t go out dressed in black with faces obscured, and they don’t threaten the owners or their guests.

The level of threat and violence is escalating and personally I think this is unacceptable.
		
Click to expand...

You are a lot more law abiding and respectful than one local hunt.  They are known to hunt, more than one hunting related prosecution amongst the hierarchy, they have regularly trespassed on land that borders mine (they were pre cv-19 using the police to enforce) and they have lost control of their pack on more than one occasion.  The villagers I speak to are generally not supportive of this and would be quite happy to see it end.


----------



## ycbm (28 December 2021)

lannerch said:



			Where did I say I hunt?
		
Click to expand...

It sounded likely.  Do you? 
.


----------



## lannerch (28 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			If you can not see why Im not going to explain it
		
Click to expand...

To be fair to fred66 I can’t see why either


----------



## lannerch (28 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			It sounded likely.  Do you?
.
		
Click to expand...

No .


----------



## ycbm (28 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			Reliably informed by whom ?
		
Click to expand...

Oh please 🤦   It's widely known all over Cheshire.
.


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

lannerch said:



			To be fair to fred66 I can’t see why either
		
Click to expand...

So its ok for a hunt to "rarely" stray on to land they are not wanted on and presumably disturb livestock is it not ok for my dogs to "rarely" chase sheep?
Is that not how it works?  Both would be out of control dogs would they not?


----------



## lannerch (28 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			So its ok for a hunt to "rarely" stray on to land they are not wanted on and presumably disturb livestock is it not ok for my dogs to "rarely" chase sheep?
Is that not how it works?  Both would be out of control dogs would they not?
		
Click to expand...

Fred66 did you say your dogs chase sheep ?


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

lannerch said:



			No .
		
Click to expand...

really?  why not?


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

lannerch said:



			Fred66 did you say your dogs chase sheep ?
		
Click to expand...

Are you really that dim?


----------



## Fred66 (28 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			Oh please 🤦   It's widely known all over Cheshire.
.
		
Click to expand...

So not reliably informed at all.


----------



## ycbm (28 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			So not reliably informed at all.
		
Click to expand...

More denial is not going to save your sport Fred. Can't you see that it's bringing about its own demise by failing to call out the illegal hunting? 
.


----------



## Fred66 (28 December 2021)

lannerch said:



			Fred66 did you say your dogs chase sheep ?
		
Click to expand...

No I didn’t. To the best of my knowledge then the hounds from the hunt I follow have never worried stock. Landowners that have given permission for us to trail across their land don’t feel the need to put their stock away.


----------



## Tiddlypom (28 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			So not reliably informed at all.
		
Click to expand...

Cheshire has hunts of all flavours, from those that do their best to legally trail hunt, to those that can put on a show of trail hunting but only if they think they are being watched, to those who don't give a feck.


----------



## Fred66 (28 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			More denial is not going to save your sport Fred. Can't you see that it's bringing about its own demise by failing to call out the illegal hunting?
.
		
Click to expand...

We have called it out but you and others continue to tar everyone with the same brush. Seeing as this is by people who support others going out to intimidate and threaten people on a regular basis then personally I think we are not the ones in denial.


----------



## ycbm (28 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			We have called it out but you and others continue to tar everyone with the same brush. Seeing as this is by people who support others going out to intimidate and threaten people on a regular basis then personally I think we are not the ones in denial.
		
Click to expand...

Posting  on this forum that you accept that it happens is not calling it out.  What have you or your local hunt done to stop illegal hunting?  Is the Master still a member of the organisation which ran the podcasts and still insist they were taken out of context?
.


----------



## Fred66 (28 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			So its ok for a hunt to "rarely" stray on to land they are not wanted on and presumably disturb livestock is it not ok for my dogs to "rarely" chase sheep?
Is that not how it works?  Both would be out of control dogs would they not?
		
Click to expand...

I didn’t say that it was ok to worry stock, I never mentioned straying into areas with stock.


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

So what would the pro hunters here say about the Warwickshire killing two foxes in two weeks?  Can anyone answer this please?


Fred66 said:



			I didn’t say that it was ok to worry stock, I never mentioned straying into areas with stock.
		
Click to expand...

So hunts do not do this then?


----------



## Amymay (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Well they are not if we are talking about killing wildlife and being where they are not wanted. You know that too but it is inconvenient for you, a cat owner, to take that on.
		
Click to expand...

The two are in no way comparable and completely detracts from the discussion.


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

You are so blind... Ok one more time. If trail hunting why oh why do they frequently end up along side or on main roads??? If trail hunting why are the so often hunting foxes??? why do they end up on land they have been asked not to go on??? Why do they upset livestock and other horses??? why have they killed pets???? why do they end up on railway lines???? Can you please answer this without quoting reports at me? If legal trail hunting why are they not laying and following a trail? I can tell you why. BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT TRAIL HUNTING. If you think they are you must be incredibly lucky that your hunt does it legally or you have not actually been hunting recently or you are deluded. I t has to be one of them.

@Sandstone: the answers you have pressed me for!!  (I know you won't like them).

I do not experience hounds frequently ending up alongside or on main roads but that could happen because of stupidity or accident; the scent trail (any scent) can change in the breeze and some hunting country is benighted by roads all over so where a trail is laid in one place that may inevitably be near a road.  Our hounds cross one main road annually, accompanied by members of the hunt.  If trail hunting hounds will naturally be in the same area as foxes so the sab assertions that a fox 2 fields away from hounds is definitively being hunted is just speculation.  Some hunts and hounds end up on land they are not welcome on; that is poor management, miscommunication or accident.  Killing pets is very, very rare and totally unacceptable on every level.  I have not witnessed upset livestock so I can't answer why or how livestock is upset - I guess it is a different situation every time.  Trail hunts do lay a trail - that is demonstrated by many hunts.   

You hear of all of these things as incidents and they are very damaging but in fact the vast majority of trail hunting days do not involve these things.  You are focussing on those because that is your viewpoint and those things are important to your viewpoint.  The statistics tell a different story.


----------



## Fred66 (28 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			Posting  on this forum that you accept that it happens is not calling it out.  What have you or your local hunt done to stop illegal hunting?  Is the Master still a member of the organisation which ran the podcasts and still insist they were taken out of context?
.
		
Click to expand...

Please don’t join the group of people so blinkered that they are unwilling to even try and discuss. I, Palo and others have indicated that we do not advocate breaking the law. We acknowledge that some hunts have, however this does not make it our responsibility to police it, we have a police force for that purpose.
I don’t take it upon myself to follow speeding drivers, to sit in pubs watching for potential drunk drivers or stalk other potential law breakers. Do you ? If not does this mean that you don’t call it out ? That you passively support it ? If not then don’t accuse me in a similar vein.


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			You are so blind... Ok one more time. If trail hunting why oh why do they frequently end up along side or on main roads??? If trail hunting why are the so often hunting foxes??? why do they end up on land they have been asked not to go on??? Why do they upset livestock and other horses??? why have they killed pets???? why do they end up on railway lines???? Can you please answer this without quoting reports at me? If legal trail hunting why are they not laying and following a trail? I can tell you why. BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT TRAIL HUNTING. If you think they are you must be incredibly lucky that your hunt does it legally or you have not actually been hunting recently or you are deluded. I t has to be one of them.

@Sandstone: the answers you have pressed me for!!  (I know you won't like them).

I do not experience hounds frequently ending up alongside or on main roads but that could happen because of stupidity or accident; the scent trail (any scent) can change in the breeze and some hunting country is benighted by roads all over so where a trail is laid in one place that may inevitably be near a road.  Our hounds cross one main road annually, accompanied by members of the hunt.  If trail hunting hounds will naturally be in the same area as foxes so the sab assertions that a fox 2 fields away from hounds is definitively being hunted is just speculation.  Some hunts and hounds end up on land they are not welcome on; that is poor management, miscommunication or accident.  Killing pets is very, very rare and totally unacceptable on every level.  I have not witnessed upset livestock so I can't answer why or how livestock is upset - I guess it is a different situation every time.  Trail hunts do lay a trail - that is demonstrated by many hunts. 

You hear of all of these things as incidents and they are very damaging but in fact the vast majority of trail hunting days do not involve these things.  You are focussing on those because that is your viewpoint and those things are important to your viewpoint.  The statistics tell a different story.
		
Click to expand...

I am focussing on them because they happen pretty much every week with my local hunt.  They dont even pretend to lay a trail and often kill foxes.
Just out of interest how do you feel when your hunt "kills" by accident?


----------



## CrunchieBoi (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Trail hunts do lay a trail - that is demonstrated by many hunts.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed, always handy for the purposes of creating a smokescreen and trying to portray to the people that you're going about your legitimate business. *wink


----------



## skinnydipper (28 December 2021)

Did anyone come up with a reasonable explanation why fox scent, artifical or natural, has continued to be used when fox is not the quarry?


----------



## Amymay (28 December 2021)

CrunchieBoi said:



			Indeed, always handy for the purposes of creating a smokescreen and trying to portray to the people that you're going about your legitimate business. *wink
		
Click to expand...

I think for the balance of fairness we should recognise that not _all_ hunts are breaking the law.


----------



## ycbm (28 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			Please don’t join the group of people so blinkered that they are unwilling to even try and discuss. I, Palo and others have indicated that we do not advocate breaking the law. We acknowledge that some hunts have, however this does not make it our responsibility to police it, we have a police force for that purpose.
I don’t take it upon myself to follow speeding drivers, to sit in pubs watching for potential drunk drivers or stalk other potential law breakers. Do you ? If not does this mean that you don’t call it out ? That you passively support it ? If not then don’t accuse me in a similar vein.
		
Click to expand...

Does the Master of your hunt belong to the organisation which continues to insist the the webinars were taken out of context and that the conviction is unsafe? 

I would like to hunt Joe in future years if it's still around then. But I won't hunt with a Master who takes that view,  because I know that would mean I was tacitly supporting illegal hunting.  

It frustrates the hell out of me that the failure of trail hunting to split from the illegal fox hunts is sowing the seeds of its own demise. 
.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (28 December 2021)

Amymay in a manger said:



			I think for the balance of fairness we should recognise that not _all_ hunts are breaking the law.
		
Click to expand...

Not all, but the leaked webinars strongly suggest widespread criminality within the sport from the top down. From what I can see there's been no attempt to address that.


----------



## Sossigpoker (28 December 2021)

skinnydipper said:



			Did anyone come up with a reasonable explanation why fox scent, artifical or natural, has continued to be used when fox is not the quarry?
		
Click to expand...

There is no explanation other than the fact that they still hunt foxes.


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

skinnydipper said:



			Did anyone come up with a reasonable explanation why fox scent, artifical or natural, has continued to be used when fox is not the quarry?
		
Click to expand...

It is a legacy issue; the Hunting Act was so difficult and so contested that many 'accomodations' had to be made - the Act would not even have made it as far as the deployment of the Parliament Act (where an Act can be passed without going to both the House of Commons and the House of Lords as our legislature usually demands - sorry if you know this but I think you are in the US so you may not be familiar with our parliamentary process!) without significant compromise.  The unique qualities of traditional fox hounds were recognised in the agreement that an animal based scent could continue to be used; though any idiot could see the problems with that.   Both sides were (and remain) completely entrenched and the pro-hunting lobby were determined not to lose the ability of fox hounds to hunt foxes as they felt that the act, utterly dire and nonsensical as it is, was bound to be repealed.  In fact several governments considered that and everybody associated with the Act has publicly expressed great regret over it.

But now, several years down the line hunters are determined not to give any more ground up and the use of animal based scent is a problem in itself.  It is one of those unintended consequences of an Act that was never fit for purpose.  Drag hunts have always used a non-animal based scent and fox hunters never wanted to become drag hunters (on the whole anyway) so the traditionally minded packs who want to hunt legally hold the animal based scent as somewhat symbolic of their traditional ways.  For some packs it is a loophole that they seem prepared to abuse at times.  Whilst that behaviour is reprehensible and causes much angst and fury amongst law abiding packs, the use of traditional fox scent is still something of a sacred cow...

That compromise was always a pyrric victory - now also a liability in my eyes but my local pack manages to hunt legally in any case.  It can be done - the scent used shouldn't really be an issue tbh but...

ETA - sorry @skinnydipper - I am mistaken; I saw your avatar and thought you were another poster with similar who is in the US.  I don't think you are so I apologise for the parliamentary process explanation!


----------



## Tiddlypom (28 December 2021)

We've been round the issue of leaving the policing of hunting purely to the police before. The police are not well enough resourced to do that. To ensure that a hunt was hunting legally all day would tie up too many units for far too long. As it is, it is well known that the norty hunts may put up a brief smokescreen of legal hunting when the police attend, only to revert to fox hunting as soon as they leave.

So in step the antis...


----------



## ycbm (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			But now, several years down the line
		
Click to expand...

Several is 3,  maybe 4,  stretching it 5. 

Not SIXTEEN.
.


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

Amymay in a manger said:



			The two are in no way comparable and completely detracts from the discussion.
		
Click to expand...

Well morally and logically they are comparable but in terms of the law here they are not.  I accept that but when anti hunters try to take the moral high ground I find it so nonsensical that one domesticated predatory animal is allowed out to kill wildlife (with no constraints) whilst another domesticated  predatory animal, under control and with several constraints and legal sanction against the killing of wildlife, even vermin, is considered appallingly dangerous.  Add in to that the fact that the same species of domestic animal (the dog) IS allowed to kill other wildlife/vermin (terriers on rats or any dogs on rabbits for example) then I am enraged by the total lack of logic or sense!!  

I know that people feel that their cats are not an issue but really, it doesn't make sense at all, especially when a cat's natural prey are some of our most vulnerable wildlife (song birds).  I know everyone howls when I mention it and it is terribly inconvenient to cat owners but I still feel morally bound to make the point.


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			Several is 3,  maybe 4,  stretching it 5.

Not SIXTEEN.
.
		
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how long @ycbm - the fact is that many pro-hunters, like the anti-hunters are utterly unwilling and unable to accept further compromise.  Positions are as polarised or more now than they were back at the time of the Act when pro-hunters felt repeal was possible and anti-hunters felt that the Act would see the end of people on horses following hounds.


----------



## Amymay (28 December 2021)

I don’t have a cat. And your argument is nonsense. I have several feral cats visit my garden daily.  The Sparrow hawks are the issue for me, not the cats.  That said, my garden is full of birds- still 🙄


----------



## ycbm (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			It doesn't matter how long @ycbm
		
Click to expand...

It does.  
.


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

Amymay in a manger said:



			I don’t have a cat. And your argument is nonsense. I have several feral cats visit my garden daily.  The Sparrow hawks are the issue for me, not the cats.  That said, my garden is full of birds- still 🙄
		
Click to expand...

Please can you explain why the argument about cats is nonsensical?  They kill birds and small mammals in huge number and I am certainly frustrated by local cats killing songbirds.  I also see Peregrines killing small birds and ravens hunting larks but those are wild birds under no-one's control.


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			It does. 
.
		
Click to expand...

You are just being awkward - I meant that the principles and feelings have not changed.  You feel they should have done, that would work for your perspective but you are not in those other people's shoes.


----------



## lannerch (28 December 2021)

Amymay in a manger said:



			I don’t have a cat. And your argument is nonsense. I have several feral cats visit my garden daily.  The Sparrow hawks are the issue for me, not the cats.  That said, my garden is full of birds- still 🙄
		
Click to expand...

My cat often brings a mouse home, and occasionally a blue tit, happily most I manage to rescue as he brings them alive and when not rescurd tortures until dead  for the next hour or so. Unfortunately he’s cottoned on to the fact I take them of him as he’s started hiding with them in the neighbours garden.


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Please can you explain why the argument about cats is nonsensical?  They kill birds and small mammals in huge number and I am certainly frustrated by local cats killing songbirds.  I also see Peregrines killing small birds and ravens hunting larks but those are wild birds under no-one's control.
		
Click to expand...

well for one thing cats dont go about in organised packs followed by riders and car followers or who have terrier men digging out foxes that have gone to ground.


----------



## lannerch (28 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			well for one thing cats dont go about in organised packs followed by riders and car followers or who have terrier men digging out foxes that have gone to ground.
		
Click to expand...

cats do do it purely for fun well mine does as I can assure you he is very well fed


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			well for one thing cats dont go about in organised packs followed by riders and car followers or who have terrier men digging out foxes that have gone to ground.
		
Click to expand...

Well no, but some people would argue that the organised nature of pre-ban hunting was much safer than the free slaughter that cats are allowed.


----------



## Amymay (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Please can you explain why the argument about cats is nonsensical?  They kill birds and small mammals in huge number and I am certainly frustrated by local cats killing songbirds.  I also see Peregrines killing small birds and ravens hunting larks but those are wild birds under no-one's control.
		
Click to expand...

Because quite simply, it’s a fallacy that cats have that much of an impact on garden wildlife.


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

lannerch said:



			cats do do it purely for fun well mine does as I can assure you he is very well fed
		
Click to expand...

I do not dispute that but its a completely  different thing to fox hunting and too suggest otherwise is yet another smokescreen which you people seem to like...


----------



## lannerch (28 December 2021)

Amymay in a manger said:



			Because quite simply, it’s a fallacy that cats have that much of an impact on garden wildlife.
		
Click to expand...

That’s just not true amymay in I think Australia they are banned from going out due to the devastation they have caused on the songbird population


----------



## stangs (28 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			well for one thing cats dont go about in organised packs followed by riders and car followers or who have terrier men digging out foxes that have gone to ground.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry I appreciate there’s a serious discussion going on but I cannot get the imagery of a bunch of cats in black and red coats racing through hedges meowing “tally ho!” out of my head


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

stangs said:



			Sorry I appreciate there’s a serious discussion going on but I cannot get the imagery of a bunch of cats in black and red coats racing through hedges meowing “tally ho!”
		
Click to expand...

Yes it is ridiculous.  Just the pro hunt gang trying to throw us off the scent


----------



## Fred66 (28 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			well for one thing cats dont go about in organised packs followed by riders and car followers or who have terrier men digging out foxes that have gone to ground.
		
Click to expand...

So you’re ok with dogs being allowed to roam free and kill randomly? It’s not the killing you are averse to it’s the hunt aspect ?


----------



## Amymay (28 December 2021)

lannerch said:



			That’s just not true amymay in I think Australia they are banned from going out due to the devastation they have caused on the songbird population
		
Click to expand...

That’s one council area only in Australia I believe.  The impact on wildlife being only one reason for the new law.  The overriding reason seems to be to protect neighbouring properties (🤷🏻‍♀️) and the cats themselves.


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

Amymay in a manger said:



			Because quite simply, it’s a fallacy that cats have that much of an impact on garden wildlife.
		
Click to expand...

Not according to these quite authoritative sources:-

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/10/cats-killing-birds-gardens-david-attenborough

https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-w...life/animal-deterrents/cats-and-garden-birds/

https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-w...life/animal-deterrents/cats-and-garden-birds/

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.u...to-were-killed-by-house-cats-in-just-one-year

Cats can be useful predators but their sheer number and lack of control over their activities does have a significant impact on vulnerable and very vulnerable wildlife.   I don't think that is contested generally by scientists though it is inconvenient and difficult for the cat loving public.


----------



## Amymay (28 December 2021)

Do we really want to bring the murderous RSPB in to the argument?


----------



## stangs (28 December 2021)

Outdoor cats are killers, true. But one might argue that their prey suffers much less than a fox trying to outrun dogs and horses.


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			Yes it is ridiculous.  Just the pro hunt gang trying to throw us off the scent

Click to expand...

No, it's not.  It is about applying logic and morality to a law and set of assumptions.


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			So you’re ok with dogs being allowed to roam free and kill randomly? It’s not the killing you are averse to it’s the hunt aspect ?
		
Click to expand...

Of course im not ok with dogs killing randomly. Clearly you dont get sarcasm.


----------



## Amymay (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			No, it's not.  It is about applying logic and morality to a law and set of assumptions.
		
Click to expand...

Now you’re just being daft.  As I said up thread, there really is no comparison, and simply detracts from an interesting and lively discussion about _fox hunting….._


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

Amymay in a manger said:



			Do we really want to bring the murderous RSPB in to the argument?
		
Click to expand...

Well, quite!! There is a great deal of muddy water there too.  But, in honesty, dear old CP who does love to both protest against hunting (and wind people up to do the same in a sometimes morally very dubious way) is also the poster boy for the RSPB who are quite happy to use the same traps and snares that the same poster boy campaigns against.  All is not linear, clear, clean and tidy in the wild wood...


----------



## Amymay (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Well, quite!! There is a great deal of muddy water there too.  But, in honesty, dear old CP who does love to both protest against hunting (and wind people up to do the same in a sometimes morally very dubious way) is also the poster boy for the RSPB who are quite happy to use the same traps and snares that the same poster boy campaigns against.  All is not linear, clear, clean and tidy in the wild wood...
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree.


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

Amymay in a manger said:



			Now you’re just being daft.  As I said up thread, there really is no comparison, and simply detracts from an interesting and lively discussion about _fox hunting….._

Click to expand...

Well we should be discussing trail hunting I think but what exactly is morally or legally different to one domestic and 'owned' animal killing wildlife to another doing it? (ie pre-ban fox hunting).  Just what is the difference other than the pet cat owning culture that we have that generally says it's ok for cats to kill?

If it is a cultural thing then we are on very, very thin ice in campaigning against fox hunting, let alone trail hunting.  I am not the only person to see this conundrum though I know on this forum it is much derided...


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			No, it's not.  It is about applying logic and morality to a law and set of assumptions.
		
Click to expand...

So, you think a cat hunting is the same thing as a pack of hounds followed by a field of riders and foot and car followers?  I would like to think that humans are more evolved than cats but clearly not in some cases.


----------



## lannerch (28 December 2021)

And off course the o


Amymay in a manger said:



			Now you’re just being daft.  As I said up thread, there really is no comparison, and simply detracts from an interesting and lively discussion about _fox hunting….._

Click to expand...

fox numbers have also significantly dropped in the countryside since the fox hunting ban and foxes have moved to more urban areas , no idea why although the suggestion is as vermin farmers are now having them killed by more effective methods where previously they let them be so the local hunt could dispatch, which inevitably resulted in the older sick or slower being the ones caught not all and any.


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			So, you think a cat hunting is the same thing as a pack of hounds followed by a field of riders and foot and car followers?  I would like to think that humans are more evolved than cats but clearly not in some cases.
		
Click to expand...

A cat being allowed out to kill whatever it can, as often as it wishes, anywhere it wishes may be worse for wildlife, especially those very vulnerable song birds and small reptiles than an organised pack of hounds, regulated, trained and controlled - focussed only on taking out specific vermin.  

In relation to trail hunting where the vast majority of trail hunts do not result in the death of wildlife the two scenarios do not compare in terms of either animal welfare or the moral implications.  But this was never about animal welfare or morality and logic was it?


----------



## Fred66 (28 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			well for one thing cats dont go about in organised packs followed by riders and car followers or who have terrier men digging out foxes that have gone to ground.
		
Click to expand...




Sandstone1 said:



			Of course im not ok with dogs killing randomly. Clearly you dont get sarcasm.
		
Click to expand...

Oh I get sarcasm, it’s just you weren’t using it 😁


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Well we should be discussing trail hunting I think but what exactly is morally or legally different to one domestic and 'owned' animal killing wildlife to another doing it? (ie pre-ban fox hunting).  Just what is the difference other than the pet cat owning culture that we have that generally says it's ok for cats to kill?

If it is a cultural thing then we are on very, very thin ice in campaigning against fox hunting, let alone trail hunting.  I am not the only person to see this conundrum though I know on this forum it is much derided...
		
Click to expand...

Cats do not form packs to hunt in a organised way do they?  They do not make a social occasion out of killing mice or birds and they do not have a field of followers either.  They do not employ staff to help them kill and they do not cause major disruption on roads or churn up bridleways or upset livestock and horses.  They may shit in your flowerbeds but thats probably the only issue.


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			Oh I get sarcasm, it’s just you weren’t using it 😁
		
Click to expand...

Well I clearly was, its just you do not get it.


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

lannerch said:



			And off course the o

fox numbers have also significantly dropped in the countryside since the fox hunting ban and foxes have moved to more urban areas , no idea why although the suggestion is as vermin farmers are now having them killed by more effective methods where previously they let them be so the local hunt could dispatch, which inevitably resulted in the older sick or slower being the ones caught not all and any.
		
Click to expand...

The anti-hunt movement have never managed to improve the lot of foxes in any way.  They have never campaigned against the shooting or gassing of foxes and have been responsible in part for the release and subsequent starvation of urban foxes. Anti hunt campaigners have never done anything to secure habitat for foxes (as hunts did pre-ban) nor have they conducted any research around fox numbers or the problems they are having.  No money, time or energy has been directed at the fox population generally; only individual foxes have had some dubious 'rescues'.   Some antis support fox sanctuaries where multiple foxes are kept together (very stressful for them).  Some are even castrated before being released into the countryside in entirely unfamiliar territory.  That is not about fox conservation at all...


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			The anti-hunt movement have never managed to improve the lot of foxes in any way.  They have never campaigned against the shooting or gassing of foxes and have been responsible in part for the release and subsequent starvation of urban foxes. Anti hunt campaigners have never done anything to secure habitat for foxes (as hunts did pre-ban) nor have they conducted any research around fox numbers or the problems they are having.  No money, time or energy has been directed at the fox population generally; only individual foxes have had some dubious 'rescues'.   Some antis support fox sanctuaries where multiple foxes are kept together (very stressful for them).  Some are even castrated before being released into the countryside in entirely unfamiliar territory.  That is not about fox conservation at all...
		
Click to expand...

So you agree that foxes were/are actively encouraged in order for the hunt to have something to hunt then?  Not sure where pest control fits in there.   Or for that matter trail hunting.


----------



## lannerch (28 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			Cats do not form packs to hunt in a organised way do they?  They do not make a social occasion out of killing mice or birds and they do not have a field of followers either.  They do not employ staff to help them kill and they do not cause major disruption on roads or churn up bridleways or upset livestock and horses.  They may shit in your flowerbeds but thats probably the only issue.
		
Click to expand...

My cat does it for pure fun though, and he tortures for a long time after the chase , no quick death. How many sabs have cats I wonder.


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			Cats do not form packs to hunt in a organised way do they?  They do not make a social occasion out of killing mice or birds and they do not have a field of followers either.  They do not employ staff to help them kill and they do not cause major disruption on roads or churn up bridleways or upset livestock and horses.  They may shit in your flowerbeds but thats probably the only issue.
		
Click to expand...

That would suggest that you primarily object to human engagement with activities related to killing, yet the supermarkets and pet shops are full of training toys for cats to hone their skills on, before being let out of the cat flap to do as they wish.  The use of staff has absolutely nothing to do with the logic or morality of using or allowing an animal to kill.  In fact most cats would definitely argue that they do have 'staff' in their owners!! (Many pet cat owners would reluctantly concur on this point...) Cats do not churn up bridleways it is true, but they do cause distress and disruption by digging in people's gardens and terrorising native birds.  They are shades of the same thing...I do NOT want a cat shitting in my veg beds thanks...


----------



## lannerch (28 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			So you agree that foxes were/are actively encouraged in order for the hunt to have something to hunt then?  Not sure where pest control fits in there.   Or for that matter trail hunting.
		
Click to expand...

Were not are. And yes before the ban definitely so .


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			That would suggest that you primarily object to human engagement with activities related to killing, yet the supermarkets and pet shops are full of training toys for cats to hone their skills on, before being let out of the cat flap to do as they wish.  The use of staff has absolutely nothing to do with the logic or morality of using or allowing an animal to kill.  In fact most cats would definitely argue that they do have 'staff' in their owners!! (Many pet cat owners would reluctantly concur on this point...) Cats do not churn up bridleways it is true, but they do cause distress and disruption by digging in people's gardens and terrorising native birds.  They are shades of the same thing...I do NOT want a cat shitting in my veg beds thanks...
		
Click to expand...

you are just trying to deflect from the question of fox hunting.  Yet another smokescreen.  For the record I do not own a cat.


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

lannerch said:



			Were not are. And yes before the ban definitely so .
		
Click to expand...

So, how does pest control fit in then????


----------



## Amymay (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Well we should be discussing trail hunting I think but what exactly is morally or legally different to one domestic and 'owned' animal killing wildlife to another doing it? (ie pre-ban fox hunting).  Just what is the difference other than the pet cat owning culture that we have that generally says it's ok for cats to kill?

If it is a cultural thing then we are on very, very thin ice in campaigning against fox hunting, let alone trail hunting.  I am not the only person to see this conundrum though I know on this forum it is much derided...
		
Click to expand...

Ok, I’ll give it one more go.  Generally speaking, for many of our native breed birds (song birds included) numbers in inner city areas particularly are thriving.  Native songbirds and ground nesting birds in rural areas are not.  The impact of agriculture is to blame in rural areas. It has has nothing to do with the presence of cats.

However nature, again generally, is very good at managing its numbers when the issues are not man made (ok you could argue that the domesticity of the cat is man made, I agree), but you get the idea.

In the big winter freeze of 1962/3 over 50% of our native birds perished.  The impact on some of our smaller fluffy friends was near catastrophic- this had nothing to do with cats, and everything to do with a disastrous weather event.  Within several years the numbers for many birds exceeded the pre-freeze numbers.  The Wren, which was nearly wiped out by the big freeze, stormed back to become one of the nations most prolific birds - despite there being a prolific number of domesticated _cats_.

Whilst cats certainly can have some impact on an area of wildlife, that impact where a domestic cat is located is not as effective as some would like us to believe.


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			So you agree that foxes were/are actively encouraged in order for the hunt to have something to hunt then?  Not sure where pest control fits in there.   Or for that matter trail hunting.
		
Click to expand...

It is no secret that 'hunting' estates actively managed their land to enable foxes to live there.  Foxes were recognised as absolutely necessary, a part of the ecosystem but one that needed controlling. Not exterminating.  The two are different.  Since the ban, there is no support for land that encourages foxes - and that is part of the reason foxes are in decline.  Previously, hunts were good for foxes in general and thus enabled other species to thrive in the habitats that were maintained for foxes.    There was a balance that was well maintained and that balance has been lost.


----------



## Miss_Millie (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			That would suggest that you primarily object to human engagement with activities related to killing, yet the supermarkets and pet shops are full of training toys for cats to hone their skills on, before being let out of the cat flap to do as they wish.  The use of staff has absolutely nothing to do with the logic or morality of using or allowing an animal to kill.  In fact most cats would definitely argue that they do have 'staff' in their owners!! (Many pet cat owners would reluctantly concur on this point...) Cats do not churn up bridleways it is true, but they do cause distress and disruption by digging in people's gardens and terrorising native birds.  They are shades of the same thing...I do NOT want a cat shitting in my veg beds thanks...
		
Click to expand...

Once again, cats killing wildlife has nothing to do with fox hunting. Nothing at all. I don't understand why you keep bringing it up.


----------



## Tiddlypom (28 December 2021)

lannerch said:



			My cat does it for pure fun though, and he tortures for a long time after the chase , no quick death. How many sabs have cats I wonder.
		
Click to expand...

But presumably you don't derive pleasure from this aspect of cat keeping, and the fact that your cat catches wildlife is not your the prime reason for keeping him?

We've been down the cat whataboutery diversion a few times on this thread before, btw.


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			Once again, cats killing wildlife has nothing to do with fox hunting. Nothing at all. I don't understand why you keep bringing it up.
		
Click to expand...

I do, they are trying to take the heat off hunting.  Scrapping the barrel I think you will find.


----------



## skinnydipper (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			It is a legacy issue; the Hunting Act was so difficult and so contested that many 'accomodations' had to be made - the Act would not even have made it as far as the deployment of the Parliament Act (where an Act can be passed without going to both the House of Commons and the House of Lords as our legislature usually demands - sorry if you know this but I think you are in the US so you may not be familiar with our parliamentary process!) without significant compromise.  The unique qualities of traditional fox hounds were recognised in the agreement that an animal based scent could continue to be used; though any idiot could see the problems with that.   Both sides were (and remain) completely entrenched and the pro-hunting lobby were determined not to lose the ability of fox hounds to hunt foxes as they felt that the act, utterly dire and nonsensical as it is, was bound to be repealed.  In fact several governments considered that and everybody associated with the Act has publicly expressed great regret over it.

But now, several years down the line hunters are determined not to give any more ground up and the use of animal based scent is a problem in itself.  It is one of those unintended consequences of an Act that was never fit for purpose.  Drag hunts have always used a non-animal based scent and fox hunters never wanted to become drag hunters (on the whole anyway) so the traditionally minded packs who want to hunt legally hold the animal based scent as somewhat symbolic of their traditional ways.  For some packs it is a loophole that they seem prepared to abuse at times.  Whilst that behaviour is reprehensible and causes much angst and fury amongst law abiding packs, the use of traditional fox scent is still something of a sacred cow...

That compromise was always a pyrric victory - now also a liability in my eyes but my local pack manages to hunt legally in any case.  It can be done - the scent used shouldn't really be an issue tbh but...

ETA - sorry @skinnydipper - I am mistaken; I saw your avatar and thought you were another poster with similar who is in the US.  I don't think you are so I apologise for the parliamentary process explanation!
		
Click to expand...

Thank you for the explanation.

It would make sense to me, Josephine Public, for trail hunts who genuinely do not wish to hunt fox to change the target scent.


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			So, how does pest control fit in then????
		
Click to expand...

Pest control fits in because of the way that a number of foxes would be killed, seasonally, by the hunt whilst the remaining population were supported.  Hounds killing foxes helped to maintain healthy populations of foxes that were part of a healthy ecosystem.  Wholesale killing of foxes across all seasons has been very damaging to the fox population.  They remain considered vermin so the issue of killing them is pretty irrelevant. The manner of killing was very pertinent to their on-going success pre-ban as it was in no way wholesale.  There is huge difference between pest *control* and pest extermination.


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			It is no secret that 'hunting' estates actively managed their land to enable foxes to live there.  Foxes were recognised as absolutely necessary, a part of the ecosystem but one that needed controlling. Not exterminating.  The two are different.  Since the ban, there is no support for land that encourages foxes - and that is part of the reason foxes are in decline.  Previously, hunts were good for foxes in general and thus enabled other species to thrive in the habitats that were maintained for foxes.    There was a balance that was well maintained and that balance has been lost.
		
Click to expand...

Oh hunts are great for foxes, im sure they really enjoy being chased and ripped to bits.


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			you are just trying to deflect from the question of fox hunting.  Yet another smokescreen.  For the record I do not own a cat.
		
Click to expand...

No, I am applying logic and morality to the argument but it is clearly terribly uncomfortable and inconvenient for some people.


----------



## Clodagh (28 December 2021)

The majority of the fox species was far better off when hunting was legal.
Cats are crueller than hounds. 
I’ve long thought it makes no odds to the fox if people are watching or not ( unless you get bloody sickos with forks).
I haven’t read every reply but I absolutely hate cats, next doors cat here has tortured and killed all my little old bantams (pre chook lockdown). I wouldn’t let my dogs into her garden to kill my animals. ‘Oh but it’s just what they do…’.
I object to the shit as well.


----------



## Tiddlypom (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			It is no secret that 'hunting' estates actively managed their land to enable foxes to live there.  Foxes were recognised as absolutely necessary, a part of the ecosystem but one that needed controlling. Not exterminating.  The two are different.  Since the ban, there is no support for land that encourages foxes - and that is part of the reason foxes are in decline.  Previously, hunts were good for foxes in general and thus enabled other species to thrive in the habitats that were maintained for foxes.    There was a balance that was well maintained and that balance has been lost.
		
Click to expand...

It's not often we agree on this thread, Palo, but this is spot on. Overall, the fox population (the ones that didn't get killed by the hunt, obvs) was stronger and healthier pre ban, because it was carefully managed to create the best sport.

It's the law of unintended consequences. But law abiding I am, so though I hunted pre ban, I would never fox hunt illegally post ban, or support anyone who did so.


----------



## Amymay (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			No, I am applying logic and morality to the argument but it is clearly terribly uncomfortable and inconvenient for some people.
		
Click to expand...

It’s certainly not uncomfortable for me, for no other reason than you are wrong.


----------



## lannerch (28 December 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			But presumably you don't derive pleasure from this aspect of cat keeping, and the fact that your cat catches wildlife is not your the prime reason for keeping him?

We've been down the cat whataboutery diversion a few times on this thread before, btw.
		
Click to expand...

No I hate the fact he tortures animals , but then most people that hunted pre ban did not devive pleasure from any subsequent killing , it’s all about the chase, hence trail hunting is still as or even more so popular although maybe not with the farmers .


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			No, I am applying logic and morality to the argument but it is clearly terribly uncomfortable and inconvenient for some people.
		
Click to expand...

What is uncomfortable for me is that we, as human beings can enjoy and make a sport out of killing.  There is something very wrong for people to want to chase and kill something for fun.   Which is what hunting is.  Not to forget that it is and has been for some years illegal and that makes anyone doing it a criminal.


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			Oh hunts are great for foxes, im sure they really enjoy being chased and ripped to bits.
		
Click to expand...

Look, if you really want to discuss the subject it would help to stop using that kind of language.  Foxes have been recorded carrying out their own hunting activities (including killing) whilst being hunted.  The death of a fox by a pack of hounds was brutal in the end, no doubt but it was totally binary and inevitably swifter than many kills that a fox itself would make.  Life and death are not as easily managed as anyone would like. Foxes often got away entirely from a pack of hounds.  Foxes are entirely adapted to be hunted by a pack of large canines.  Those are facts.  They are accepted facts in relation to cats although cats often prolong a kill, possibly for their own entertainment - who knows?  That isn't pretty or kind either but cat owners are entirely at peace with it on the whole.


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

lannerch said:



			No I hate the fact he tortures animals , but then most people that hunted pre ban did not devive pleasure from any subsequent killing , it’s all about the chase, hence trail hunting is still as or even more so popular although maybe not with the farmers .
		
Click to expand...

So you like chasing a fox until its completely exhausted but you dont like to think of it being ripped apart.  Oh right.  I see.  You do not think that being chased by 20 odd hounds for miles its anything less than torture.


----------



## lannerch (28 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			What is uncomfortable for me is that we, as human beings can enjoy and make a sport out of killing.  There is something very wrong for people to want to chase and kill something for fun.   Which is what hunting is.  Not to forget that it is and has been for some years illegal and that makes anyone doing it a criminal.[/QUOTE
		
Click to expand...




Sandstone1 said:



			So you like chasing a fox until its completely exhausted but you dont like to think of it being ripped apart.  Oh right.  I see.  You do not think that being chased by 20 odd hounds for miles its anything less than torture.
		
Click to expand...

where did I mention me? It’s not personal sandstone although have more than once tried to make it so.


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Look, if you really want to discuss the subject it would help to stop using that kind of language.  Foxes have been recorded carrying out their own hunting activities (including killing) whilst being hunted.  The death of a fox by a pack of hounds was brutal in the end, no doubt but it was totally binary and inevitably swifter than many kills that a fox itself would make.  Life and death are not as easily managed as anyone would like. Foxes often got away entirely from a pack of hounds.  Foxes are entirely adapted to be hunted by a pack of large canines.  Those are facts.  They are accepted facts in relation to cats although cats often prolong a kill, possibly for their own entertainment - who knows?  That isn't pretty or kind either but cat owners are entirely at peace with it on the whole.
		
Click to expand...

I will use whatever kind of language I like thanks.  Hounds do rip foxes to bits if you do not like the language it seems you do not like the reality of hunting.  fox hunting is not natural its a man made sport.


----------



## Miss_Millie (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Pest control fits in because of the way that a number of foxes would be killed, seasonally, by the hunt whilst the remaining population were supported.  Hounds killing foxes helped to maintain healthy populations of foxes that were part of a healthy ecosystem.  Wholesale killing of foxes across all seasons has been very damaging to the fox population.  *They remain considered vermin* so the issue of killing them is pretty irrelevant. The manner of killing was very pertinent to their on-going success pre-ban as it was in no way wholesale.  There is huge difference between pest *control* and pest extermination.
		
Click to expand...

They are only considered 'vermin' by people who's livelihoods they impact, e.g. farmers with livestock. I see no issue with a farmer shooting a fox in a field to protect his lambs, however, I do see the issue with a huge group of people on horseback making a jolly day out of chasing a scared fox to exhaustion who was just minding his own business. Let alone creating a fake home for him to nest in, before pulling him out and killing him. That some people delight in this ritual, truly baffles me.


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			They are only considered 'vermin' by people who's livelihoods they impact, e.g. farmers with livestock. I see no issue with a farmer shooting a fox in a field to protect his lambs, however, I do see the issue with a huge group of people on horseback making a jolly day out of chasing a scared fox to exhaustion who was just minding his own business. Let alone creating a fake home for him to nest in, before pulling him out and killing him. That some people delight in this ritual, truly baffles me.
		
Click to expand...

I totally agree.


----------



## lannerch (28 December 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			They are only considered 'vermin' by people who's livelihoods they impact, e.g. farmers with livestock. I see no issue with a farmer shooting a fox in a field to protect his lambs, however, I do see the issue with a huge group of people on horseback making a jolly day out of chasing a scared fox to exhaustion who was just minding his own business. Let alone creating a fake home for him to nest in, before pulling him out and killing him. That some people delight in this ritual, truly baffles me.
		
Click to expand...

I struggle with that to, and that is by far the minority in my experience all my friends that hunt are avid animal lovers and true country folk, in all walks of life , including several vets some of whom hunt in Ireland where fox hunting is not banned.


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			What is uncomfortable for me is that we, as human beings can enjoy and make a sport out of killing.  There is something very wrong for people to want to chase and kill something for fun.   Which is what hunting is.  Not to forget that it is and has been for some years illegal and that makes anyone doing it a criminal.
		
Click to expand...

Well you are right about the legalities of course.  You may be uncomfortable with killing and the sport of killing but it *is* a very fundamental human activity that connects us as closely with nature as it does lions and wolves to their environment. You may well object to sport hunting but agree with subsistence hunting but the two never happen in isolation; every single culture of subsistence hunting also celebrates sport hunting.   That is a fact.  Hunting connects us very closely to nature, the landscape and other species in a way that nothing else does or ever has.  I don't want to kill animals but I equally don't want to lose touch with what it is to be part of the wider animal world. I accept my position as part of something even when I choose not to take that to it's most brutal conclusion (to kill).  I prefer in fact, to see rats killed cleanly by dogs than to poison them in their burrows. I prefer to eat things that have lived a natural, wild life until they are killed and then eaten.  I prefer to see nature played out - sometimes brutally than to see it vanish.  I have witnessed ravens (which I adore) hunting larks  (which I also adore) and pulling them apart whilst still alive and I have seen foxes killing an unbelievable number of chickens...far more than they could ever eat.  I also see cats that are well fed killing song birds and discarding them after giving them a truly unpleasant death.  I am at peace with raising animals to eat and in fact take great pleasure in those animals, even whilst knowing that they will be killed on my say so, for my desire to eat meat which is demonstrably not absolutely necessary.

I understand the argument that there should be no killing; the logical conclusion to that would be an extreme form of veganism and total non-interaction with our own life system.  When you see how attempts to enact that reality work out for some religious groups you may argue that that in itself, perpetuates further and more deliberate cruelty. 

Very few of us leave this life without a desperate struggle.  I wish it wasn't so but being unable to change that I can accept that we can engage, fatally, with other species without it being the 'wrong' that you feel it to be.  We are different. 

In relation to fox hunting, it was never just sport but about control so that other activities could also be managed.   The sport was the following of hounds bit which is still tremendously rewarding under trail hunting conditions.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Foxes are entirely adapted to be hunted by a pack of large canines.  Those are facts.
		
Click to expand...

Y'wot? 🤔


----------



## ycbm (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			In relation to fox hunting, it was never just sport
		
Click to expand...

It was just sport for the vast majority of the field,  ridden and foot.


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			It was just sport for the vast majority of the field,  ridden and foot.
		
Click to expand...

It was the sport of either watching hounds working or riding across country.  The killing was never, culturally treated as sport but taken seriously as a job of work, carried out by paid, skilled people.


----------



## Koweyka (28 December 2021)

Look at the face of this fox, killed by the Puckeridge Hunt and try and tell me that your bit of fun is worth this. 
You will never ever justify this cruelty, this fox deserved to live not die because of an outdated and cruel “hobby”


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

CrunchieBoi said:



			Y'wot? 🤔
		
Click to expand...

Foxes are a prey species for a wide number of animals whereever they live,  including but limited to wolves, bears, coyote, lynx, eagles, feral dogs, dingoesm other foxes and a whole host of other things.  They are not at the top of the chain naturally anywhere and may be killed by other animals for a host of reasons.


----------



## stangs (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Well you are right about the legalities of course. You may be uncomfortable with killing and the sport of killing but it *is* a very fundamental human activity that connects us as closely with nature as it does lions and wolves to their environment. You may well object to sport hunting but agree with subsistence hunting but the two never happen in isolation; every single culture of subsistence hunting also celebrates sport hunting. That is a fact. Hunting connects us very closely to nature, the landscape and other species in a way that nothing else does or ever has. I don't want to kill animals but I equally don't want to lose touch with what it is to be part of the wider animal world. I accept my position as part of something even when I choose not to take that to it's most brutal conclusion (to kill). I prefer in fact, to see rats killed cleanly by dogs than to poison them in their burrows. I prefer to eat things that have lived a natural, wild life until they are killed and then eaten. I prefer to see nature played out - sometimes brutally than to see it vanish. I have witnessed ravens (which I adore) hunting larks (which I also adore) and pulling them apart whilst still alive and I have seen foxes killing an unbelievable number of chickens...far more than they could ever eat. I also see cats that are well fed killing song birds and discarding them after giving them a truly unpleasant death. I am at peace with raising animals to eat and in fact take great pleasure in those animals, even whilst knowing that they will be killed on my say so, for my desire to eat meat which is demonstrably not absolutely necessary.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with you on killing being a vital part of nature, and if humans are going to become part of the ecosystem again, we’re going to have to accept that some killing does have to happen. But I find more ‘fairness’ (so to speak) in a golden eagle killing some fox cubs, than I do in tens of people on horseback chasing a single fox. The golden eagle doesn’t have a concept of ethics but people do, and surely that understanding of ethics and morality would mean that the methods chosen to kill a fox should be those that are going to bring it the least suffering.

If foxes have to be killed (given that the rural population is decreasing), they should be killed like moose are in Sweden. One set hunting season annually, all hunters have licenses dictating how many moose they can kill, and the moose is killed with one shot.


----------



## ycbm (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			It was the sport of either watching hounds working or riding across country.  The killing was never, culturally treated as sport but taken seriously as a job of work, carried out by paid, skilled people.
		
Click to expand...

It was,  for everyone I know,  and that was many,  the sport of riding across country that they were out for.  The killing was previously a socially acceptable side effect.  That ended 16 years ago by law and many years before that for me after seeing a fox run for its life pursued by hounds.
.


----------



## Dizzy socks (28 December 2021)

Palo, can I ask whether you believe that the vast majority of packs hunt within the law?

And if so (which I assume), say you were convinced that in fact a majority/sizeable minority do not, what would be your preferred option for dealing with that? Should trail hunting continue? 

I’m sure you can see where I’m going with this - a major part of the disagreement over the continuation of trail hunting seems to stem from some posters believing that there are only a few illegal/trespassing hunts, and those who believe it is endemic. 

I have just read the last few pages, and whilst I don’t agree with most of your arguments, I do recognise and understand the points you’re trying to make.


----------



## Tiddlypom (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			It was the sport of either watching hounds working or riding across country.  The killing was never, culturally treated as sport but taken seriously as a job of work, carried out by paid, skilled people.
		
Click to expand...

For some it was always all about the kill, but never in the hunting circles that I moved in - I'd have moved out of them pretty damn smartish if it had been.

My best days (pre ban) were the ones when a strong healthy fox gave us a good day and then got away to be given best.


----------



## Miss_Millie (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Foxes are a prey species for a wide number of animals whereever they live,  including but limited to wolves, bears, coyote, lynx, eagles, feral dogs, dingoesm other foxes and a whole host of other things.  They are not at the top of the chain naturally anywhere and may be killed by other animals for a host of reasons.
		
Click to expand...

The issue is that the majority of people (myself included) see it as morally bankrupt to chase an animal to exhaustion before it is killed in a very nasty way. And to make a fun day out of it in a big jolly group. That's why it got banned, because the general public think it's barbaric. 

A trained marksman giving a fox a quick bullet to the head is completely different. Foxes are not killed by humans to be eaten, so comparing us to predators who might eat foxes is pointless.


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Look at the face of this fox, killed by the Puckeridge Hunt and try and tell me that your bit of fun is worth this.
You will never ever justify this cruelty, this fox deserved to live not die because of an outdated and cruel “hobby”
		
Click to expand...

How was that fox killed by the Puckeridge Hunt?  If it was killed by hounds, may I ask why it is still in one piece (is the blanket covering a fatal wound?).  I never saw an entire fox corpse when I hunted pre-ban so this very intact fox, if it was hunted to death, is strange. I do not want anyone to be upset by gory pictures but I can't see that image particularly clearly - perhaps I am not seeing what you would want me to see.  I am not trying to be obtuse.


----------



## lannerch (28 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Look at the face of this fox, killed by the Puckeridge Hunt and try and tell me that your bit of fun is worth this.
You will never ever justify this cruelty, this fox deserved to live not die because of an outdated and cruel “hobby”
		
Click to expand...

Are you really sure that’s how it met it’s end forgive my doubt but I have read far too many fictional claims , it’s just it’s highly unusual for a fox to be so intact if it really met it’s end as a result of a pack of baying foxhounds . Shooting however is a different story as often the fox is not killed outright and dies a slow lingering death injured.


----------



## Miss_Millie (28 December 2021)

stangs said:



			I agree with you on killing being a vital part of nature, and if humans are going to become part of the ecosystem again, we’re going to have to accept that some killing does have to happen. But I find more ‘fairness’ (so to speak) in a golden eagle killing some fox cubs, than I do in tens of people on horseback chasing a single fox.* The golden eagle doesn’t have a concept of ethics but people do, and surely that understanding of ethics and morality would mean that the methods chosen to kill a fox should be those that are going to bring it the least suffering.*

If foxes have to be killed (given that the rural population is decreasing), they should be killed like moose are in Sweden. One set hunting season annually, all hunters have licenses dictating how many moose they can kill, and the moose is killed with one shot.
		
Click to expand...

Nicely put.


----------



## lannerch (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			How was that fox killed by the Puckeridge Hunt?  If it was killed by hounds, may I ask why it is still in one piece (is the blanket covering a fatal wound?).  I never saw an entire fox corpse when I hunted pre-ban so this very intact fox, if it was hunted to death, is strange. I do not want anyone to be upset by gory pictures but I can't see that image particularly clearly - perhaps I am not seeing what you would want me to see.  I am not trying to be obtuse.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was trying to say


----------



## CrunchieBoi (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Foxes are a prey species for a wide number of animals whereever they live,  including but limited to wolves, bears, coyote, lynx, eagles, feral dogs, dingoesm other foxes and a whole host of other things.  They are not at the top of the chain naturally anywhere and may be killed by other animals for a host of reasons.
		
Click to expand...

So, out of that list our only native predator that would hunt foxes as a pack in the UK would be the gray wolf and even then it probably wouldn't have happened often given the amount of more suitable prey available. In the US foxes have been documented following wolf packs around at a distance to get the scraps from their kills.

Lynx have been shown to have far more impact on red fox numbers in the countries they co-exist and they certainly don't hunt in packs. 

A pack of domestic dogs taken out a few times a week doesn't offer anything like the benefits of having top predators in a functioning ecosystem.


----------



## Fred66 (28 December 2021)

What does seem to have come out of this evenings discussion is that fox hunting with hounds is morally repugnant to some of you BECAUSE there is human interaction in the process not the actual process itself.

So this then becomes about personal morality not the actual hunting and killing of one animal by another. I personally think that the welfare of the species rather than the right of the individual animal is more important and especially where man has already impacted the ecosystem we have a responsibility to provide balance where through our actions it no longer exists naturally.

Obviously to a certain extent this is now irrelevant as hunting fox with more than two hounds is now illegal on mainland Britain.


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			The issue is that the majority of people (myself included) see it as morally bankrupt to chase an animal to exhaustion before it is killed in a very nasty way. And to make a fun day out of it in a big jolly group. That's why it got banned, because the general public think it's barbaric.

A trained marksman giving a fox a quick bullet to the head is completely different. Foxes are not killed by humans to be eaten, so comparing us to predators who might eat foxes is pointless.
		
Click to expand...

Relatively few predators eat foxes actually - they kill them to wipe out the competition. There has been a great deal written about this in fact - this is an interesting article: https://www.wildlifeonline.me.uk/animals/article/red-fox-predators

As for the moral bankruptcy argument; fox hunting was banned not remotely because of that but for entirely political reasons which everyone has acknowledged.   Foxes were not actually chased to exhaustion as a matter of course, though that sometimes happened; foxes hunted by hounds were killed in varying situations.  The 'fun' in it was to be riding with friends and to watch hounds, which are remarkable, following a scent with the intention of dispatching vermin.  Very few people in the field were ever near a fox kill tbh.   I find many things in our society morally bankrupt tbh @Miss_Millie, as do many other people but because we live in a liberal society people are generally allowed to live as they please.  I am quite happy to list the things that I think could be termed as morally bankrupt but I wouldn't necessarily expect you to agree with me.

The idea of a trained marksman killing foxes is charmingly naive; most farmers are NOT trained marksmen and a high velocity rifle which is the most effective way to despatch almost anything is a very dangerous and rather specialised weapon.  Welsh hill farmers for one thing don't have either the money or the time to train and maintain that level of skill though killing foxes in that way is definitely considered a 'sport' these days and there are people who are very happy to be out at night with a weapon, killing a great many foxes.  That may be easier for you to accept.  I hate coming across those people tbh; it gives me the creeps to think of someone with a weapon of that sort in the local woods and fields at night shooting and counting the foxes they have killed in one evening for fun.   I just don't think you know the realities of that.

Farmers unions in Wales, upland England and parts of Scotland have long campaigned for hunting with hounds to be allowed in those areas and even the Scottish Parliament's own recent review ( The Bonomy Review: designed to further restrict hound activities) identified that a pack of hounds were a more effective pest control situation than 2 hounds (as is now legal anywhere) as well as being more humane.

ETA - I think you may be vegetarian so this may not be relevant but when people take great pleasure in going out for a meal, perhaps to eat a steak or lamb chop, to chat with friends and have a good time, they very rarely reflect on the pleasure they are having in consuming a dead animal; there is considerable distance travelled mentally in that situation and hunting pre-ban, was a bit similar though it is, I accept, a slightly awkward analogy.   On the whole people often don't connect what they are doing with what it is.  That is why it is so possible for people to consume 'stuff' at an unsustainable level, even now when we understand climate crisis, why people feel it is ok to fly for a holiday at the same time as lamenting environmental pollution.  As animals with strong desires and a sense of determination to enjoy our precious freedom we often don't connect the dots.  That is true in almost every activity we are engaged in.  If we tried to square the circle all the time I think life would be extraordinarily different and very , very diffiicult.


----------



## ycbm (28 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			I personally think that the welfare of the species rather than the right of the individual animal is more important
		
Click to expand...

So do I,  but the Burns report concluded that shooting and fox hunting were equal in terms of welfare*, I believe,  and therefore moral repugnance becomes relevant. 

*though I am not sure that either cubbing or fake earths were included in that


----------



## Koweyka (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			How was that fox killed by the Puckeridge Hunt?  If it was killed by hounds, may I ask why it is still in one piece (is the blanket covering a fatal wound?).  I never saw an entire fox corpse when I hunted pre-ban so this very intact fox, if it was hunted to death, is strange. I do not want anyone to be upset by gory pictures but I can't see that image particularly clearly - perhaps I am not seeing what you would want me to see.  I am not trying to be obtuse.
		
Click to expand...

Better ?


----------



## lannerch (28 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Better ?
		
Click to expand...

Still far too intact for something that has died with a pack of fox hounds ripping it apart.


----------



## ycbm (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Farmers unions in Wales, upland England and parts of Scotland have long campaigned for hunting with hounds to be allowed in those areas
		
Click to expand...


Woah there!   I live in English upland that has always used shooting as the primary method of fox control and nobody round here is campaigning for hunting with a pack of hounds and the farmers I know are very much against it.
.


----------



## Fred66 (28 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			So do I,  but the Burns report concluded that shooting and fox hunting were equal in terms of welfare*, I believe,  and therefore moral repugnance becomes relevant.

*though I am not sure that either cubbing or fake earths were included in that
		
Click to expand...

But hunting with hounds is more likely to lead to an element of survival of the fittest hence it is actually likely to lead to keeping the species healthier. Additionally it was dependent on the shot being clean which is by no means a sure thing.


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Better ?
		
Click to expand...

Well that fox has been partially disembowelled - not sure what the 'rope' is all about?  No idea if this is the same fox, fox picked up off the road etc but like Lannerch, this doesn't fit the bill for a fox that has been ripped apart by hounds.  How was it retrieved from hounds do you know?  I can't imagine that if a pack of hounds were on this fox that it would either be easy to retrieve or would be so whole.  Sorry.  I know it is distressing imagery and subject matter.


----------



## ycbm (28 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			But hunting with hounds is more likely to lead to an element of survival of the fittest hence it is actually likely to lead to keeping the species healthier.
		
Click to expand...

Yes but that actually led to the creation of stronger foxes which could be chased harder, faster, and longer,  to give a better day's sport.

It also took foxes that were no threat to livestock,  where farmers only shoot, or have shot for them, the ones that are causing an issue.
.
.


----------



## Koweyka (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Well that fox has been partially disembowelled - not sure what the 'rope' is all about?  No idea if this is the same fox, fox picked up off the road etc but like Lannerch, this doesn't fit the bill for a fox that has been ripped apart by hounds.  How was it retrieved from hounds do you know?  I can't imagine that if a pack of hounds were on this fox that it would either be easy to retrieve or would be so whole.  Sorry.  I know it is distressing imagery and subject matter.
		
Click to expand...

That’s not a rope, it’s the foxes intestines, the kill was caught on drone footage, from flushing it to the hounds killing it.


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			Woah there!   I live in English upland that has always used shooting as the primary method of fox control and nobody round here is campaigning for hunting with a pack of hounds and the farmers I know are very much against it.
.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, I can't find the info I had re:England but wrt Wales and Scotland it is easily found.  This document is also useful (govt research paper).   https://assets.publishing.service.g...Hunting_-_27_March_14_6454_Annex_A_Research.p


----------



## YorksG (28 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			That’s not a rope, it’s the foxes intestines, the kill was caught on drone footage, from flushing it to the hounds killing it.
		
Click to expand...

So where are the hounds?


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			That’s not a rope, it’s the foxes intestines, the kill was caught on drone footage, from flushing it to the hounds killing it.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I can see that now; I just can't understand why it is being held up or caught on something possibly?  It is a sad image but it is not at all the image of a fox ripped apart.  I have seen similar as roadkill.


----------



## Fred66 (28 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			Yes but that actually led to the creation of stronger foxes which could be chased harder, faster, and longer,  to give a better day's sport.

It also took foxes that were no threat to livestock,  where farmers only shoot, or have shot for them, the ones that are causing an issue.
.
.
		
Click to expand...

Foxes typically range up to 5 miles so it is highly unlikely that a fox stays on one farmers land. So whilst it might not pose a threat to its immediate locality it is highly likely it poses a threat to others in the vicinity.


----------



## jules9203 (28 December 2021)

I apologise as I haven't read all the comments! I feel that unfortunately hunting is put under one umbrella- that of fox hunting. I went fox hunting once in the early 90's. Since then I have only done drag hunting. Unfortunately people do not understand the difference between the two. I've had grief from passers by when drag hunting
 At the moment all Hunting is seen as bad


----------



## Nancykitt (28 December 2021)

I've always had to explain Bloodhounds (clean boot hunting) to people but I'm finding that as time has gone on, they seem more reluctant to believe me. 'But what happens if the bloodhounds come across a fox?' I reply, 'They're trained to follow the scent of the runner, they don't hunt foxes.'y,

In a few recent conversations I've had people saying 'sorry I don't believe you' and telling me that trail hunting all a smokescreen for illegal  fox hunting. I tell them that clean boot hunting is not the same thing as trail hunting. They tell me it's all the same. 

I gave up hunting (with bloodhounds) when I moved to Scotland; I loved it, I had some of the best days ever out on a Sunday with the bloodhounds. 
But I know that some who hunt with them are now getting a lot of abuse and I wouldn't be happy about that. 
The whole thing is a mess.


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Well that fox has been partially disembowelled - not sure what the 'rope' is all about?  No idea if this is the same fox, fox picked up off the road etc but like Lannerch, this doesn't fit the bill for a fox that has been ripped apart by hounds.  How was it retrieved from hounds do you know?  I can't imagine that if a pack of hounds were on this fox that it would either be easy to retrieve or would be so whole.  Sorry.  I know it is distressing imagery and subject matter.
		
Click to expand...

I thought you didnt like the term "ripped apart"


----------



## Koweyka (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Yes, I can see that now; I just can't understand why it is being held up or caught on something possibly?  It is a sad image but it is not at all the image of a fox ripped apart.  I have seen similar as roadkill.
		
Click to expand...


So even though  it’s throat, abdomen and intestines have been torn out that’s not enough to fulfil the image you believe a fox killed by hounds should look like ? Is this not enough?
The intestines are laying over the brush it’s not being held up. 

Every fox bar one we have managed to retrieve was intact,  completely disembowelled, throats torn out never a nip to the back of the head mind you, because we got to them quickly, the one that was torn into several pieces, the hounds had far more time with it, we literally pulled the head out of the jaws of one of the the hounds, it had the spinal column attached, seeing a decapitated foxes head just attached to the spinal column is something you never forget, the hounds were eating some of the intestines, we picked up a kidney and the stomach we also got the hips to the tail end, the huntsman stood over the spectacle smiling.
The police arranged a post mortem, the tests showed it was a healthy young male fox, the blood tests showed high levels of stress hormone. It didn’t die quickly as one would hope in this situation and it suffered. 
Would you like to see the photos of all the foxes we retrieved ? If you have never seen a fox killed by hounds you can’t ever truly understand where I am coming from.


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 December 2021)

Never has the Oscar Wilde quote been more apt.


----------



## moosea (28 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			It is a legacy issue; the Hunting Act was so difficult and so contested that many 'accomodations' had to be made - the Act would not even have made it as far as the deployment of the Parliament Act (where an Act can be passed without going to both the House of Commons and the House of Lords as our legislature usually demands - sorry if you know this but I think you are in the US so you may not be familiar with our parliamentary process!) without significant compromise.  The unique qualities of traditional fox hounds were recognised in the agreement that an animal based scent could continue to be used; though any idiot could see the problems with that.   Both sides were (and remain) completely entrenched and the pro-hunting lobby were determined not to lose the ability of fox hounds to hunt foxes as they felt that the act, utterly dire and nonsensical as it is, was bound to be repealed.  In fact several governments considered that and everybody associated with the Act has publicly expressed great regret over it.

But now, several years down the line hunters are determined not to give any more ground up and the use of animal based scent is a problem in itself.  It is one of those unintended consequences of an Act that was never fit for purpose.  Drag hunts have always used a non-animal based scent and fox hunters never wanted to become drag hunters (on the whole anyway) so the traditionally minded packs who want to hunt legally hold the animal based scent as somewhat symbolic of their traditional ways.  For some packs it is a loophole that they seem prepared to abuse at times.  Whilst that behaviour is reprehensible and causes much angst and fury amongst law abiding packs, the use of traditional fox scent is still something of a sacred cow...

That compromise was always a pyrric victory - now also a liability in my eyes but my local pack manages to hunt legally in any case.  It can be done - the scent used shouldn't really be an issue tbh but...
		
Click to expand...

Sixteen years on, with trail huntings future balancing on a knife edge you'd think that it might be time to change before all is lost.



palo1 said:



			It doesn't matter how long @ycbm - the fact is that many pro-hunters, like the anti-hunters are utterly unwilling and unable to accept further compromise.  Positions are as polarised or more now than they were back at the time of the Act when pro-hunters felt repeal was possible and anti-hunters felt that the Act would see the end of people on horses following hounds.
		
Click to expand...

And that is why all hunting with hounds will soon be banned. Lost to pig headedness.




lannerch said:



			And off course the o

fox numbers have also significantly dropped in the countryside since the fox hunting ban and foxes have moved to more urban areas , no idea why although the suggestion is as vermin farmers are now having them killed by more effective methods where previously they let them be so the local hunt could dispatch, which inevitably resulted in the older sick or slower being the ones caught not all and any.
		
Click to expand...

If foxes are vermin surley hunt followers would be pleased that rural populations were shrinking?



palo1 said:



			Well you are right about the legalities of course.  You may be uncomfortable with killing and the sport of killing but it *is* a very fundamental human activity that connects us as closely with nature as it does lions and wolves to their environment.
		
Click to expand...

What a load of rubbish! 



palo1 said:



			I prefer to see nature played out - sometimes brutally than to see it vanish.
		
Click to expand...

Do you refuse hospital treatment if you are ill ... to see nature played out ?
Go without clothing or modern technology ... to see nature played out?




palo1 said:



			I understand the argument that there should be no killing
		
Click to expand...

The argument is not that there should be no killing. The argument is that killing should be done swiftly, humanely and not in front of a jeering crowd after a 5 mile chase.





palo1 said:



			In relation to fox hunting, it was never just sport but about control so that other activities could also be managed.   The sport was the following of hounds bit which is still tremendously rewarding under trail hunting conditions.
		
Click to expand...

Then if it is the sport of watching hounds work, use a different scent. Hounds should never have accidents do the masters not know where the trail is laid? or are they just hopeless at controlling the hounds? If the later should they be in control of hounds at all??



palo1 said:



			Foxes are a prey species for a wide number of animals whereever they live,  including but limited to wolves, bears, coyote, lynx, eagles, feral dogs, dingoesm other foxes and a whole host of other things.  They are not at the top of the chain naturally anywhere and may be killed by other animals for a host of reasons.
		
Click to expand...

As are horses. Please let me know if you think it would be ok to control the numbers of wild horses with a pack of bull terriers - after all they are prey animals so they will be ok with it.



Fred66 said:



			What does seem to have come out of this evenings discussion is that fox hunting with hounds is morally repugnant to some of you BECAUSE there is human interaction in the process not the actual process itself.
		
Click to expand...

Not some but it would appear, most, on this thread.



Fred66 said:



			So this then becomes about personal morality not the actual hunting and killing of one animal by another. I personally think that the welfare of the species rather than the right of the individual animal is more important and especially where man has already impacted the ecosystem we have a responsibility to provide balance where through our actions it no longer exists naturally.
		
Click to expand...

Balance isn't maintaining foxes so there are plenty to hunt.




Fred66 said:



			But hunting with hounds is more likely to lead to an element of survival of the fittest hence it is actually likely to lead to keeping the species healthier. Additionally it was dependent on the shot being clean which is by no means a sure thing.
		
Click to expand...

Why would you want vermin to be stronger and healthier?


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

Dizzy socks said:



			Palo, can I ask whether you believe that the vast majority of packs hunt within the law?

And if so (which I assume), say you were convinced that in fact a majority/sizeable minority do not, what would be your preferred option for dealing with that? Should trail hunting continue?

I’m sure you can see where I’m going with this - a major part of the disagreement over the continuation of trail hunting seems to stem from some posters believing that there are only a few illegal/trespassing hunts, and those who believe it is endemic.

I have just read the last few pages, and whilst I don’t agree with most of your arguments, I do recognise and understand the points you’re trying to make.
		
Click to expand...

I believe that the majority of trail hunts are hunting within the law.  As for the others, where illegality is proven then the law should take due cause.  Where hunts bring hunting into disrepute through bad behaviour there should be a real penalty from an effective disciplinary body.  The MFHA have been hopeless for hunting and that has resulted in appalling PR where poorly behaved hunts could have been disciplined and any rot sorted before it became an own goal.


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			So even though  it’s throat, abdomen and intestines have been torn out that’s not enough to fulfil the image you believe a fox killed by hounds should look like ? Is this not enough?
The intestines are laying over the brush it’s not being held up.

Every fox bar one we have managed to retrieve was intact,  completely disembowelled, throats torn out never a nip to the back of the head mind you, because we got to them quickly, the one that was torn into several pieces, the hounds had far more time with it, we literally pulled the head out of the jaws of one of the the hounds, it had the spinal column attached, seeing a decapitated foxes head just attached to the spinal column is something you never forget, the hounds were eating some of the intestines, we picked up a kidney and the stomach we also got the hips to the tail end, the huntsman stood over the spectacle smiling.
The police arranged a post mortem, the tests showed it was a healthy young male fox, the blood tests showed high levels of stress hormone. It didn’t die quickly as one would hope in this situation and it suffered.
Would you like to see the photos of all the foxes we retrieved ? If you have never seen a fox killed by hounds you can’t ever truly understand where I am coming from.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, that is unpleasant but sadly I am no stranger to unpleasant death; I have seen animals killed by other animals and it is brutal.  One of my bantams was eaten alive by rats; I found her dying with all of one breast chewed off - that was unforgettable as are the sheep I have seen, alive but with their eyes out from crow attacks and their bellies chewed by foxes.  Dispatching them after finding them like that is grim.  These things happen even when we are not there to witness them or do anything about it too.  

I don't doubt your sincerity btw.


----------



## palo1 (28 December 2021)

moosea said:



			Sixteen years on, with trail huntings future balancing on a knife edge you'd think that it might be time to change before all is lost.



And that is why all hunting with hounds will soon be banned. Lost to pig headedness.




If foxes are vermin surley hunt followers would be pleased that rural populations were shrinking?



What a load of rubbish!



Do you refuse hospital treatment if you are ill ... to see nature played out ?
Go without clothing or modern technology ... to see nature played out?




The argument is not that there should be no killing. The argument is that killing should be done swiftly, humanely and not in front of a jeering crowd after a 5 mile chase.





Then if it is the sport of watching hounds work, use a different scent. Hounds should never have accidents do the masters not know where the trail is laid? or are they just hopeless at controlling the hounds? If the later should they be in control of hounds at all??



As are horses. Please let me know if you think it would be ok to control the numbers of wild horses with a pack of bull terriers - after all they are prey animals so they will be ok with it.



Not some but it would appear, most, on this thread.



Balance isn't maintaining foxes so there are plenty to hunt.




Why would you want vermin to be stronger and healthier?
		
Click to expand...

Because that is generally better for nature. There is a recognition of the need for all animals to be the strongest they can be in order for the natural system to be robust and resilient.  It's not a new idea.


----------



## meleeka (28 December 2021)

I understand that hunts use fox urine.  Can anyone enlighten me how they get the fox urine?


----------



## Miss_Millie (29 December 2021)

meleeka said:



			I understand that hunts use fox urine.  Can anyone enlighten me how they get the fox urine?
		
Click to expand...

Fox farms. Foxes are kept in horrendous conditions so that it can be 'harvested' from them. Just another reason why hunting is terribly unethical.


----------



## Koweyka (29 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Yes, that is unpleasant but sadly I am no stranger to unpleasant death; I have seen animals killed by other animals and it is brutal.  One of my bantams was eaten alive by rats; I found her dying with all of one breast chewed off - that was unforgettable as are the sheep I have seen, alive but with their eyes out from crow attacks and their bellies chewed by foxes.  Dispatching them after finding them like that is grim.  These things happen even when we are not there to witness them or do anything about it too. 

I don't doubt your sincerity btw.
		
Click to expand...

The hunt admitted there was an “incident” so no they don’t have to be in pieces to be killed by the hounds. 

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/sl...mFF1XF0LWKB9PplGjINDLBqfk-7xdS_eNhv030u4YyJzY


----------



## Tiddlypom (29 December 2021)

Nancykitt said:



			I've always had to explain Bloodhounds (clean boot hunting) to people but I'm finding that as time has gone on, they seem more reluctant to believe me. 'But what happens if the bloodhounds come across a fox?' I reply, 'They're trained to follow the scent of the runner, they don't hunt foxes.'y,

In a few recent conversations I've had people saying 'sorry I don't believe you' and telling me that trail hunting all a smokescreen for illegal  fox hunting. I tell them that clean boot hunting is not the same thing as trail hunting. They tell me it's all the same.

I gave up hunting (with bloodhounds) when I moved to Scotland; I loved it, I had some of the best days ever out on a Sunday with the bloodhounds.
But I know that some who hunt with them are now getting a lot of abuse and I wouldn't be happy about that.
The whole thing is a mess.
		
Click to expand...

The naughty hunts, who are far from being in the small minority that some posters still like to think they are, won't be losing any sleep at the concept of bringing down the blameless pastime of hunting the clean boot as well. They just don't care as long as they get their fix for as long as possible.

The naughty hunts know full well that what they are doing will bring all of hunting with hounds down, and the legal hunts are standing by helplessly, wringing their hands and waiting for the inevitable instead of banding together and standing up to them.


----------



## Sandstone1 (29 December 2021)

Clodagh said:



			The majority of the fox species was far better off when hunting was legal.
Cats are crueller than hounds.
I’ve long thought it makes no odds to the fox if people are watching or not ( unless you get bloody sickos with forks).
I haven’t read every reply but I absolutely hate cats, next doors cat here has tortured and killed all my little old bantams (pre chook lockdown). I wouldn’t let my dogs into her garden to kill my animals. ‘Oh but it’s just what they do…’.
I object to the shit as well.
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps the hunt should chase cats instead then, maybe everyone would be happy.  Oh wait, they have already killed cats on occasion " by accident" as the hounds are always so well under control.  ALERT this is sarcasm just in case no one gets it!


----------



## Clodagh (29 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			Perhaps the hunt should chase cats instead then, maybe everyone would be happy.  Oh wait, they have already killed cats on occasion " by accident" as the hounds are always so well under control.  ALERT this is sarcasm just in case no one gets it!
		
Click to expand...

I have no argument with anyone who is anti hunting. As it is illegal now (and I don’t go any more) the whole discussion about the merits or otherwise of it is a complete waste of time. I replied last night only because I got in from work and had wine.
I just can’t resist giving my opinion about cats.


----------



## meleeka (29 December 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			Fox farms. Foxes are kept in horrendous conditions so that it can be 'harvested' from them. Just another reason why hunting is terribly unethical.
		
Click to expand...

I suspected it would be something like this     Given that they aren’t supposed to hunt foxes this seems even more unnecessary and cruel.


----------



## ycbm (29 December 2021)

I was told fox farming is for the fur,  the collection of pee is a nasty sideline.
.


----------



## Nancykitt (29 December 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			Fox farms. Foxes are kept in horrendous conditions so that it can be 'harvested' from them. Just another reason why hunting is terribly unethical.
		
Click to expand...

Wow, I hadn't heard this...are these fox farms in the UK? I wondered why there isn't huge publicity about this - is it because they are tucked away on private land or something similar?



Tiddlypom said:



			The naughty hunts, who are far from being in the small minority that some posters still like to think they are, won't be losing any sleep at the concept of bringing down the blameless pastime of hunting the clean boot as well. They just don't care as long as they get their fix for as long as possible.

The naughty hunts know full well that what they are doing will bring all of hunting with hounds down, and the legal hunts are standing by helplessly, wringing their hands and waiting for the inevitable instead of banding together and standing up to them.
		
Click to expand...

I think this is correct....I also think that over the years the 'naughty' hunts have become naughtier, or at least slightly more open about what they do. 
I also think that the 'hunting community' has been seen as a singular entity and it would have been far better for the drag & bloodhounds crowd to distance themselves from the others. They will probably pay the price now.


----------



## ester (29 December 2021)

They aren't in the UK, there's a lot in the US yes for fur, urine an extra product (they are in mesh bottomed cages).


----------



## meleeka (29 December 2021)

ester said:



			They aren't in the UK, there's a lot in the US yes for fur, urine an extra product (they are in mesh bottomed cages).
		
Click to expand...

so they buy it in from abroad?  The cynical me says they probably just have a few locked in a dark shed somewhere to use for the purpose.


----------



## Amymay (29 December 2021)

meleeka said:



			so they buy it in from abroad?  The cynical me says they probably just have a few locked in a dark shed somewhere to use for the purpose.
		
Click to expand...

I actually think that most trails are laid using dead fox soaked in a dustbin of water.


----------



## Miss_Millie (29 December 2021)

Amymay in a manger said:



			I actually think that most trails are laid using dead fox soaked in a dustbin of water.
		
Click to expand...

That is disgusting, where's the green face vomit emoji when you need it!


----------



## CrunchieBoi (29 December 2021)

It's odd how it only seems to be some animals (coincidently types that are "fun" to hunt) seem to be hunted "for the good of the species".

Perhaps I'll train up a wee pack of dragonflies to ensure that only the best blue bottles survive and get to breed in my garden. That'll be a fun summer project.


----------



## Sandstone1 (29 December 2021)

whatever people think about fox hunting the fact remains that in this country it is illegal and has been for years, I think most people know that fox hunting is going on under the " smokescreen"  of trail hunting.   we can all argue round and round in circles, deflect and distract with ridiculous comments about cats etc.  Because pet cats kill birds etc that makes fox hunting ok?  There are so many acts of cruelty in this world made by man and you could go on forever saying "but what about this, what about that"  None of that alters the fact that fox hunting is cruel, illegal and out dated.  we know its going on everyday under the guise of trail hunting and in my opinion anyone that goes trail hunting knowing full well its in fact trail hunting is a criminal. 
  Sabs get blamed for a lot.  Yes there are faults on both sides but I admire sabs for bringing this "underground"  trail hunting to peoples attention.
Hunts go on land they have no permission to be on, they disrupt traffic, hunt on main roads and even railways, they have even been in churchyards.  Killed pets, upset livestock, they churn up bridleways, damage fencing, block gateways, churn up grass verges and upset horses in fields etc.
But they continue.  Why?  because its a tradition, so was badger baiting, cock fighting and dog fighting.  Now all illegal.  Yes in some underground way it may go on and maybe some on here would approve of it but if they do that says a lot about them and their mental state.. 
Its pest control, No it is not.  Its been proven that hunts encourage foxes in order to have something to chase. 
 Its about the ride across country its got nothing to do with the kill, go proper trail or drag hunting then.  Maybe not as some of the field are possibly not good enough riders to cope with the faster pace.  
There is so much cruelty that goes alongside hunting.  The hounds are allowed on roads, get hit by cars, when they get injured or old or dont want to hunt they get a bullet in the head.  Horses, canter and gallop on hard tarmac roads, no thought for their legs.  riders take out their tempers on their horses.  we have all seen the videos.
I would suggest anyone that goes fox hunting has a good long hard think about why they do it.


----------



## ycbm (29 December 2021)

CrunchieBoi said:



			It's odd how it only seems to be some animals (coincidently types that are "fun" to hunt) seem to be hunted "for the good of the species".

Perhaps I'll train up a wee pack of dragonflies to ensure that only the best blue bottles survive and get to breed in my garden. That'll be a fun summer project.
		
Click to expand...


The epitome of that is that only male deer were hunted by people on horseback  following a pack of hounds.  Apparently it was safe and humane to shoot the females without chasing them first,   but not the males.  Go figure.

ETA it is correct as people have said later that hinds are hunted with hounds by people on horseback,  (during later weeks and worse weather) than stags. But for the purposes of number control,  I believe that far more hinds are shot without being chased by a pack of hounds,  because the hunt descriptions I have read suggest they generally take only one per day after running it to exhaustion until it lies down.  I fully accept that I don't know the detail of hunting hinds with hounds.  What detail I do know disgusts me.  
.


----------



## Sandstone1 (29 December 2021)

Just to add that Warwickshire hunt chased and killed a deer yesterday.  its been filmed from a distance and sabs were no where near so can not be blamed as they often are for hunts mistakes.   Just wonder what all the pro hunters thoughts on this are.
I have had my say on this subject now so I am dropping out of it.  The mentality of people that think its ok to go fox hunting because pet cats kill birds has just finished me.  My blood pressure cant cope so I am out.


----------



## Miss_Millie (29 December 2021)

Animals have thrived within their complex ecosystems for thousands of years, it is human meddling and human overpopulation which is causing the demise of many species and the collapse of these ecosystems.

If we humans were wiped out tomorrow, nature would very quickly re-balance itself. We saw a glimpse of this during the first worldwide lockdown when the waters cleared in rivers and wildlife like dolphins appeared, seemingly overnight, due to the lack of human disturbance.

If the pro-hunters are the nature loving environmentalists that some people on here try to make them out to be, maybe they should re-focus their efforts towards re-wilding the countryside and campaigning for the re-introduction of native predators like wolves and lynx (which ironically were wiped out by hunting).


----------



## Sossigpoker (29 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			Just to add that Warwickshire hunt chased and killed a deer yesterday.  its been filmed from a distance and sabs were no where near so can not be blamed as they often are for hunts mistakes.   Just wonder what all the pro hunters thoughts on this are.
I have had my say on this subject now so I am dropping out of it.  The mentality of people that think its ok to go fox hunting because pet cats kill birds has just finished me.  My blood pressure cant cope so I am out.
		
Click to expand...

Be encouraged by the fact that so many,  if not most , commenters here find chasing a live prey abhorrent.

That one person will go down with the ship and will do anything to keep justifying it to themselves that somehow tearing an animal into pieces is ever acceptable.


----------



## Clodagh (29 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			The epitome of that is that only male deer were hunted by people on horseback  following a pack of hounds.  Apparently it was safe and humane to shoot the females without chasing them first,   but not the males.  Go figure. 
.
		
Click to expand...

Hind hunting was done on horses in my younger days?


----------



## Clodagh (29 December 2021)

Why aren’t the main hunt bodies condemning individuals like the fox fork stabber? If there is any raptor persecution the shooting organisations step up and release a statement immediately about their stance on it. People convicted lose their right to work.
When you think there was a statement released about the pony bashing, why not the stabbing?


----------



## Amymay (29 December 2021)

CrunchieBoi said:



			It's odd how it only seems to be some animals (coincidently types that are "fun" to hunt) seem to be hunted "for the good of the species".
		
Click to expand...

I’d take issue with that.  There are many animals for whom culls are genuinely effective and of conservative value.


----------



## Tiddlypom (29 December 2021)

My suspicion that the main hunt bodies, apart from generally panicking as they have been since the webinars were first leaked, are pinning their hopes on trying to distance hunting completely from the fox stabber. 

Which a lot of us know that they will not be able to do...

Their silence on the issue speaks volumes.


----------



## ester (29 December 2021)

Clodagh said:



			Hind hunting was done on horses in my younger days?
		
Click to expand...

Same, exmoor/quantock I was a bit confused by that post!


----------



## CrunchieBoi (29 December 2021)

Amymay in a manger said:



			I’d take issue with that.  There are many animals for whom culls are genuinely effective and of conservative value.
		
Click to expand...

Which are carried out in the quickest, most effective and humane way possible rather than making a spectator sport out of it.


----------



## Amymay (29 December 2021)

CrunchieBoi said:



			Which are carried out in the quickest, most effective and humane way possible rather than making a sport of it.
		
Click to expand...

That as maybe.  But for the sake of accuracy they are still ‘hunted’.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (29 December 2021)

Amymay in a manger said:



			That as maybe.  But for the sake of accuracy they are still ‘hunted’.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, don't agree.


----------



## Amymay (29 December 2021)

CrunchieBoi said:



			Sorry, don't agree.
		
Click to expand...

You may not agree. But factually it’s correct 😉


----------



## CrunchieBoi (29 December 2021)

Amymay in a manger said:



			You may not agree. But factually it’s correct 😉
		
Click to expand...

Factually incorrect as I was referring to hunting with packs of dogs, I thought that was clear but obviously not.


----------



## Amymay (29 December 2021)

CrunchieBoi said:



			Factually incorrect as I was referring to hunting with packs of dogs, I thought that was clear but obviously not.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I realised that.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (29 December 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			My suspicion that the main hunt bodies, apart from generally panicking as they have been since the webinars were first leaked, are pinning their hopes on trying to distance hunting completely from the fox stabber.

Which a lot of us know that they will not be able to do...

Their silence on the issue speaks volumes.
		
Click to expand...

Has there genuinely not been anything condemning that yet?


----------



## stangs (29 December 2021)

CrunchieBoi said:



			Has there genuinely not been anything condemning that yet?
		
Click to expand...

Hard to criticise something you see no problems with


----------



## Tiddlypom (29 December 2021)

CrunchieBoi said:



			Has there genuinely not been anything condemning that yet?
		
Click to expand...

Unless anyone can show anything different, the nearest thing to an 'official' comment is this one quoted in the initial ITV report from 6 days ago. Nothing more recent that I'm aware of.

'A local hunt said they have "been made aware of an incident on 4 December which does not involve any of the hunt’s employees and is unrelated to any activities of the hunt who were not out hunting on that day. In light of this [we are] making further enquiries." '

The most recent news item on the Hunting Office website dates from 12 Dec, and includes this statement from the MFHA chairman :-

'As all supporters of hunting know, the infiltration and subsequent misrepresentation of a trail hunting webinar and the prosecution of a Director has been used to try and cause great harm to our way of life.'


----------



## palo1 (29 December 2021)

stangs said:



			Hard to criticise something you see no problems with
		
Click to expand...

I hope that because it is a police matter the hunt are waiting to make sure they release a correct and up to date statement about such a serious offence.  I know that the hunt in question are taking this extremely seriously.


----------



## Tiddlypom (29 December 2021)

Posted in error.


----------



## skinnydipper (29 December 2021)

From what I read, the artificial earth in question was rebuilt in 2020 in a woodland 2 miles from East Essex Hunt kennels.  It had been monitored since then by concealed cameras.

Clearly somebody was trying to encourage foxes to live in the area.


----------



## Tiddlypom (29 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			I hope that because it is a police matter the hunt are waiting to make sure they release a correct and up to date statement about such a serious offence.  I know that the hunt in question are taking this extremely seriously.
		
Click to expand...

This is the fox stabbing incident?

They should have issued a statement condemning outright the actions of the fox stabber, before waiting for the details of who knew/how/what/why to emerge (if they ever do).

Of course the hunt are taking it seriously, he's one of them.


----------



## TGM (29 December 2021)

Nancykitt said:



			I also think that the 'hunting community' has been seen as a singular entity and it would have been far better for the drag & bloodhounds crowd to distance themselves from the others. They will probably pay the price now.
		
Click to expand...

The drag and bloodhound packs do have a totally separate governing body - The Masters of Draghounds and Bloodhounds Association.  Whereas the foxhound packs have The Masters of Foxhounds Association.  I think it has actually become harder for drag and bloodhound packs to differentiate themselves since the ban, due to the confusing messages given out by people following traditional foxhound packs.  I have often seen people on social media say they are 'drag hunting' when actually they are out with the foxhounds.


----------



## moosea (29 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Because that is generally better for nature. There is a recognition of the need for all animals to be the strongest they can be in order for the natural system to be robust and resilient.  It's not a new idea.
		
Click to expand...

I am aware of the idea... I'm just confused to why you ( pro hunt not you the individual) would want an animal that is vermin to you, to be strong and healthy? Wouldn't it be better if the vermin were weak and sick? Wouldn't that make them less likley to attack lambs and chickens??
Why do people not try to maintain a healthy rat population?? They are vital vermin too?


----------



## Clodagh (29 December 2021)

moosea said:



			I am aware of the idea... I'm just confused to why you ( pro hunt not you the individual) would want an animal that is vermin to you, to be strong and healthy? Wouldn't it be better if the vermin were weak and sick? Wouldn't that make them less likley to attack lambs and chickens??
Why do people not try to maintain a healthy rat population?? They are vital vermin too?
		
Click to expand...

Healthy foxes tend not to hunt in broad daylight, so chickens etc are safer. Whenever we shot a fox in the garden in daylight it was mangy or old and in poor condition.


----------



## moosea (29 December 2021)

Clodagh said:



			Healthy foxes tend not to hunt in broad daylight, so chickens etc are safer. Whenever we shot a fox in the garden in daylight it was mangy or old and in poor condition.
		
Click to expand...

So... so if the fox population was sick and weak  they would hunt in the daytime? Wouldn't that make it easier to shoot them cleanly with one shot then??


----------



## Amymay (29 December 2021)

moosea said:



			So... so if the fox population was sick and weak  they would hunt in the daytime? Wouldn't that make it easier to shoot them cleanly with one shot then??
		
Click to expand...

It does. Plenty shot around here.


----------



## Clodagh (29 December 2021)

moosea said:



			So... so if the fox population was sick and weak  they would hunt in the daytime? Wouldn't that make it easier to shoot them cleanly with one shot then??
		
Click to expand...

I haven’t hunted for years. Once the ban came in we just shot them all.


----------



## milliepops (29 December 2021)

moosea said:



			So... so if the fox population was sick and weak  they would hunt in the daytime? Wouldn't that make it easier to shoot them cleanly with one shot then??
		
Click to expand...

But this goes back to the "control does not mean eradication" thing doesn't it?


----------



## mariew (29 December 2021)

The argument that anyone would want a sick or weak species is a bit bizarre as it looks like a long term condition to me. Surely it's better that an animal is healthy or doesn't exist at all if you can't make them better somehow. Most of the sick foxes I've seen have been in urban areas. Country side foxes have always looked fairly healthy to me.


----------



## lannerch (29 December 2021)

moosea said:



			So... so if the fox population was sick and weak  they would hunt in the daytime? Wouldn't that make it easier to shoot them cleanly with one shot then??
		
Click to expand...

Except people still don’t . Shooting is rarely the clean instant death we all like to imagine it is.


----------



## Clodagh (29 December 2021)

lannerch said:



			Except people still don’t . Shooting is rarely the clean instant death we all like to imagine it is.
		
Click to expand...

That really is hunting propaganda rubbish. I’ve been out on many a nights lamping and every body is accounted for. 
Injuries only happen when people use air rifles or shotguns with too light a shot.


----------



## ycbm (29 December 2021)

lannerch said:



			Except people still don’t . Shooting is rarely the clean instant death we all like to imagine it is.
		
Click to expand...

It is round here, where it has always been done and a number of locals are real experts at taking rat,  rabbit,  fox and deer.  And the occasional dog.  
.


----------



## palo1 (29 December 2021)

Clodagh said:



			That really is hunting propaganda rubbish. I’ve been out on many a nights lamping and every body is accounted for.
Injuries only happen when people use air rifles or shotguns with too light a shot.
		
Click to expand...

Yes.  I agree but a lot of folk seem to think that farmers or landowners in general should be using a high velocity rifle for pest control/fox control yet that is a potentially very dangerous and rather specialised weapon.  Farmers on the whole do NOT want to invest in the licence conditions of a HVR.  They tend to have a shotgun though which won't so easily provide the fatal clean shot that people want to see.  

Foxxers, as they are known will use HVRs and night sights etc and are very effective (as are other shots with the right kind of gun and the time to do the job).  Foxxing has become a sport in it's own right since the ban though possibly not purely as a result of that.   In these parts foxxing is a fairly popular minority thing and landowners are happy to give consent for shooting foxes all year round.   It is easier for landowners to cater for people with guns than perhaps a pack of hounds but personally, I don't think it is better for foxes.  It is not untrue that some shots (by a commonly owned shotgun)  will only injure but most people are perhaps unaware of the very significant differences between a shotgun and a rifle.  A rifle is definitely not something that you want to see a great many people owning really and there are conditions to that licence which mean many people will not want one anyway.   

It is not as simple as 'a clean shot' because of those things.  Just my view but I don't want to tar all shots as being haphazard or not fatal (because someone with a rifle will in all likelihood be skilled and committed) any more than I want to assert that a shotgun will provide the clean fatality that is most desirable.


----------



## palo1 (29 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			It is round here, where it has always been done and a number of locals are real experts at taking rat,  rabbit,  fox and deer.  And the occasional dog. 
.
		
Click to expand...

@ycbm - you just can't know that.  In any area there are and will be animals shot poorly or with the wrong gun/ammunition.  There are frequent reports about deer and other animals wounded horribly by people who are shooting without the right thing or without skill.


----------



## lannerch (29 December 2021)

Clodagh said:



			That really is hunting propaganda rubbish. I’ve been out on many a nights lamping and every body is accounted for.
Injuries only happen when people use air rifles or shotguns with too light a shot.
		
Click to expand...

Rubbish I used to be close friends with a gamekeeper who was a good shot and had the right guns ( he had a licence to shoot deer ) and still the odd one got away injured to be fair to him he did try to find it to dispatch cleanly but I’m sure not all do, the majority are not a good shot and do not have the right rifle certainly not hunting propaganda . But you believe what you want to believe it’s a lot more comfortable to think shooting is instant.


----------



## Clodagh (29 December 2021)

I can only speak from my own experience. As fox hunting no longer takes place its a bit of a moot point anyway.


----------



## palo1 (29 December 2021)

Clodagh said:



			I can only speak from my own experience. As fox hunting no longer takes place its a bit of a moot point anyway.
		
Click to expand...

Yes though the vexed question of pest control and the killing of vermin isn't a moot point.  Shooting is next on the list of things that will be sabbed because of the fact that groups of people gather and enjoy it, even if it were entirely about pest control which on the whole it isn't.  Personally I support shooting as I think there is such an investment in shooting estates and that is good for wildlife and the environment on balance. Those estates are in a place to provide improvements for the environment too.  There is probably no other group in the UK who have the knowledge, wherewithal and commitment to provide support for example for wildfires and other aspects of management and on the ground environmental and wildlife support work ; that has been very well evidenced in the last couple of years.

ETA - I realise this sounds like I think shooting is about pest control primarily - which it definitely isn't!!  However shooting does engage in pest control as a matter of course and it always has done.


----------



## moosea (29 December 2021)

mariew said:



			The argument that anyone would want a sick or weak species is a bit bizarre as it looks like a long term condition to me. Surely it's better that an animal is healthy or doesn't exist at all if you can't make them better somehow. Most of the sick foxes I've seen have been in urban areas. Country side foxes have always looked fairly healthy to me.
		
Click to expand...

If countryside foxes are mostly healthy why don't hunts move into more urban areas if they are so concerned for foxes as a species to be healthy?



palo1 said:



			Yes though the vexed question of pest control and the killing of vermin isn't a moot point.  Shooting is next on the list of things that will be sabbed because of the fact that groups of people gather and enjoy it, even if it were entirely about pest control which on the whole it isn't.  Personally I support shooting as I think there is such an investment in shooting estates and that is good for wildlife and the environment on balance. Those estates are in a place to provide improvements for the environment too.  There is probably no other group in the UK who have the knowledge, wherewithal and commitment to provide support for example for wildfires and other aspects of management and on the ground environmental and wildlife support work ; that has been very well evidenced in the last couple of years.

ETA - I realise this sounds like I think shooting is about pest control primarily - which it definitely isn't!!  However shooting does engage in pest control as a matter of course and it always has done.
		
Click to expand...

I think the intention in shooting is always to get a clean, swift and pretty instant kill, where as in fox hunting it is not. Could it be because of the prolonged events leading to a foxes death from fox hunting, before the ban of course, is seen by many as unnessesary and pretty gruesome to most people?

What do they do with birds they shoot?


----------



## ycbm (29 December 2021)

palo1 said:



@ycbm - you just can't know that.  In any area there are and will be animals shot poorly or with the wrong gun/ammunition.  There are frequent reports about deer and other animals wounded horribly by people who are shooting without the right thing or without skill.
		
Click to expand...

I can't know the area and the farms and farmers where  I live?  Well thankyou for letting me know that, Palo, I'll bear it in mind. 
.


----------



## ycbm (29 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Shooting is next on the list of things that will be sabbed because of the fact that groups of people gather and enjoy it,
		
Click to expand...

That won't be why it will be sabbed.  It will be sabbed because people will no longer tolerate the breeding of birds specifically for the purpose of killing them in a way which would be prosecuted if it were any other animal. 
.


----------



## ycbm (29 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			ETA - I realise this sounds like I think shooting is about pest control primarily - which it definitely isn't!! However shooting does engage in pest control as a matter of course and it always has done.
		
Click to expand...

Which in this area has included eradication of  magpie and buzzard and decimation of crows and rooks.



palo1 said:



			Personally I support shooting as I think there is such an investment in shooting estates and that is good for wildlife and the environment on balance.
		
Click to expand...

Do you live on/near a shooting moor like I do Palo?  The natural environment is completely altered by the commercial shooting, and not for the better. Monoculture creation aside, it's  feckin' ugly to mow hundreds of patches in wild heather moors!
.


----------



## mariew (29 December 2021)

Interestingly on the Swedish moose hunting, it's cleaner but not without its issues though. Hunters prefer the glory of big antlers which belong to the older moose, so you end up with an imbalance in the distribution of the ages of the moose population, with a younger generation moose who don't get taught by the older animals what to do. And again it's not a guaranteed kill first shot. 

As for the question on why hunts don't hunt in urban areas, that's kind of why I switch off when antis start ranting. Btw I'm on the fence, neither pro nor anti.


----------



## shortstuff99 (29 December 2021)

Shoots near me have already been sabbed if they are on/near public land.


----------



## palo1 (29 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			Which in this area has included eradication of  magpie and buzzard and decimation of crows and rooks.



Do you live on/ near a shooting moor like I do Palo?  The natural environment is completely altered by the commercial shooting, and not for the better.
.
		
Click to expand...




ycbm said:



			Which in this area has included eradication of  magpie and buzzard and decimation of crows and rooks.



Do you live on/ near a shooting moor like I do Palo?  The natural environment is completely altered by the commercial shooting, and not for the better.
.
		
Click to expand...

It is certainly not so commercial here but yes we have shooting estates and shot moorland in these parts.  I am aware of how divisive this issue is too @ycbm but there is no other organised group of people in the UK who can in any way finance and protect vital peat moorland and other shooting habitats.  There may be work to be done but without the shooting community there is not, a practical way forward to enrich and safeguard those areas.  Shooting is the thing that finances their existence.


----------



## palo1 (29 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			That won't be why it will be sabbed.  It will be sabbed because people will no longer tolerate the breeding of birds specifically for the purpose of killing them in a way which would be prosecuted if it were any other animal.
.
		
Click to expand...

Yet you are a strong advocate for the gun as a method of killing in just about every other circumstance.


----------



## ycbm (29 December 2021)

shortstuff99 said:



			Shoots near me have already been sabbed if they are on/near public land.
		
Click to expand...

Most moorland is now,  courtesy of Blair, open access.  I expect shoot sabbing to ramp up hugely in the coming years,  and frankly welcome it.  I cannot abide the thought of winging a bird with shot,  bringing it to the ground alive and terrified,  sending a dog to pick it up,  so it is carried in the jaws of a predator to a human who will finally break its neck. 

We would prosecute anyone killing any other animal in such a prolonged fashion.  
.


----------



## palo1 (29 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			I can't know the area and the farms and farmers where  I live?  Well thankyou for letting me know that, Palo, I'll bear it in mind.
.
		
Click to expand...

It seems extraordinarily, impossibly unlikely that you are aware of every single shot animal in your locale.  If you are, that is quite astounding but impressive.  It seems inevitable to me that some animals in all areas of the UK are shot and wounded rather than fatally shot.


----------



## ycbm (29 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Yet you are a strong advocate for the gun as a method of killing in just about every other circumstance.
		
Click to expand...

Because its clean,  usually.  Bird shooting is not.  And deliberately breeding birds just to be shot is, imo,  totally abhorrent.
.


----------



## ycbm (29 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			there is no other organised group of people in the UK who can in any way finance and protect vital peat moorland and other shooting habitats. There may be work to be done but without the shooting community there is not, a practical way forward to enrich and safeguard those areas. Shooting is the thing that finances their existence.
		
Click to expand...

This is frankly bollocks. In 31 years,  the only work that has gone on on the hundreds of hectares of local commercially shot moorland is a few days of drainage channel clearance with a JCB close to an A road. The rest of the work has consisted of fencing off a road to protect sheep and cutting square after circle  after oblong in the heather to feed birds to be shot.  In the areas which are not being used to raise birds,  the heather/peat moor manages  itself just fine with practically zero input.
.


----------



## palo1 (29 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			Because its clean,  usually.  Bird shooting is not.  And deliberately breeding birds just to be shot is, imo,  totally abhorrent.
.
		
Click to expand...

Well that is a very interesting road to travel...that abhorrence is about necessity I assume...which would take you right to animal farming too and then onwards to...??

I have no issue at all with veganism btw.


----------



## ycbm (29 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Well that is a very interesting road to travel...that abhorrence is about necessity I assume...which would take you right to animal farming too and then onwards to...??

I have no issue at all with veganism btw.
		
Click to expand...

Your whataboutery knows no limits,  does it?


----------



## palo1 (29 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			This is frankly bollocks. In 31 years,  the only work that has gone on on the hundreds of hectares of local shhoting moorland is a few days of drainage channel clearance with a JCB close to an A road. The rest of the work has consisted of fencing off a road to protect sheep and cutting square after circle  after oblong in the heather to feed birds to be shot.  In the areas which are not being used to raise birds,  the heather/peat moor manages  itself just fine with practically zero input. 
.
		
Click to expand...

What about this?  https://www.thescottishfarmer.co.uk...iley of the,the country was deeply concerning.

The same but different source: https://www.c4pmc.co.uk/post/gameke...p-a-wildfire-on-peak-district-s-woodhead-moor

2018: https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...-knowledge-backing-help-firefighters-14840176

Wild Justice have also lost their case: ''
Mrs Justice Lang found all four of their grounds challenging the lawfulness of the burning regulations were unarguable. The regulations introduced by Defra this year restricted the burning of vegetation over deep peat in protected areas. A previous decision to award costs against Wild Justice – an organisation spearheaded by Chris Packham – was upheld.

The British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the Countryside Alliance, the Moorland Association and the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation had previously been granted interested party status in the legal challenge and participated in today’s hearing.

The interested parties had already agreed to donate their share of any awarded costs to the Gamekeepers’ Welfare Trust.

A spokesperson for the interested parties said: “This is good news for upland managers who use prescribed burning alongside other tools to manage our precious uplands. Our approach to sustainable moorland management has been vindicated as sustainable and legally sound.

“Carefully controlled heather burning is a widely recognised, legal and valuable tool in the management of upland vegetation which can produce a range of benefits for wildlife, the environment and wider society through the prevention of devastating summer wildfires.” 

Who else has the money, the knowledge, the manpower and the ability to protect our heather moorlands?  It may not be perfect but there isn't any other organisation that can take this on.


----------



## GSD Woman (29 December 2021)

CrunchieBoi said:



			Not all, but the leaked webinars strongly suggest widespread criminality within the sport from the top down. From what I can see there's been no attempt to address that.
		
Click to expand...

I've seen leaked videos from animal rights groups.  Many of them wait months to years to catch on incident on tape.  There have been instances of the undercover film maker taking part in abuse to keep the cover.  Many of them are photoshopped.
I haven't seen the footage from the webinars. But having been in a field where there are many people willing to lie about what happens I do tend to be a bit skeptical.


----------



## palo1 (29 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			Your whataboutery knows no limits,  does it?
		
Click to expand...

Not at all - I was just following that train of thought tbh.


----------



## Regandal (29 December 2021)

I’m sure I read that hare numbers go up where the area is managed for coursing, presumably because the sick and weak are eliminated. Indiscriminate culling is never good.


----------



## palo1 (29 December 2021)

Regandal said:



			I’m sure I read that hare numbers go up where the area is managed for coursing, presumably because the sick and weak are eliminated. Indiscriminate culling is never good.
		
Click to expand...

Coursing is illegal. (other than lure coursing!) .


----------



## CrunchieBoi (29 December 2021)

GSD Woman said:



			I've seen leaked videos from animal rights groups.  Many of them wait months to years to catch on incident on tape.  There have been instances of the undercover film maker taking part in abuse to keep the cover.  Many of them are photoshopped.
I haven't seen the footage from the webinars. But having been in a field where there are many people willing to lie about what happens I do tend to be a bit skeptical.
		
Click to expand...

Given the content of the webinars is available online for anyone to read in full I'm quite happy to form an opinion based on that. 

Coincidently it's the same opinion as the judge who found him guilty of encouraging others to commit offences under the hunting act.


----------



## GSD Woman (29 December 2021)

Clodagh said:



			Healthy foxes tend not to hunt in broad daylight, so chickens etc are safer. Whenever we shot a fox in the garden in daylight it was mangy or old and in poor condition.
		
Click to expand...

Here it would be rabid.
Not hunting a species can have unintended consequences.  There is an area where it was illegal to hunt deer.  They overpopulated and started starving to death.  I believe this was an island in either the Chesapeake Bay or off one of the barrier islands.
Most of the hunts here (USA) don't have kills <- mentioned previously, unless they are hunting coyotes. Apparently when the hunts do kill a fox it is an old and/or weak one.


----------



## Koweyka (29 December 2021)

The Warwickshire Hunt strike again, this time they killed a deer, nothing is safe while this hunt exists. Trail Hunt Lies

https://fb.watch/acGxgIu72L/


----------



## meleeka (30 December 2021)

GSD Woman said:



			Here it would be rabid.
Not hunting a species can have unintended consequences.  There is an area where it was illegal to hunt deer.  They overpopulated and started starving to death.  I believe this was an island in either the Chesapeake Bay or off one of the barrier islands.
Most of the hunts here (USA) don't have kills <- mentioned previously, unless they are hunting coyotes. Apparently when the hunts do kill a fox it is an old and/or weak one.
		
Click to expand...

I don’t understand why we have to be the police force of nature.  There are loads of magpies where I live, I’m pretty sure the numbers are excessive to the detriment of other birds, but I don’t see anyone having a jolly day out to keep them in check.


----------



## saddlesore (30 December 2021)

I’m very late to this and highly uninformed compared to you all it would seem but my yard neighbours a hunt kennels and they still fox hunt (Scotland).


----------



## C'est Moi Again (30 December 2021)

GSD Woman said:



			I've seen leaked videos from animal rights groups.  Many of them wait months to years to catch on incident on tape.  There have been instances of the undercover film maker taking part in abuse to keep the cover.  Many of them are photoshopped.
I haven't seen the footage from the webinars. But having been in a field where there are many people willing to lie about what happens I do tend to be a bit skeptical.
		
Click to expand...

I hunt in the US. I have never seen it involve a fox at all, in any way. Obviously I do not speak for all hunts in the US - but its really not a popular past-time and I live in one of the few areas known for it. The video footage that you speak of is online, its not all fake, it's easy to find, and it will never go away. The internet is forever. The behaviors captured on film are damaging the reputation of all legal, well managed hunts in the UK (those without psycho terrier men and out of control hounds menacing moggies). Stop the killing, or the British public will stop the sport entirely. I think its really that simple. I just hope they don't start bothering us over here, its all managed very differently.


----------



## Clodagh (30 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			Most moorland is now,  courtesy of Blair, open access.  I expect shoot sabbing to ramp up hugely in the coming years,  and frankly welcome it.  I cannot abide the thought of winging a bird with shot,  bringing it to the ground alive and terrified,  sending a dog to pick it up,  so it is carried in the jaws of a predator to a human who will finally break its neck.

We would prosecute anyone killing any other animal in such a prolonged fashion. 
.
		
Click to expand...

Have you ever seen footage of the catching up and slaughter of broiler hens?


----------



## Clodagh (30 December 2021)

lannerch said:



			Rubbish I used to be close friends with a gamekeeper who was a good shot and had the right guns ( he had a licence to shoot deer ) and still the odd one got away injured to be fair to him he did try to find it to dispatch cleanly but I’m sure not all do, the majority are not a good shot and do not have the right rifle certainly not hunting propaganda . But you believe what you want to believe it’s a lot more comfortable to think shooting is instant.
		
Click to expand...

If he knows he cannot kill them reliably, or find them if injured, he shouldn’t pull the trigger.


----------



## lannerch (30 December 2021)

Clodagh said:



			If he knows he cannot kill them reliably, or find them if injured, he shouldn’t pull the trigger.
		
Click to expand...

He’s a good shot (hence he has the deer gun licence ) if he can’t kill them reliably then no one is guaranteed


----------



## ycbm (30 December 2021)

Clodagh said:



			Have you ever seen footage of the catching up and slaughter of broiler hens?
		
Click to expand...

It's a separate issue, it's more whataboutery.

They aren't bred to provide fun in the killing of them, shot in flight but not killed,  fall out of the sky to the floor,  picked up by a dog still alive and carried to a person who  wrings its neck.  Solely for the purpose of a human having a fun day out. 

I don't think country sports supporters understand the depth of disgust that a very large proportion of the population feel at activities using killing animals to provide human entertainment.  
.


----------



## CanteringCarrot (30 December 2021)

Originally it was said that "it's rarely a clean shot" (paraphrase) and I dont think anyone here thinks shooting is always 100% clean, all of the time. Based off of my personal experience, so purely anecdotal, most of the time it is. So, more times than not it has been a clean shot, but it isn't always.

So the fact that sometimes the shot isn't clean, somehow justifies the horrid deaths of foxes? Look, two wrongs don't make a right and the "well, they're doing xyz over there" is a bit of deflecting. Never mind that fox hunting is illegal...so you shouldn't be doing it regardless of what people are doing with their guns. It doesn't matter if I'm sacrificing goats and small children in my garden, if what is happening is wrong, it's wrong, regardless of what others are doing.

I acknowledge that it's not always a clean shot. I acknowledge that there's plenty of work to be done when it comes to humanely managing animal populations and/or slaughtering for human consumption. We have so much work to do and it's an incredible uphill battle, I'm not arguing that there is work to he done in other areas.

What I still don't get is why can't hunts just not be idiots and follow the rules? Oh, right, ego, and being above the law and all that. If your hunt does indeed follow the rules, and you're bring tarred with the same brush, that sucks. I've been there with another sport. 

Should you have to police your sport? No, but if you want to save it, you might have to. If the reputation of the sport is so badly ruined and beyond salvageable, it really might die. The thing is that it's become a luxury sport on luxury pets (yes, this is what horses are even if some fail to believe this). There are other ways to control the fox population. So now you're just chasing scent. It's questionable how this scent is obtained, so there's also that. A luxury sport isn't a right, and when the few ruin it for the many, it sucks. I've been there, but I also couldn't expect the public to put up with it.

I think most wouldn't give a rats arse if you're frolicking through land you have permission to be on chasing some non living thing. However, too many "mistakes" are being made. How much do you expect the public to deal with for the sake of you having your sport? Why should they even have to deal with any of it? They shouldn't.

If you can't fix the sport beginning from the inside, then odds are it's going to die. It unfortunately doesn't matter if your hunt is perfect, and it may not be fair (either is life), but the public doesn't need to deal with it. There are bad apples in every bunch but why should I have my land trampled on, my cat eaten, my animals upset and/or harassed, or have to witness otherwise avoidable animal suffering just so the rule abiding hunts can still exist? Even if incidents are arguably rare, they still hurt, and it wasn't an unfortunate result to something necessary/that had to be done. So it's going to be a difficult battle. I don't know what the threshold will be re when people have finally had enough and it's just an outright ban, but it's heading into borrowed time territory. If the sport can turnaround and save itself, and have good practices, I have no issue with it still existing, but can it do that?


----------



## CanteringCarrot (30 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			It's a separate issue, it's more whataboutery.

They aren't bred to provide fun in the killing of them, shot in flight but not killed,  fall out of the sky to the floor,  picked up by a dog still alive and carried to a person who  wrings its neck.  Solely for the purpose of a human having a fun day out.

I don't think country sports supporters understand the depth of disgust that a very large proportion of the population feel at activities using killing animals to provide human entertainment.
.
		
Click to expand...

I don't like killing animals for entertainment because I think it causes some other deep rooted and perhaps unconscious issues within the human mind. I also think it can deteriorate respect for nature.


----------



## Clodagh (30 December 2021)

CanteringCarrot said:



			I don't like killing animals for entertainment because I think it causes some other deep rooted and perhaps unconscious issues within the human mind. I also think it can deteriorate respect for nature.
		
Click to expand...

I completely disagree, hunting in any form (I work my dogs) instills a huge respect for nature and the quarry. If it doesn’t yes there is something wrong.


----------



## CanteringCarrot (30 December 2021)

Clodagh said:



			I completely disagree, hunting in any form (I work my dogs) instills a huge respect for nature and the quarry. If it doesn’t yes there is something wrong.
		
Click to expand...

Can you explain further on why you think it instills respect? Genuinely curious. I think it has the possibility in a few instances, but that's mainly when hunting for sustenance, using the whole animals for consumption/goods, and appreciating/respecting where your meal came from. However, that doesn't meet the definition of hunting for sport, or killing for entertainment.


----------



## southerncomfort (30 December 2021)

This thread really depresses me.

A thread started to highlight problems with trail hunting that ALWAYS swings back to a defence of fox hunting.

As long as the hunting fraternity keep looping back to how unfair the ban is, the problems with illegal fox hunting by trail hunts will never be addressed.

YCBM is right.  You're killing your own hobby/sport.  You cover your eyes and ears and refuse to listen to the concerns from...well anyone!  I've seen more anti hunt rhetoric from both the media and the public over the past couple of months than I've seen for years, but you refuse to brook any criticism or make any improvements that would ease the minds of your critics.

You need to wake up and realise that what's happening is not the fault of antis/sabs, landowners, the media, the public ( or cats.....to my knowledge hunting by cats is not illegal).  It is YOUR fault.

Fox hunting is illegal and the ban will never be repealed because the vast majority of Britons find it utterly revolting.  So if you want to save your sport, accept it and move on and address the issues of illegal hunting, hunts going on to land they have no right to be on, and the harm and injury caused to farm animals/horses and pets when things go wrong.

The ball is in your court.


----------



## palo1 (30 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			It's a separate issue, it's more whataboutery.

They aren't bred to provide fun in the killing of them, shot in flight but not killed,  fall out of the sky to the floor,  picked up by a dog still alive and carried to a person who  wrings its neck.  Solely for the purpose of a human having a fun day out.

I don't think country sports supporters understand the depth of disgust that a very large proportion of the population feel at activities using killing animals to provide human entertainment. 
.
		
Click to expand...

It's not whataboutery - it is entirely valid.  If you are going to make value judgements about something, then in order to be credible those judgements have to cut across the board.  The accusation of whataboutery is very often a reluctance to admit that there is no logic in a position taken.


----------



## palo1 (30 December 2021)

meleeka said:



			I don’t understand why we have to be the police force of nature.  There are loads of magpies where I live, I’m pretty sure the numbers are excessive to the detriment of other birds, but I don’t see anyone having a jolly day out to keep them in check.
		
Click to expand...

Um, pest control is actually quite a popular thing and yes, magpies and other birds will dominate where they can.


----------



## milliepops (30 December 2021)

Clodagh said:



			I completely disagree, hunting in any form (I work my dogs) instills a huge respect for nature and the quarry. If it doesn’t yes there is something wrong.
		
Click to expand...

yeah i agree, i am not a hunting supporter but my OH goes pheasant shooting occasionally (mainly shoots clays) and there is always a lot of talk about respecting the pheasants, i don't recognise the jolly old killing spree depictions, there's pride in the sport but in doing it skillfully rather than just blasting things out of the sky willy nilly.  I am sure there are stag dos and what have you that are totally different but OH and his connections have a very different take on it.  He has also brought birds home to eat many times.


----------



## palo1 (30 December 2021)

CanteringCarrot said:



			Can you explain further on why you think it instills respect? Genuinely curious. I think it has the possibility in a few instances, but that's mainly when hunting for sustenance, using the whole animals for consumption/goods, and appreciating/respecting where your meal came from. However, that doesn't meet the definition of hunting for sport, or killing for entertainment.
		
Click to expand...

There is not a single hunting culture that doesn't hunt for 'sport' so trying to separate subsistence hunting with sport hunting is neither possible nor logical.  Hunting, in human culture, in anthropological, social and cultural terms always has purpose.  You may not see that purpose or agree with it but that is just what it is.


----------



## palo1 (30 December 2021)

CanteringCarrot said:



			Can you explain further on why you think it instills respect? Genuinely curious. I think it has the possibility in a few instances, but that's mainly when hunting for sustenance, using the whole animals for consumption/goods, and appreciating/respecting where your meal came from. However, that doesn't meet the definition of hunting for sport, or killing for entertainment.
		
Click to expand...

In order to hunt any wild animal a considerable degree of skill and knowledge is required.  That is around both the animal and it's habits but also the environment and the specific purpose of that hunt.  It is not news that the most influential conservationists have traditionally come from a hunting background.  Even dear old David Attenborough started out both hunting for animals to collect for zoos and working with hunters who had the understanding of those animals and their habitats.  It isn't a 'convenient' idea about hunting at all but extremely well documented that hunters have a very significant relationship with the environment.  London Zoological society recently published a scientific paper that described how hunters in some parts of the Amazon rivalled or outperformed 10 years worth of scientific data in relation to their ecosystem.  I know that may not seem relevant in 21st century Britain but it is valid as there is a wealth of knowledge about quarry species and their likes, needs and habits that no one else has accrued.  Respect is at the centre of hunting cultures no  matter how much you want to decry something that results in the death of an animal in that situation.


----------



## CanteringCarrot (30 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			There is not a single hunting culture that doesn't hunt for 'sport' so trying to separate subsistence hunting with sport hunting is neither possible nor logical.  Hunting, in human culture, in anthropological, social and cultural terms always has purpose.  You may not see that purpose or agree with it but that is just what it is.
		
Click to expand...

Ok, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

It always has a purpose, and sometimes I don't agree with the purpose. It's not that I can't see the purpose or don't think there is one.


----------



## CanteringCarrot (30 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			In order to hunt any wild animal a considerable degree of skill and knowledge is required.  That is around both the animal and it's habits but also the environment and the specific purpose of that hunt.  It is not news that the most influential conservationists have traditionally come from a hunting background.  Even dear old David Attenborough started out both hunting for animals to collect for zoos and working with hunters who had the understanding of those animals and their habitats.  It isn't a 'convenient' idea about hunting at all but extremely wellb documented that hunters have a very significant relationship with the environment.  London Zoological society recently published a scientific paper that described how hunters in some parts of the Amazon rivalled or outperformed 10 years worth of scientific data in relation to their ecosystem.  I know that may not seem relevant in 21st century Britain but it is valid as there is a wealth of knowledge about quarry species and their likes, needs and habits that no one else has accrued.  Respect is at the centre of hunting cultures no  matter how much you want to decry something that results in the death of an animal in that situation.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing most of what you said here. I think my point was missed.

I'm not decrying anything/everything that results in the death of an animal. Respect isn't always at the center of hunting for sport unfortunately. Ideally, yes, respect is or should be at the center of hunting cultures.

Edit: a million edits later


----------



## Ceriann (30 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			There is not a single hunting culture that doesn't hunt for 'sport' so trying to separate subsistence hunting with sport hunting is neither possible nor logical.  Hunting, in human culture, in anthropological, social and cultural terms always has purpose.  You may not see that purpose or agree with it but that is just what it is.
		
Click to expand...

Some might have said that about slavery at a different point in time.  Now illegal in most civilised countries and socially unacceptable.  Humans evolve, what we do evolves and consequently some things that used to be end. There is a continued significant mind shift by the public toward trail hunting, a follow on from the public opinion that led to the hunting ban.  You will only save “legal” trail hunting if you follow the rules, and make sure you are seen to follow the rules.  Arguing the toss about the benefits of fox hunting is an argument lost many years ago.


----------



## Slightlyconfused (30 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			It can happen by mistake where ground from several landowners is mixed; one or two hounds can cross a fenceline whilst still on a trail (scent can be high and drifting).  Usually the best answer is for huntsman or whip to get off their horse and retrieve hounds on foot - ours do this so that they can apologise to the landowner if need be.
		
Click to expand...


Out of interest what scent do you lay? If you know? 

The reason i ask is because i have done scent work with my spaniel before and we teach them to scent a particular scent, gun oil or Cloves.


----------



## Miss_Millie (30 December 2021)

southerncomfort said:



			This thread really depresses me.

A thread started to highlight problems with trail hunting that ALWAYS swings back to a defence of fox hunting.

As long as the hunting fraternity keep looping back to how unfair the ban is, the problems with illegal fox hunting by trail hunts will never be addressed.

YCBM is right.  You're killing your own hobby/sport.  *You cover your eyes and ears and refuse to listen to the concerns from...well anyone!*  I've seen more anti hunt rhetoric from both the media and the public over the past couple of months than I've seen for years, but you refuse to brook any criticism or make any improvements that would ease the minds of your critics.

You need to wake up and realise that what's happening is not the fault of antis/sabs, landowners, the media, the public ( or cats.....to my knowledge hunting by cats is not illegal).  It is YOUR fault.

Fox hunting is illegal and the ban will never be repealed because the vast majority of Britons find it utterly revolting.  So if you want to save your sport, accept it and move on and address the issues of illegal hunting, hunts going on to land they have no right to be on, and the harm and injury caused to farm animals/horses and pets when things go wrong.

The ball is in your court.
		
Click to expand...

Possibly the best post on this whole thread.


----------



## suestowford (30 December 2021)

There was some talk earlier about sabbing happening with bloodhound packs. I have wondered if this happens because they don't know what it means when a bloodhound pack says they hunt the Clean Boot. I am old and can remember seeing bloodhounds being used by the Police to hunt out suspects. I haven't seen that for years, and I wonder if people don't know why these hounds are different to fox hounds. Maybe some work by the bloodhound packs to promote this difference would get the sabs to leave them alone?


----------



## Upthecreek (30 December 2021)

Any posters who are meat eaters should think about how an animal has lived instead of how it died. Personally  I would rather eat a partridge or a pheasant that has spent it’s life free before being shot in it’s natural environment than chicken mass produced and confined to the indoors before being killed by being hung upside-down on metal shackles by their legs and then stunned using an electrified water-bath stunning system before they are killed. The animals are then killed by automated knife cut to the throat and subsequent bleeding.

The fact one has been killed by shooters for sport and one hasn’t is completely irrelevant to me. They both end up in the food chain. It’s the life they had before they got there that I care about.


----------



## palo1 (30 December 2021)

Slightlyconfused said:



			Out of interest what scent do you lay? If you know?

The reason i ask is because i have done scent work with my spaniel before and we teach them to scent a particular scent, gun oil or Cloves.
		
Click to expand...

Last time I enquired we use a shot fox; they are very easily made available to us and we often see piles of dead foxes that have been shot in these parts.  I am quite certain that the smell of decaying/decayed fox is absolutely different as far as a hound is concerned to the scent of live fox.    And for anyone who is interested I have seen hounds, more than once, completely ignore a live fox very close by.


----------



## Miss_Millie (30 December 2021)

Upthecreek said:



			Any posters who are meat eaters should think about how an animal has lived instead of how it died. Personally  I would rather eat a partridge or a pheasant that has spent it’s life free before being shot in it’s natural environment than chicken mass produced and confined to the indoors before being killed by being hung upside-down on metal shackles by their legs and then stunned using an electrified water-bath stunning system before they are killed. The animals are then killed by automated knife cut to the throat and subsequent bleeding.

The fact one has been killed by shooters for sport and one hasn’t is completely irrelevant to me. They both end up in the food chain. It’s the life they had before they got there that I care about.
		
Click to expand...

I partly agree with this (I don't eat meat myself for the above reasons), however the commercialisation of shooting is very damaging for wildlife and nature. 

It's not just the animals that are shot to eat which suffer. A large percentage of birds released onto estates are intensively farmed in Europe and shipped over here, so they don't lead a very nice life before they're killed in the open. Birds of prey are also illegally killed to reduce predation, as are ground mammals using snares etc. Moorlands are burned for grouse shooting, which releases carbon and kills biodiversity.

So shooting is arguably rather damaging for wildlife, at least in this day an age of human overpopulation and the 6th mass extinction. Maybe a few hundred years ago it wasn't so bad.


----------



## TGM (30 December 2021)

suestowford said:



			There was some talk earlier about sabbing happening with bloodhound packs. I have wondered if this happens because they don't know what it means when a bloodhound pack says they hunt the Clean Boot. I am old and can remember seeing bloodhounds being used by the Police to hunt out suspects. I haven't seen that for years, and I wonder if people don't know why these hounds are different to fox hounds. Maybe some work by the bloodhound packs to promote this difference would get the sabs to leave them alone?
		
Click to expand...

My husband is a master of one of the largest bloodhound packs in the UK and they have never (to my knowledge) been sabbed in all the time my family has been hunting with them (which is about 12 years).  As I understand it, the organised sab groups are quite aware that bloodhound packs hunt legally.  That is certainly the case in our neck of the woods (SE England) any way.  They do get occasional abuse from passers-by who don't understand the difference between bloodhounds and foxhounds though.  The general tactic is to explain the following:

* The hounds are bloodhounds not foxhounds (and look quite different) and have never been used for hunting foxes
* The pack never hunted foxes even before the hunting ban was introduced, so why would they start now
* All meets are listed on their website and Facebook page and anyone is welcome to come and watch to see everything is legal

If people are still not convinced, we often invite them to come and be a runner with the quarry so they can see first hand that there is no fox hunting going on!


----------



## palo1 (30 December 2021)

southerncomfort said:



			This thread really depresses me.

A thread started to highlight problems with trail hunting that ALWAYS swings back to a defence of fox hunting.

As long as the hunting fraternity keep looping back to how unfair the ban is, the problems with illegal fox hunting by trail hunts will never be addressed.

@Southerncomfort - these statements are true.  I am happy to hunt within the law as are the vast majority of hunting people I know but the fact that the law/ban is absolutely seen as unfair, undemocratic, illogical, unworkable and destructive cannot be ignored.  The Act did not have a full reading in Parliament as it was widely understood to have been likely to have stopped there due to lack of consensus.  It can't therefore be seen as the will of the people.  Use of the Parliament Act is extraordinary in that situation and that has been very widely recognised and accepted.  The legislators of the Act have clearly stated that it is an appalling and unfair piece of legislation; only last year Daniel Greenberg explained his feelings about this.  Even Tony Blair has openly expressed regret about the act.  The compromises and accomodations made to get it over the line even with the Parliament Act being invoked absolutely represented the lack of surety about the essential logic of the act. Everyone knew that at the time and a specific community of people felt extraordinarily wronged and misrepresented by that process.  

The unintended consequences of the Act continue to reverberate unfortunately. The issue of hunting continues to be divisive - because it is not a settled or accepted premise underpinning the law.  There continues to be a community that feel utterly betrayed by the Hunting Act.  However you feel about it you should understand those facts.  I am not justifying illegal hunting.  I am providing the context for illegal hunting, in a similar way that we are able to contextualise other crimes for example due to social deprivation etc.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## CanteringCarrot (30 December 2021)

Upthecreek said:



			Any posters who are meat eaters should think about how an animal has lived instead of how it died. Personally  I would rather eat a partridge or a pheasant that has spent it’s life free before being shot in it’s natural environment than chicken mass produced and confined to the indoors before being killed by being hung upside-down on metal shackles by their legs and then stunned using an electrified water-bath stunning system before they are killed. The animals are then killed by automated knife cut to the throat and subsequent bleeding.

The fact one has been killed by shooters for sport and one hasn’t is completely irrelevant to me. They both end up in the food chain. It’s the life they had before they got there that I care about.
		
Click to expand...

It is possible to think of how it lived and how it died though. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

I, personally, don't have an issue with shooting an animal as a way to kill it for human consumption. I'd prefer shooting over other methods in most cases.

I've eaten meat on and off over the years, and when we do eat meat in our house, it's from 2 local organic farms. I can literally go there and see how they live, and how they're slaughtered, plus ask any other questions about the meat. This, to me, is acceptable and a decent alternative to wild game. I've accepted deer meat from a hunter before and would've accepted boar meat from the hunting done near the yard, if I ate that type of meat.

My personal issue is killing for nothing and killing just for killings sake and taking joy in it. Fortunately that's not super common, but does exist. There are people in this world who are on a huge power trip when it comes to hunting. I get it, it feeds your inner predator, but some take it too far. Many/most don't, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about those that do and how we feel about it.


Regardless of how one may feel about fox hunting, it is illegal. Why this still fails to be accepted is the head scratcher, and no one has really entertained my questions in a previous post or the view point of how much the public should have to put up with, it's possible I missed it though. I also don't care what xyz is doing, what the cats are eating, or whatever else (I mean, I do, but not in this context). What someone else is doing doesn't justify, excuse, or necessarily explain what you're doing.


----------



## palo1 (30 December 2021)

CanteringCarrot said:



			It is possible to think of how it lived and how it died though. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

I, personally, don't have an issue with shooting an animal as a way to kill it for human consumption. I'd prefer shooting over other methods in most cases.

I've eaten meat on and off over the years, and when we do eat meat in our house, it's from 2 local organic farms. I can literally go there and see how they live, and how they're slaughtered, plus ask any other questions about the meat. This, to me, is acceptable and a decent alternative to wild game. I've accepted deer meat from a hunter before and would've accepted boar meat from the hunting done near the yard, if I ate that type of meat.

My personal issue is killing for nothing and killing just for killings sake and taking joy in it. Fortunately that's not super common, but does exist. There are people in this world who are on a huge power trip when it comes to hunting. I get it, it feeds your inner predator, but some take it too far. Many/most don't, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about those that do and how we feel about it.


Regardless of how one may feel about fox hunting, it is illegal. Why this still fails to be accepted is the head scratcher, and no one has really entertained my questions in a previous post or the view point of how much the public should have to put up with, it's possible I missed it though. I also don't care what xyz is doing, what the cats are eating, or whatever else (I mean, I do, but not in this context). What someone else is doing doesn't justify, excuse, or necessarily explain what you're doing.
		
Click to expand...

I have tried to provide some context in the previous post.


----------



## CanteringCarrot (30 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			I have tried to provide some context in the previous post.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, and quite frankly I have no response to that at the moment and may have to do further research.

Edit: I do appreciate your explanation and the context though.


----------



## Koweyka (30 December 2021)

Warwickshire hunt have just killed again at a children’s meet.


----------



## Dizzy socks (30 December 2021)

To be honest, on the shoots I have attended, I haven’t seen anything that I would consider respectful, or even a recognition that these animals are sentient. This is on grouse, pheasant and duck shoots. 

Palo, you say that the pack you follow can distinguish live fox from dead fox - does that not then make it even harder to argue that foxes killed by ‘trail’ hunts are accidental?


----------



## Tiddlypom (30 December 2021)

The community that apparently feels so betrayed by the Hunting Act can hardly have been taken by surprise by it. It actually allows them much more freedom to continue riding out with hounds than they might have feared. This still isn't enough for many, though, so in their petulant strop and blatant ignoring of the law they are going to bring about a complete, total and permanent stoppage.

Everyone knew that hunting would get banned eventually even when I had my first day out with a foxhound pack nearly 50 years ago. There's been plenty of time to get used to the idea. The ban came in far later than I was expecting it to.


----------



## Sandstone1 (30 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Warwickshire hunt have just killed again at a children’s meet.
		
Click to expand...

I have had to come back to this thread to ask the pro hunters here particularly Palo1 what they think about this?  The warwickshire have killed 2 foxes and a deer in the last few days.  What do you think is going on.  Are they trail hunting?  How does this make you feel?  A fox killed in front of children... I will be very interested to see any replies.   I dont expect to get any sensible replies by the way.  Would just like to know how you can justify... I am guessing its yet another accident.  About time the warwickshire got themselves under control dont you think.......


----------



## palo1 (30 December 2021)

CanteringCarrot said:



			Yes, and quite frankly I have no response to that at the moment and may have to do further research.

Edit: I do appreciate your explanation and the context though.
		
Click to expand...

Please do research the context of the Act.

The following are interesting.

The Parliament Act: (from the Independent Newspaper):

*THE PARLIAMENT ACT AT WORK*

The Parliament Act was first passed in 1911 to ensure governments could set a budget, after peers rejected the 1909 Finance Bill, David Lloyd George's so-called people's budget, which provided pensions and health insurance for the poor.

The 1911 Act was used just three times, twice over the Government of Ireland Act, then for the Welsh Church Act of 1914. It was used once more in 1949 to bring in the current Parliament Act after the Lords rejected plans to nationalise the steel industry.

Since then, it has only been used three times: for the War Crimes Act 1991 allowing Nazis accused of murder to be prosecuted; the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999, bringing in a list system for candidates; and the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 which set the age of consent for homosexual acts at 16.

The Act states that a Bill thrown out by peers can be forced through a year and a day after being reintroduced into the Commons. The process which led to passage yesterday started a year ago. (referring to the Hunting Act which had been rejected by the Lords during the normal democratic process).

This is also clear and helpful: https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/parliamentacts/

*What Daniel Greenberg has had to say about the Hunting Act *( cropped but available in full from Daniel Greenberg's website):-

I was the drafter not only of the Hunting Act 2004 but of all the Government Bills that preceded it over a period of some years, and I well remember being struck by the fact that of all the legislation in which I had been involved since joining the Parliamentary Counsel Office, including Bills on matters medical, constitutional, social, fiscal and criminal, the first project in relation to which I felt seriously troubled from a moral perspective was over such an outwardly trivial matter in some respects as hunting.

From its earliest antecedents it was always clear that the Hunting Bill was not a measure aimed at advancing the public policy of animal welfare; at its best it was about morality (and of course to some it was not even that, but simply a piece of thinly disguised class warfare).  The clearest proof that this was never a measure aimed at improving animal welfare is that nothing in the construction of the legislation tends towards its effective enforceability as a matter of animal welfare.

Instead of an effective measure, therefore, the Act and the Bills for it were largely an exercise in what it has now become fashionable to describe as “virtue signalling” by persons who happened to draw their line in the sand of morality in one place in connection with animals, and many of whom would doubtless be incensed if a fortuitous majority of vegetarians in the House of Commons on another occasion sought to outlaw all those whose personal line in the sand stopped short of refraining from eating meat.

An exercise in intolerance, at a time when diversity and cultural sensitivity are meant to be more socially cherished and legally protected than at any other time in the history of the United Kingdom, indeed possibly in the history of the world.   But diversity is a difficult ideal, that requires to be nurtured with great care.

I note in passing that it is interesting that it was on this moral or ethical issue of hunting that the House of Commons chose to dispense with the House of Lords and pass the Hunting Act 2004 under the Parliament Act 1911.      Being still not entirely composed of career politicians, the House of Lords is arguably more able than the House of Commons to reflect the diversity of the country.  Arguably, it is precisely on a measure such as the Hunting Act that the relative diversity of ethical approaches found in the Lords might have been helpful; and it is revealing that the measure could be passed only by dispensing with their counsel.

So how does this age of unparalleled wealth of equality law come to be known also as a social media age in which bullying, harassment and other forms and expressions of intolerance have flourished as never before? Of course, the availability and anonymity of technology has something to do with this, but I think there is a more fundamental and troubling connection.

The law of hunting is in my opinion a significant example of an issue where an ephemeral majority in the House of Commons sought to enforce and perpetuate its own opinion on a moral issue without caring whether or not the balance struck by the legislation corresponded to the consensual morality of the country as a whole.  It was an attempt by one side of a moral argument to coerce the other into submission.  On that basis it was unlikely to be a success on any level, and it has not proved so.  Sadly, it leaves unresolved some genuinely important practical issues of animal welfare, and it has widened the gulf between opposing views rather than creating a mechanism for them to explore and refine common ground.


Tony Blair's view (from the Farmer's Weekly September 2010 but available in his memoir and other places)

*Former Prime Minister Tony Blair said introducing legislation to ban fox hunting was one of the measures he most regrets from his time in power.*


In his memoir, _A Journey_, Mr Blair said he deliberately sabotaged the 2004 Hunting Act to ensure there were enough loopholes to allow hunting to continue.
Describing the act as a “masterly British compromise”, Mr Blair said it left people able to hunt foxes “provided certain steps were taken to avoid cruelty when the fox was killed.
He also told then-Home Office minister Hazel Blears to steer police away from enforcing the law.
In the book, published on Wednesday (1 September), Mr Blair said he had not realised how passionate the hunting community was about the ban, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of hunt supporters marching through London in 2002.

Mr Blair said he also had a bet with Prince Charles that fox hunting would continue,  “He thought the ban was absurd and raised the issue with me in a slightly pained way''
“The wager was that after I left office, people would still be hunting.”
The former Prime Minister said he initially agreed to a ban without properly understanding the issue.

Prime Minister David Cameron has described the law as a “farce” and said MPs would have the chance to vote on a parliamentary motion later in the year on whether to hold a free vote on the ban.


*The Burns Enquiry, *as the key 'scientific' evidence used was unable to make useful conclusions either to support or reject Hunting with Hounds.  On the one hand Burns reported to the chamber ''“Naturally, people ask whether we were simply implying that hunting is cruel but in true Sir Humphrey style were not prepared to say so clearly. The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty.” On the other also saying that the use of shotguns, particularly in daylight 'is preferable to hunting from a welfare perspective' at the same time as recognising that (in the event of a ban on hunting with hounds)
'...it is possible that the welfare of foxes in upland areas could be affected adversely, unless dogs could be used, at least to flush foxes from cover'.

The most recent Bonomy Review has been equally equivocal about the issue but recognised that both pest control and animal welfare could be adversely affected by a reduction on the number of hounds used for fox pest control.


These things do not justify breaking the law but they certainly help to explain the position that we are in now.  Probably the greatest anger of hunting people is toward Tony Blair.  You can see why when you read what he admits about it...


----------



## palo1 (30 December 2021)

Dizzy socks said:



			To be honest, on the shoots I have attended, I haven’t seen anything that I would consider respectful, or even a recognition that these animals are sentient. This is on grouse, pheasant and duck shoots.

Palo, you say that the pack you follow can distinguish live fox from dead fox - does that not then make it even harder to argue that foxes killed by ‘trail’ hunts are accidental?
		
Click to expand...

I never said it didn't!


----------



## Upthecreek (30 December 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			I partly agree with this (I don't eat meat myself for the above reasons), however the commercialisation of shooting is very damaging for wildlife and nature.

It's not just the animals that are shot to eat which suffer. A large percentage of birds released onto estates are intensively farmed in Europe and shipped over here, so they don't lead a very nice life before they're killed in the open. Birds of prey are also illegally killed to reduce predation, as are ground mammals using snares etc. Moorlands are burned for grouse shooting, which releases carbon and kills biodiversity.

So shooting is arguably rather damaging for wildlife, at least in this day an age of human overpopulation and the 6th mass extinction. Maybe a few hundred years ago it wasn't so bad.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with much of what you say. However I would say that there is a lot of conservation work and habitat management done for shooting that is also beneficial to other wildlife and would not take place otherwise. There does need to be legal control of ground mammals so that other wildlife can flourish.


----------



## palo1 (30 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			I have had to come back to this thread to ask the pro hunters here particularly Palo1 what they think about this?  The warwickshire have killed 2 foxes and a deer in the last few days.  What do you think is going on.  Are they trail hunting?  How does this make you feel?  A fox killed in front of children... I will be very interested to see any replies.   I dont expect to get any sensible replies by the way.  Would just like to know how you can justify... I am guessing its yet another accident.  About time the warwickshire got themselves under control dont you think.......
		
Click to expand...

I have never excused bad behaviour or deliberate breaking of the law.  Where offences have been committed then arrests and prosecution should follow.  I have never hunted with the Warwickshire but they certainly have an appalling reputation; they absolutely need to deal with this, with the involvement of the police if that is appropriate. 

I think you want me to condone this behaviour tbh but that is not where I am at.


----------



## Sandstone1 (30 December 2021)

Palo1, instead of googling and copy and pasting endless reports which any of us can do by the way, why do you not just answer direct real life questions?  See my questions regarding the Warwickshire hunts activities.  Whats your opinion on what they get up to?  Killing a fox right in front of children.  How does that make you feel?


----------



## Sandstone1 (30 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			I have never excused bad behaviour or deliberate breaking of the law.  Where offences have been committed then arrests and prosecution should follow.  I have never hunted with the Warwickshire but they certainly have an appalling reputation; they absolutely need to deal with this, with the involvement of the police if that is appropriate.

I think you want me to condone this behaviour tbh but that is not where I am at.
		
Click to expand...

But how does it really make you feel?  Happy, sad, angry, pleased?   They are clearly not trail hunting are they?


----------



## palo1 (30 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			Palo1, instead of googling and copy and pasting endless reports which any of us can do by the way, why do you not just answer direct real life questions?  See my questions regarding the Warwickshire hunts activities.  Whats your opinion on what they get up to?  Killing a fox right in front of children.  How does that make you feel?
		
Click to expand...

I have just answered you.  I have used documents from other sources exactly because they are not personal to me and my view.  The are evidence that my view is not entirely singular.  That is kind of a normal practice in discussion and debate.


----------



## ycbm (30 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			I have never excused bad behaviour or deliberate breaking of the law. Where offences have been committed then arrests and prosecution should follow. I have never hunted with the Warwickshire but they certainly have an appalling reputation; *they* absolutely need to deal with this, with the involvement of the police if that is appropriate.
		
Click to expand...


If trail hunting wants to survive,  it is trail hunting that has to deal with this.  The future of trail hunting depends on distancing itself from this activity,  but I'm guessing that your master and theirs probably still belong to the same organisation, the organisation that still insists that the conviction following the webinars is unjustified. 
.


----------



## palo1 (30 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			But how does it really make you feel?  Happy, sad, angry, pleased?   They are clearly not trail hunting are they?
		
Click to expand...

I am hugely frustrated that hunting is being brought into disrepute but I haven't seen the detail of what is claimed so I can't possibly express specific emotions.  I am frustrated too that I feel frequently and pointedly held responsible, by some posters on here, for every problem in hunting.  It doesn't really make me inclined to sympathy to those posters more generally.


----------



## Sandstone1 (30 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			I have just answered you.  I have used documents from other sources exactly because they are not personal to me and my view.  The are evidence that my view is not entirely singular.  That is kind of a normal practice in discussion and debate.
		
Click to expand...

Yes but they are not your actual thoughts and feelings are they?  They are someone elses.  Why not give a opinion of your own for once?  Not someone elses.


----------



## Koweyka (30 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			I have had to come back to this thread to ask the pro hunters here particularly Palo1 what they think about this?  The warwickshire have killed 2 foxes and a deer in the last few days.  What do you think is going on.  Are they trail hunting?  How does this make you feel?  A fox killed in front of children... I will be very interested to see any replies.   I dont expect to get any sensible replies by the way.  Would just like to know how you can justify... I am guessing its yet another accident.  About time the warwickshire got themselves under control dont you think.......
		
Click to expand...

I can’t understand how this pack is allowed to leave the kennels, why aren’t the MFHA stepping in now and holding an enquiry.
I am an adult and I am left shaken and upset every time a kill happens, there is a child watching in that photo, it’s disgusting


----------



## Dizzy socks (30 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			I never said it didn't!
		
Click to expand...

That’s fair - sorry if I’m putting words in your mouth. I’m aware that you don’t represent all pro hunt people, so perhaps I should’ve directed that more generally. 

It just seems that there’s even less credit to be given to hunts who argue that they couldn’t stop hounds killing a fox, that instead they must’ve actively trained and encouraged them to.


----------



## minesadouble (30 December 2021)

The Blair stuff is interesting and something I had never read before. 
It backs up a story I heard from a member of hunt staff who hunted TBs constituency at the time of the ban who reckoned that Blair himself told him that the ban happened as a 'tit for tat' move to appease the far left in retaliation for the coal miners experience under Thatcher.


----------



## Sandstone1 (30 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			I am hugely frustrated that hunting is being brought into disrepute but I haven't seen the detail of what is claimed so I can't possibly express specific emotions.  I am frustrated too that I feel frequently and pointedly held responsible, by some posters on here, for every problem in hunting.  It doesn't really make me inclined to sympathy to those posters more generally.
		
Click to expand...

I am not asking for your sympathy.  I do not want it any more than I want any more of your copy and pasting.  I was simply asking for your feelings on the matter of the Warwickshire hunt killing for the third time in a week.  Does it upset you, or does it make you happy?   Guess I wont get my answers as I knew I would not


----------



## Sandstone1 (30 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			I can’t understand how this pack is allowed to leave the kennels, why aren’t the MFHA stepping in now and holding an enquiry.
I am an adult and I am left shaken and upset every time a kill happens, there is a child watching in that photo, it’s disgusting
		
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you but they seem to be a law un to themselves.


----------



## ycbm (30 December 2021)

Of course the ban was political and brought in as a vote grabber.

But it worked as a vote grabber because the majority of people in the UK are against the idea of using the killing of animals to create entertainment. 
.


----------



## palo1 (30 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			Yes but they are not your actual thoughts and feelings are they?  They are someone elses.  Why not give a opinion of your own for once?  Not someone elses.
		
Click to expand...

I have made my own thoughts so clear so many times on this and other threads about hunting @Sandstone.  Your pointed insistence on my 'personal' response to something that I have not seen is...intrusive and somehow aggressive.


----------



## Sandstone1 (30 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			I have made my own thoughts so clear so many times on this and other threads about hunting @Sandstone.  Your pointed insistence on my 'personal' response to something that I have not seen is...intrusive and somehow aggressive.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe not so aggressive as the fox found the hounds today.....intrusive?   I am merely trying to find out how the natural conclusion of the sport you are supporting makes you feel.   Never a straight answer.   I did not expect one to be honest.


----------



## Tiddlypom (30 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			Of course the ban was political and brought in as a vote grabber.

But it worked as a vote grabber because the majority of people in the UK are against the idea of using the killing of animals to create entertainment.
.
		
Click to expand...

This with bells and whistles on.

It's long been recognised that the ban was a Tony Blair vote grabber. I'm surprised that it's still news to anyone.


----------



## ycbm (30 December 2021)

Tony Blair changed his mind about fox hunting when he started up his Consultancy and started mixing with the kind of people who pay upwards of £1000 a day to blast birds out of the sky half dead and needed to butter them up to get work out of them.

Tony Blair's greatest skill (I mean this,  it is a huge social and business skill and it was instrumental in producing the Good Friday Agreement and peace in NI)  is to leave everyone he speaks with believing that he has agreed that they should have what they want.
.


----------



## palo1 (30 December 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			This with bells and whistles on.

It's long been recognised that the ban was a Tony Blair vote grabber. I'm surprised that it's still news to anyone.
		
Click to expand...

As we know though, just because something is popular does not mean it has any integrity.


----------



## Sandstone1 (30 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			As we know though, just because something is popular does not mean it has any integrity.
		
Click to expand...

For someone Pro hunting talking about integrity is pretty rich.


----------



## Koweyka (30 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			As we know though, just because something is popular does not mean it has any integrity.
		
Click to expand...

Well for something you claim is hugely popular (hunting) and given the head of the governing body is now a convicted criminal, the integrity level in hunting is as low as it can possibly get …


----------



## C'est Moi Again (30 December 2021)

I came here because we are having a spot of bother with fox hunts in the US - not because of fox, we don't bother those - rather with the horse welfare activists. After slogging around here for a bit trying to get some perspective and enjoying the amazing level of civility between people who disagree online, I see your situation is much worse than ours, and that the few (or not so few depending on whom you ask) bad apples are likely going to spoil the lot for everyone. I do have to say that I find the arguments of "Do you eat meat?", "It's a humane death!", "Tony Blair!" and "People shoot things!" odd, but I am not in the UK, so some of the nuance is lost on me. Just keep in mind that there isn't all that much nuance required when the antis can show a video of terriermen (ghastly!) stabbing foxes with pitchforks, yet I cannot easily find videos of legal hunts proudly showing what they do and how. If I ran a legal hunt in the UK, I'd film the thing myself, just to get ahead of it. Go pros are cheap.


----------



## palo1 (30 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Well for something you claim is hugely popular (hunting) and given the head of the governing body is now a convicted criminal, the integrity level in hunting is as low as it can possibly get …
		
Click to expand...

I have never claimed hunting is hugely popular in terms of numbers at all.  I get the point about MH and I understand your sense of irony about integrity.  The people I know involved in hunting do have integrity however so I speak as I find.


----------



## palo1 (30 December 2021)

C'est Moi Again said:



			I came here because we are having a spot of bother with fox hunts in the US - not because of fox, we don't bother those - rather with the horse welfare activists. After slogging around here for a bit trying to get some perspective and enjoying the amazing level of civility between people who disagree online, I see your situation is much worse than ours, and that the few (or not so few depending on whom you ask) bad apples are likely going to spoil the lot for everyone. I do have to say that I find the arguments of "Do you eat meat?", "It's a humane death!", "Tony Blair!" and "People shoot things!" odd, but I am not in the UK, so some of the nuance is lost on me. Just keep in mind that there isn't all that much nuance required when the antis can show a video of terriermen (ghastly!) stabbing foxes with pitchforks, yet I cannot easily find videos of legal hunts proudly showing what they do and how. If I ran a legal hunt in the UK, I'd film the thing myself, just to get ahead of it. Go pros are cheap.
		
Click to expand...

Those videos are posted by law abiding hunts but tend to get buried or ridiculed by sabs.  There are very gradually increasing numbers of sab groups that accept hunts are trail hunting and even though videos of trail laying and trail hunting are questioned, even the anti hunters are willing to agree that some hunts are most definitely hunting within the law.   One of the reasons my own hunt does not go down the go-pro route is because of genuine anxiety about being targeted by activists even when legal trail hunting is shown.  It is frustrating but I understand it.


----------



## Nancykitt (30 December 2021)

Many years ago (but post-ban) I went out a couple of times with a harrier pack whose main quarry had, in the past, been the brown hare. 
There's no way I would have hunted with them pre-ban because although there may have been a 'problem' with hares in the dim and distant past it was very rare to see one at all. Actually, the locals said that even though the hunt in question went out twice a week 'nothing had been killed for years'  Foxes were never really mentioned.

The hunt was very, very careful about 'hunting within the law' and it was mentioned by the master at the start of the meet. One day on the moor a hare did appear and the hounds were after it. I have to say that the huntsman was off his horse and, together with the whips, they managed to get the hounds off the scent - but the hare was, fortunately, blindingly fast and had disappeared. On one hand it was interesting to see, on the other hand it made me feel uneasy. Hence I preferred clean boot hunting and occasionally drag hunting (although I wasn't a good enough rider for drag hunting really).

Although I never saw or heard anything to make me think that the harrier pack was hunting illegally, the majority believed with a passion that the ban should be overturned and they talked about it constantly. They worked with an organisation called 'Vote OK' which, I think was about supporting particular parliamentary candidates who would campaign in favour of overturning the ban. (Apparently Liz Truss was one of them  - I wonder if she's changed her mind, as she has on several other issues?) Trail hunting was seen as fine, but strictly temporary until the ban was lifted. 

Personally I think this sort of campaigning to overturn the ban is, at best, a waste of time and, at worse, very damaging to all types of legal hunting. Like several others on here, I have seen an increase in anti-hunting views amongst the general public. The Tories have been in power for a long time; if the ban was going to be lifted, something would have happened by now, surely?


----------



## palo1 (30 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Well for something you claim is hugely popular (hunting) and given the head of the governing body is now a convicted criminal, the integrity level in hunting is as low as it can possibly get …
		
Click to expand...

How do you explain the crowds of supporters on the Boxing Day meets @Kowyka?  Do you know why people turn out to support or see the hunt on that occasion?


----------



## Tiddlypom (30 December 2021)

*coughs*

And the only reason that certain hunts are now trail hunting, and the antis concur with this, is because of the previous actions of the antis in catching them out repeatedly when they were deliberately hunting illegally.

It is possible that some foxhound packs have genuinely tried to hunt legally all the time since the Hunting Act 2004 was passed. It's just that I don't know of any.


----------



## TGM (30 December 2021)

C'est Moi Again said:



			Yet I cannot easily find videos of legal hunts proudly showing what they do and how. If I ran a legal hunt in the UK, I'd film the thing myself, just to get ahead of it. Go pros are cheap.
		
Click to expand...

Do you mean legal 'trail hunts' specifically, or do you mean other types of legal hunting such as drag hunting and bloodhounding?  The Coakham Bloodhounds regularly post GoPro videos of their hunts in their public Facebook group.  They also often have drone footage of their hunts on there also.


----------



## palo1 (30 December 2021)

Nancykitt said:



			Many years ago (but post-ban) I went out a couple of times with a harrier pack whose main quarry had, in the past, been the brown hare.
There's no way I would have hunted with them pre-ban because although there may have been a 'problem' with hares in the dim and distant past it was very rare to see one at all. Actually, the locals said that even though the hunt in question went out twice a week 'nothing had been killed for years'  Foxes were never really mentioned.

The hunt was very, very careful about 'hunting within the law' and it was mentioned by the master at the start of the meet. One day on the moor a hare did appear and the hounds were after it. I have to say that the huntsman was off his horse and, together with the whips, they managed to get the hounds off the scent - but the hare was, fortunately, blindingly fast and had disappeared. On one hand it was interesting to see, on the other hand it made me feel uneasy. Hence I preferred clean boot hunting and occasionally drag hunting (although I wasn't a good enough rider for drag hunting really).

Although I never saw or heard anything to make me think that the harrier pack was hunting illegally, the majority believed with a passion that the ban should be overturned and they talked about it constantly. They worked with an organisation called 'Vote OK' which, I think was about supporting particular parliamentary candidates who would campaign in favour of overturning the ban. (Apparently Liz Truss was one of them  - I wonder if she's changed her mind, as she has on several other issues?) Trail hunting was seen as fine, but strictly temporary until the ban was lifted.

Personally I think this sort of campaigning to overturn the ban is, at best, a waste of time and, at worse, very damaging to all types of legal hunting. Like several others on here, I have seen an increase in anti-hunting views amongst the general public. The Tories have been in power for a long time; if the ban was going to be lifted, something would have happened by now, surely?
		
Click to expand...

I think you are right; I would sincerely hope no government would waste time trying to repeal the Ban;  Teresa May sort of wanted to but other things got in the way.  There is real conviction amongst hunting people that the Hunting Act is both unfair and detrimental and I do think some find it hard or even impossible to move beyond that.  It also sets a precedent for other acts which might cause further division and might be equally contested. I wish the MFHA would just sort out their governance and discipline so that hunts that are doing their level best could just get on with trail hunting.  I hope that things really do improve soon; I just want to go out with friends on my horse and watch hounds working a scent (I don't care what it is).  I would say that if anyone thinks that hunting (or shooting) are the most significant things our democracy has to deal with, then we are in a very fortunate position.  That isn't the case of course.


----------



## Koweyka (30 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			How do you explain the crowds of supporters on the Boxing Day meets @Kowyka?  Do you know why people turn out to support or see the hunt on that occasion?
		
Click to expand...

Well I support a football team, they get very low crowds all season, but come Boxing Day the world and his wife want to go to a football match, never see them for the rest of the year, but they think they should go just because it’s a Boxing Day thing, look at horse racing, low crowds all year, come Boxing Day loads of people go. You never see these people for the rest of the year, if they truly truly gave a **** they would be there week in week out, day in, day out supporting the hunts, the facts are they aren’t, a few years ago there were never any anti demonstrations against hunts on Boxing Day now many demonstrations happened, how do you explain that ?


----------



## Koweyka (30 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Those videos are posted by law abiding hunts but tend to get buried or ridiculed by sabs.  There are very gradually increasing numbers of sab groups that accept hunts are trail hunting and even though videos of trail laying and trail hunting are questioned, even the anti hunters are willing to agree that some hunts are most definitely hunting within the law.   One of the reasons my own hunt does not go down the go-pro route is because of genuine anxiety about being targeted by activists even when legal trail hunting is shown.  It is frustrating but I understand it.
		
Click to expand...

That makes zero sense, you don’t film your trails because you think you will be targeted, yet by filming the trails you have the undeniable proof you are acting legally. I am genuinely confused.


----------



## palo1 (30 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			That makes zero sense, you don’t film your trails because you think you will be targeted, yet by filming the trails you have the undeniable proof you are acting legally. I am genuinely confused.
		
Click to expand...

Well there is zero trust of those people who are the self appointed 'monitors' of hunting and just about everyone I know has had a poor experience with antis/sabs.  I had the vile experience of sabs outnumbering hunters (and residents in fact) in a small village.  I was on foot with one of my children and had my dog with me.  18 masked and be-camera'd sabs swaggered through this tiny village where the hunt had been invited.  The sabs had come from big cities up to 100 miles away.  Not a single local person had expressed any dismay at the hunt being there.  When I asked 2 men (masked and dressed in paramiilitary black outfits) not to film my child, they told me they were filming my vehicle so that they would know who I was....

How frightening do you think that experience was? It was very, very unsettling, particularly because those people, somewhere have images of my child.  I would not willingly allow that again as I neither know what would happen to those images, who would store them or share them and where they would end up.  That really doesn't feel safe to me.   It is frustrating that the thing that might make things safer, is not in fact in itself, safe.

ETA - in case anyone is wondering why so many antis turned up to a legal trail hunt meeting, I believe it was because they had sabbed another hunt in the vicinity without luck and were just 'convenient' to our meet.  I have met monitors who have been unmasked and perfectly pleasant but our hunt hasn't had monitors or sabs (other than this incident) for as long as I can remember.


----------



## C'est Moi Again (30 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Those videos are posted by law abiding hunts but tend to get buried or ridiculed by sabs.  There are very gradually increasing numbers of sab groups that accept hunts are trail hunting and even though videos of trail laying and trail hunting are questioned, even the anti hunters are willing to agree that some hunts are most definitely hunting within the law.   One of the reasons my own hunt does not go down the go-pro route is because of genuine anxiety about being targeted by activists even when legal trail hunting is shown.  It is frustrating but I understand it.
		
Click to expand...

I say this knowing that given human nature it is probably unlikely, but couldn't fair-minded hunts and fair-minded sabs (or antis or welfare activists) come together to certify legal hunts as cruelty free somehow? Some of our anti-hunting horse welfare activists are blue haired maniacs who jump out in front of riders looking for video footage. But some are actually concerned citizens who can be reasoned with, and we can share common ground (for us this common ground is "not wanting to hurt horses", I understand for you in the UK its more complex on all fronts). I will just say that one of the crazier activists we had has become friendlier toward us and actually keeps some of her colleagues away - they are still concerning to me but lately they spectate respectfully, as would anyone else.


----------



## Nancykitt (30 December 2021)

I have to say that there have been antis at the Boxing Day meet closest to where I lived for over 20 years. Lots of people  (including me) didn't want to go on the meet because there was always a bit of argy bargy, although it was rare for violence to break out. Apparently,  these days there are now fewer members of the public out to see the pre-meet hound parade; not sure if it's because they are strongly anti-hunting or they just don't want to risk being caught in the middle of a row.
We once had 'hunt monitors' out with us and I have to say that they were very civil, no screaming and shouting and most of the time they were just hanging about and watching. They were not masked and clearly not out to cause trouble, but they were definitely an organised group. It didn't really bother me, the hunt had always invited people to come along and see for themselves and that seemed to be what was happening. There was nothing to hide.
(ETA - I do accept that some sabs have been very badly behaved indeed and I would never condone intimidation or any sort of violence on either side.)

It's extremely important that the MFHA and others get their act together now if hunting is to survive at all. They must be very outspoken about illegal hunting and where hunts have broken the law there should be serious (and public) consequences for all concerned. I don't know if illegal hunting has become more common over the last few years but that's how it's coming over to me - and so it's reasonable to say that this is how many of the general public will see it too.


----------



## C'est Moi Again (30 December 2021)

TGM said:



			Do you mean legal 'trail hunts' specifically, or do you mean other types of legal hunting such as drag hunting and bloodhounding?  The Coakham Bloodhounds regularly post GoPro videos of their hunts in their public Facebook group.  They also often have drone footage of their hunts on there also.
		
Click to expand...

I just meant if I were running any type of legal hunt right now, I would go pro it. The general public likely can't tell one from another and just see dogs and horses. I will look up some of these videos now that I have the name of a specific Facebook group. Thank you so much!


----------



## Koweyka (30 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Well there is zero trust of those people who are the self appointed 'monitors' of hunting and just about everyone I know has had a poor experience with antis/sabs.  I had the vile experience of sabs outnumbering hunters (and residents in fact) in a small village.  I was on foot with one of my children and had my dog with me.  18 masked and be-camera'd sabs swaggered through this tiny village where the hunt had been invited.  The sabs had come from big cities up to 100 miles away.  Not a single local person had expressed any dismay at the hunt being there.  When I asked 2 men (masked and dressed in paramiilitary black outfits) not to film my child, they told me they were filming my vehicle so that they would know who I was....

How frightening do you think that experience was? It was very, very unsettling, particularly because those people, somewhere have images of my child.  I would not willingly allow that again as I neither know what would happen to those images, who would store them or share them and where they would end up.  That really doesn't feel safe to me.   It is frustrating that the thing that might make things safer, is not in fact in itself, safe.
		
Click to expand...

That’s not answering my question, how does filming your trails make you believe it will attract the anti’s ?


----------



## palo1 (30 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			That’s not answering my question, how does filming your trails make you believe it will attract the anti’s ?
		
Click to expand...

Publishing/releasing the films is what both publicly demonstrates that trail hunting is taking place and puts us at risk of attack by nutters!  I wonder who else, carrying out a legal activity has to film that to prove it? In UK law there is always a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

IF, IF it felt safe and others thought likewise I would love our trails filmed and released tbh but it doesn't feel safe and I don't think anyone I know wants to be coerced into that 'defensive' position by a group of people they see as deeply antipathetic and untrustworthy.  Sabs say they want this but they have done nothing to truly encourage that and even on this forum, every time someone discusses legal hunting sabs and antis decry that experience or use it as a target for their own views, assertions and point scoring. That is my experience.


----------



## Gallop_Away (30 December 2021)

Because, speaking from my own experience, some sabs simply want to cause distress and disruption regardless of the fact a hunt is hunting within the law.


----------



## Miss_Millie (30 December 2021)

Gallop_Away said:



			Because, speaking from my own experience, some sabs simply want to cause distress and disruption regardless of the fact a hunt is hunting within the law.
		
Click to expand...

But if no illegal hunting happened then sabs would not need to exist? So people who wish to continue to trail hunt should put their efforts into rallying against those illegally fox hunting and distancing themselves from those people.


----------



## Gallop_Away (30 December 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			But if no illegal hunting happened then sabs would not need to exist? So people who wish to continue to trail hunt should put their efforts into rallying against those illegally fox hunting and distancing themselves from those people.
		
Click to expand...

My own experience is that SABS take enjoyment from terrorising hunts and whether they be hunting within the law is an insignificant detail to them. 
Monitors are a different kettle of fish and I know the pack I hunt with have invited monitors to watch the trail being laid. 
We have nothing to hide but despite our best efforts to show we are hunting legally, sabs continue to cause disruption and harassment. 
I can completely understand why other hunts don't wish to make the lives of these thugs any easier.


----------



## palo1 (30 December 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			But if no illegal hunting happened then sabs would not need to exist? So people who wish to continue to trail hunt should put their efforts into rallying against those illegally fox hunting and distancing themselves from those people.
		
Click to expand...

When I go to the pub I don't drink alcohol.  I don't have to take a test to drive home as the law requires me to stay within the legal alcohol limit.  I am a law abiding person so that is what I do.  I am not required to provide a breath test to persuade people that all pub-goers are under the limit or to identify how many people are not abiding by the law.   Those people who are abiding by the law just can't be held responsible for those that don't.  There IS condemnation and fury in hunting groups about those hunts that are causing problems and I very much hope new, effective governance is brought in asap.


----------



## palo1 (30 December 2021)

Before I give up on this discussion entirely (again!) please, please can someone explain to me why a truly minority activity around animal welfare, which is important to me, commands so much attention when there are massively significant animal welfare issues that need all the manpower they can get.   I mean the scale of some welfare issues totally dwarf any amount of illegal  hunting yet there are clearly people who have dedicated their lives to anti-hunting activities.  Why do the animal welfare issues around hunting prove such a potent driving force for some people?  The animal welfare issue is clear to me but there seem so many more significant welfare problems to address.  Anti hunter and pro hunters agree that hunting is a minority activity too.   I am asking this question absolutely sincerely and because no-one from an anti-hunting perspective has ever managed to answer that question.


----------



## stangs (30 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Before I give up on this discussion entirely (again!) please, please can someone explain to me why a truly minority activity around animal welfare, which is important to me, commands so much attention when there are massively significant animal welfare issues that need all the manpower they can get.   I mean the scale of some welfare issues totally dwarf any amount of illegal  hunting yet there are clearly people who have dedicated their lives to anti-hunting activities.  Why do the animal welfare issues around hunting prove such a potent driving force for some people?  The animal welfare issue is clear to me but there seem so many more significant welfare problems to address.  Anti hunter and pro hunters agree that hunting is a minority activity too.   I am asking this question absolutely sincerely and because no-one from an anti-hunting perspective has ever managed to answer that question.
		
Click to expand...

This won’t be a satisfying answer but because it’s public and easy to target. There might be thousands of sickos in this country torturing foxes, hares, deers in the privacy of their bedrooms - but how would your average Joe know about them? In contrast, hunting remains in the public eye (a bunch of people galloping around, and a pack of barking dogs, isn’t exactly subtle). If you feel like injustice is being done to wildlife, then hunts are the people you will target.


----------



## milliepops (30 December 2021)

i find that an interesting question too palo. the people that break into intensive farming units to "liberate" livestock get branded loonies (i am not in agreement with that as a plan of action but the methods and passion/attitude re animal welfare is similar to hunt sabs, or so it seems to an outsider). Personally it seems like an easy target , compared to the many tricky facets to e.g. ethical meat production.


----------



## limestonelil (30 December 2021)

If it wasn't for the very basic fact that fox hunting, harrier packs, game shoots etc involve death/murder of animals for human entertainment, I would be able to say I enjoy reading this thread for all the different opinions .


----------



## ycbm (30 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Publishing/releasing the films is what both publicly demonstrates that trail hunting is taking place and puts us at risk of attack by nutters! I wonder who else, carrying out a legal activity has to film that to prove it? In UK law there is always a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
		
Click to expand...

There was a whole series of programs made about The Cheshire Drag, shown on Horse and Country TV I believe.

Nobody got attacked or threatened because of it.  What an odd excuse to use.

There are many motorists driving around with black boxes in their cars to prove that they are driving within the law.  I believe there is a plan to make them a requirement for all new cars.  Football stadia of all sizes now have CCTV to stop crowd violence, now being used against racism (and smokers)  too. Ditto nightclubs and drug dealing.   It's pretty normal in activities where the law is routinely being broken to prove that you aren't breaking it.
.


----------



## Sandstone1 (30 December 2021)

we all know there are countless animal rights issues.  Hunting apart from being illegal, causes a lot of disruption, its a "sport"so done for the plain enjoyment of killing something for fun.  Its not even done for food.   Its done in the public eye.  It impacts other people, causes distress to other animals, damages land, causes traffic chaos etc etc.
Also you have to start somewhere,  Factory farming, puppy farms, animal experiments etc etc are all welfare issues which people campaign and protest about.  It really is not just hunting and saying what about this and what about that does not justify illegal hunting.  Its just another form of animal abuse.  Its like saying its ok to drink and drive because someone else takes drugs.


----------



## ycbm (30 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Well I support a football team, they get very low crowds all season, but come Boxing Day the world and his wife want to go to a football match, never see them for the rest of the year, but they think they should go just because it’s a Boxing Day thing, look at horse racing, low crowds all year, come Boxing Day loads of people go. You never see these people for the rest of the year, if they truly truly gave a **** they would be there week in week out, day in, day out supporting the hunts, the facts are they aren’t, a few years ago there were never any anti demonstrations against hunts on Boxing Day now many demonstrations happened, how do you explain that ?
		
Click to expand...

I was going to write about midnight mass on Christmas Eve. Half the attendees are atheists and most of the rest never go in a church any other time.
.


----------



## Miss_Millie (30 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Before I give up on this discussion entirely (again!) please, please can someone explain to me why a truly minority activity around animal welfare, which is important to me, commands so much attention when there are massively significant animal welfare issues that need all the manpower they can get.   I mean the scale of some welfare issues totally dwarf any amount of illegal  hunting yet there are clearly people who have dedicated their lives to anti-hunting activities.  Why do the animal welfare issues around hunting prove such a potent driving force for some people?  The animal welfare issue is clear to me but *there seem so many more significant welfare problems to address.*  Anti hunter and pro hunters agree that hunting is a minority activity too.   I am asking this question absolutely sincerely and because no-one from an anti-hunting perspective has ever managed to answer that question.
		
Click to expand...

Most people I personally know who are animal rights activists, are also passionate about helping other causes. They are the sort of people who want to make a positive difference in the world and are sensitive to the suffering of others. Most people focus their efforts on one issue because it is fatiguing to try and take on all of the problems of the world.

The plight of illegally hunted foxes might seem like small potatoes to you, compared to larger animal rights issues, but to some people it is extremely important and they want to make a difference in that area.

In my local area, there is a very small charity who rescue and rehabilitate wild birds. It is literally just a few people who volunteer, but they make a huge difference to the local wildlife. They have taken in several creatures that I have found over the years (not just birds) and brought them back from the brink of death. This might also seem like small potatoes to some people, but I see the work that they do as being significant.

Going back to fox hunting, if those hidden cameras had not been set up recently, that awful man would have got away with torturing that poor fox, and would probably do it again to other foxes in the future. I don't see the point of saying 'what about this issue' and 'what about that issue', because there are a lot of problems in the world and we can't all take them on at once.

I am grateful to anyone making an effort to reduce suffering and expose those who are acting cruelly and illegally.


----------



## YorksG (30 December 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			But if no illegal hunting happened then sabs would not need to exist? So people who wish to continue to trail hunt should put their efforts into rallying against those illegally fox hunting and distancing themselves from those people.
		
Click to expand...

I wish that were true, but sadly it isn't.


----------



## ycbm (30 December 2021)

milliepops said:



			i find that an interesting question too palo. the people that break into intensive farming units to "liberate" livestock get branded loonies (i am not in agreement with that as a plan of action but the methods and passion/attitude re animal welfare is similar to hunt sabs, or so it seems to an outsider). Personally it seems like an easy target , compared to the many tricky facets to e.g. ethical meat production.
		
Click to expand...


I've never met anyone who went on a tour of a chicken production unit as entertainment.  
.


----------



## Koweyka (30 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Before I give up on this discussion entirely (again!) please, please can someone explain to me why a truly minority activity around animal welfare, which is important to me, commands so much attention when there are massively significant animal welfare issues that need all the manpower they can get.   I mean the scale of some welfare issues totally dwarf any amount of illegal  hunting yet there are clearly people who have dedicated their lives to anti-hunting activities.  Why do the animal welfare issues around hunting prove such a potent driving force for some people?  The animal welfare issue is clear to me but there seem so many more significant welfare problems to address.  Anti hunter and pro hunters agree that hunting is a minority activity too.   I am asking this question absolutely sincerely and because no-one from an anti-hunting perspective has ever managed to answer that question.
		
Click to expand...

You seem to believe it’s the Sabs “job” to sort out every animal welfare issue in the country, many many of us cross over and protest for example the Beagle experiments, flights in and out of airports carrying live animals for exploitation, many Sabs are members or have crewed on the Sea Shepherd, take part in beach cleans, help out at wildlife hospitals, one of our group does regular weekly runs to a wildlife hospital on the other side of the country as it’s a specialist hospital, one has devoted herself to setting up a hedgehog hotel for hogs over winter, but that doesn’t suit the narrative about Sabs that it’s a class war. 
I think you know me well enough now to know animal welfare is the at the front of everything I do, and hand on heart I can say the same of all the people I go out with.

But hunting a small mammal with a pack of dogs to be caught and killed it’s completely abhorrent, it’s not sport, the fox isn’t a willing participant in this, it’s illegal and cruel and that’s the bottom line. It’s also visible and if we can stop you hunting and killing foxes we will, lamping is vile and disgusting and the myth that anti’s don’t confront lampers is a lie, but we cannot “patrol” every inch of the countryside 365 days a year, but we come across them all the time during the badger cull and they are confronted then.

No bird or animal should have to die to provide paying customers a bit of fun, I don’t understand the pro hunt stance on this.

I would love to have had a nice quiet family Christmas, instead I have been to four hunts in seven days and seen a hare killed. I wish hunt Sabs didn’t have to exist but until the hunt killing innocent sentient animals stops monitoring and sabbing will not stop.

I still don’t understand why you don’t film trails, not to put them online but for proof you haven’t acted illegally should it ever be necessary, to an outsider that sounds like you have something to hide, given


----------



## ycbm (30 December 2021)

FestiveG said:



			I wish that were true, but sadly it isn't.
		
Click to expand...


I think the fact that there was an absolutely minimal sabbing of bloodhounds and an even stronger case with draghounds showed that there was a point when it was true.

Now however,  with the recent convictions and videos,  it is understandable that sabs will no longer believe that those people on horseback following dogs are not also going to chase fox.

Trail hunting is on a knife edge where it still  has a chance to continue IF it distances itself a long way from illegal activities.  Sadly I think they are going to miss that chance and take drag hunting and even blood hounding down with them.


----------



## Miss_Millie (30 December 2021)

FestiveG said:



			I wish that were true, but sadly it isn't.
		
Click to expand...

How do you know that it isn't true? Illegal fox hunting has continued since the ban, every year it is in the papers that X hunt killed a fox. If there was truly reform then sabs would not exist. The past couple of years have been particularly bad for mauled livestock and cats, trespass and illegal hunting. A member on here even said a few weeks back that the hunt cut one of her fences to ride across her field which had her ponies in it. Sabs will continue to grow in numbers because people are fed up of the continuous illegal behaviour.


----------



## Koweyka (30 December 2021)

[


FestiveG said:



			I wish that were true, but sadly it isn't.
		
Click to expand...

I know of several hunts working with Sabs and monitors to illicit change and to stop killing foxes, they have minimal monitoring now and the arrangements work well for both sides.


----------



## ycbm (30 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Before I give up on this discussion entirely (again!) please, please can someone explain to me why a truly minority activity around animal welfare, which is important to me, commands so much attention when there are massively significant animal welfare issues that need all the manpower they can get.   I mean the scale of some welfare issues totally dwarf any amount of illegal  hunting yet there are clearly people who have dedicated their lives to anti-hunting activities.  Why do the animal welfare issues around hunting prove such a potent driving force for some people?  The animal welfare issue is clear to me but there seem so many more significant welfare problems to address.  Anti hunter and pro hunters agree that hunting is a minority activity too.   I am asking this question absolutely sincerely and because no-one from an anti-hunting perspective has ever managed to answer that question.
		
Click to expand...


I've answered this so many times already.

Because increasing awareness of the sentience of animals means the tide of public opinion has turned against using the killing of animals to provide human entertainment. 
.


----------



## ycbm (30 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			lamping is vile and disgusting
		
Click to expand...

Not if it's done as controlled pest reduction by people who know what they are doing.
.


----------



## ycbm (30 December 2021)

Gallop_Away said:



			Because, speaking from my own experience, some sabs simply want to cause distress and disruption regardless of the fact a hunt is hunting within the law.
		
Click to expand...


They don't believe you.

And while people who claim to want the illegal hunting to stop also state that the webinars were taken out of context and the conviction is not safe,  and include, or hunt with, Masters belonging to the organisation headed by the convicted man, and you continue to lay the scent of an animal it is illegal for you to hunt ...

why on earth  would they ?


----------



## Fred66 (30 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			I still don’t understand why you don’t film trails, not to put them online but for proof you haven’t acted illegally should it ever be necessary, to an outsider that sounds like you have something to hide, given
		
Click to expand...

But we do! We have the evidence to show we are hunting within the law. We have to contend with sabs going on land and spraying citronella everywhere to in their words “confuse“ the hounds. This leads to hounds splitting and “hunting“ more than one line, increases the likelihood of them hunting fox not trail, of them straying and puts hounds and other road users at greater risk.
But this narrative doesn’t fit with the sabs message so is not published. Instead we get “we managed to save a fox as the hounds went the other way“. Duh!! Well as we weren’t hunting it then it’s likely to. Certainly with the hunt I follow sabs are more likely to cause a kill than prevent one.


----------



## Sandstone1 (30 December 2021)

Asking why hunting gets so much attention when there are so many other animal welfare issues is very narrow minded in my opinion.
Its a bit like the police not bothering with shop lifting because other people commit car stealing!  All different sides of the same coin.


----------



## ycbm (30 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Publishing/releasing the films is what both publicly demonstrates that trail hunting is taking place and puts us at risk of attack by nutters!
		
Click to expand...


No nutter attacks resulted from this video.  An hour of what I think was the last boxing day meet before this hunt disbanded due at least in part to difficulties of laying trails with all the new development in the area around Manchester Airport.


----------



## Velcrobum (30 December 2021)

I have not joined this thread before but I once went out with a hunt aged 12 on a very slow pony. That was the only time. Fast forwards 30 years or so I went out for a quite hack on my youngster on a local bridlepath and got sabbed. I had no idea the hunt was even around until I was surrounded by what I can only describe as an aggressive mob threatening a lone female with violence. I pointed out I was not dressed smartly and was nothing to do with hunting, was riding a 4 year old who was getting very unsettled, I was eventually allowed past. It was an utterly terrifying experience and one that nobody should have to go through. I contacted the secretary of said hunt who subsequently sent me an annual meet card so I knew if the hunt might be near.


----------



## Upthecreek (30 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Before I give up on this discussion entirely (again!) please, please can someone explain to me why a truly minority activity around animal welfare, which is important to me, commands so much attention when there are massively significant animal welfare issues that need all the manpower they can get.   I mean the scale of some welfare issues totally dwarf any amount of illegal  hunting yet there are clearly people who have dedicated their lives to anti-hunting activities.  Why do the animal welfare issues around hunting prove such a potent driving force for some people?  The animal welfare issue is clear to me but there seem so many more significant welfare problems to address.  Anti hunter and pro hunters agree that hunting is a minority activity too.   I am asking this question absolutely sincerely and because no-one from an anti-hunting perspective has ever managed to answer that question.
		
Click to expand...

Animal welfare is only part of it. I think it’s because most people cannot understand why something that was banned many years ago is still happening. Many people would be completely unaware of the different forms of hunting. It’s all hunting to them. The bad publicity of some hunts regularly breaking the law and seemingly being allowed to continue is also a factor.


----------



## Tiddlypom (30 December 2021)

I fully agree that there are pressing animal welfare issues other than just hunting which need to be addressed. Broiler chicken welfare, for one.

With fox hunting, though, it's the continual and blatant law breaking by a determined and often well connected group of individuals which grabs the attention as much as the fate of their quarry. Of course many people also feel passionately that killing foxes for entertainment is wrong.


----------



## shortstuff99 (30 December 2021)

I don't support illegal fox hunting (or killing of foxes pre ban) but I do find some of the language around it a bit uncomfortable. 

While I understand the animal rights issues, most of the language I see aimed at hunters always includes some form of 'posh', 'toff', 'lording' etc which tells me it has become about more than just animal welfare. 

There also seems to be a misnomer (which I think the sabs encourage) that hunting ie riding out hounds and horses is illegal, not only killing the fox with the hounds is illegal. This makes the public go for anyone.


----------



## Nancykitt (30 December 2021)

shortstuff99 said:



			While I understand the animal rights issues, most of the language I see aimed at hunters always includes some form of 'posh', 'toff', 'lording' etc which tells me it has become about more than just animal welfare.

There also seems to be a misnomer (which I think the sabs encourage) that hunting ie riding out hounds and horses is illegal, not only killing the fox with the hounds is illegal. This makes the public go for anyone.
		
Click to expand...

I agree completely. There is definitely the 'nasty rich toffs in red coats' narrative  from some - not from everyone, but the 'class' thing is still there. 
I remember riding through a very beautiful little village once with the bloodhounds when a man came to the front door of an enormous house and screamed 'Stop killing foxes you disgusting rich b**tards!' He was absolutely furious and I couldn't help feeling that there was a touch of irony in that I could never have afforded to live in even a tiny house in that village. Sadly, there just wasn't time to stop and explain what we were doing.


----------



## palo1 (30 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			But we do! We have the evidence to show we are hunting within the law. We have to contend with sabs going on land and spraying citronella everywhere to in their words “confuse“ the hounds. This leads to hounds splitting and “hunting“ more than one line, increases the likelihood of them hunting fox not trail, of them straying and puts hounds and other road users at greater risk.
But this narrative doesn’t fit with the sabs message so is not published. Instead we get “we managed to save a fox as the hounds went the other way“. Duh!! Well as we weren’t hunting it then it’s likely to. Certainly with the hunt I follow sabs are more likely to cause a kill than prevent one.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, this.  So many times I have read sab reports that they have 'saved' a fox from a hunt that was several fields away and yet in any video 'evidence' accompanying (often edited) hounds just can't be seen to be hunting; Sabs use this as a PR tactic to add to the narrative that all hunts are hunting illegally but that cannot be demonstrated.  I know what sabs will say in response to this so probably don't waste the effort to type it!!

There still hasn't really been a clear answer as to why trail hunting is so compelling for some people to protest against; particularly in view of the evidence that the vast majority of illegal hunting is outside of trail hunting activities.  That means that the vast proportion of any animal welfare issue is entirely other to trail hunting.  For all the hours and hours and Christmasses missed why wouldn't people volunteer with local registered charities who are desperate for support or provide pro bono work for animal welfare organisations that could make a huge difference.  I get the point about small potatoes and I would certainly not decry anyone the value that is brought to small, dedicated charities so my point is not about that at all.


----------



## Sandstone1 (30 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Yes, this.  So many times I have read sab reports that they have 'saved' a fox from a hunt that was several fields away and yet in any video 'evidence' accompanying (often edited) hounds just can't be seen to be hunting; Sabs use this as a PR tactic to add to the narrative that all hunts are hunting illegally but that cannot be demonstrated.  I know what sabs will say in response to this so probably don't waste the effort to type it!!

There still hasn't really been a clear answer as to why trail hunting is so compelling for some people to protest against; particularly in view of the evidence that the vast majority of illegal hunting is outside of trail hunting activities.  That means that the vast proportion of any animal welfare issue is entirely other to trail hunting.  For all the hours and hours and Christmasses missed why wouldn't people volunteer with local registered charities who are desperate for support or provide pro bono work for animal welfare organisations that could make a huge difference.  I get the point about small potatoes and I would certainly not decry anyone the value that is brought to small, dedicated charities so my point is not about that at all.
		
Click to expand...

Well you have had answers you just choose not to accept it.


----------



## Miss_Millie (30 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Yes, this.  So many times I have read sab reports that they have 'saved' a fox from a hunt that was several fields away and yet in any video 'evidence' accompanying (often edited) hounds just can't be seen to be hunting; Sabs use this as a PR tactic to add to the narrative that all hunts are hunting illegally but that cannot be demonstrated.  I know what sabs will say in response to this so probably don't waste the effort to type it!!

*There still hasn't really been a clear answer as to why trail hunting is so compelling for some people to protest against*; particularly in view of the evidence that the vast majority of illegal hunting is outside of trail hunting activities.  That means that the vast proportion of any animal welfare issue is entirely other to trail hunting.  For all the hours and hours and Christmasses missed why wouldn't people volunteer with local registered charities who are desperate for support or provide pro bono work for animal welfare organisations that could make a huge difference.  I get the point about small potatoes and I would certainly not decry anyone the value that is brought to small, dedicated charities so my point is not about that at all.
		
Click to expand...

I thought that my post explained it quite well; because to some people, the plight of illegally hunted foxes is very important and despite the ban, foxes are still getting killed illegally every. single. year.


----------



## littleshetland (30 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Before I give up on this discussion entirely (again!) please, please can someone explain to me why a truly minority activity around animal welfare, which is important to me, commands so much attention when there are massively significant animal welfare issues that need all the manpower they can get.   I mean the scale of some welfare issues totally dwarf any amount of illegal  hunting yet there are clearly people who have dedicated their lives to anti-hunting activities.  Why do the animal welfare issues around hunting prove such a potent driving force for some people?  The animal welfare issue is clear to me but there seem so many more significant welfare problems to address.  Anti hunter and pro hunters agree that hunting is a minority activity too.   I am asking this question absolutely sincerely and because no-one from an anti-hunting perspective has ever managed to answer that question.
		
Click to expand...

Correct. There is so much cruelty and injustice in this world when it comes to animal welfare and no one or one organisation can take them all on but we have to start somewhere, and why not with a 'sport' that pursues the death of an animal for pleasure? There are legions of people dedicated to filling any spare time they might have to improve the lives of animals, probably because it doesn't take a great leap of imagination to know that an animals life is as important to it as yours is to you, and mine is to me.


----------



## ester (30 December 2021)

I seem to come across quite a lot of filmed by the hunt/people hunting videos (of all types) and I also thought there was a push for the hunt to be filming sabs and vice versa so that both sides can be presented at evidence. As such I'm also struggling with why filming lines makes you more of a target.


----------



## ester (30 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			There still hasn't really been a clear answer as to why trail hunting is so compelling for some people to protest against; particularly in view of the evidence that the vast majority of illegal hunting is outside of trail hunting activities.
		
Click to expand...

I think it's probably because they see a large number of people who think they are above the law. Which isn't the case for all other animal welfare issues they might otherwise be engaged in.


----------



## shortstuff99 (30 December 2021)

I mean most of this could all be sorted if the MFH actually made trail hunts stick to the law and prove it. Then everyone could, possibly, be happy.


----------



## mariew (30 December 2021)

It's an easy focused domestic and therefore kind of tangible target.  I'd like to see the same dedication and effort made to ending the killing of whales for their fins or stopping catching swallows off the coast of Africa. 

 If I ever went on a legal trailhunt no way would I want to be on a video in social media in this day and age. Especially with the possibility to be identified by someone who means harm and twisting the truth with two clicks of a mouse. Maybe if all faces and horses could be blurred so not to be able to recognise individuals but that's a lot of work.

This thread will never end as there are two opposite views that will never meet and one fuels the other and vice versa. No matter how hard each side tries. I do feel often it is a bit of a personal attack on Palo though sometimes.


----------



## ester (30 December 2021)

I think there's plenty of middling views too.


----------



## milliepops (30 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			I've never met anyone who went on a tour of a chicken production unit as entertainment.
.
		
Click to expand...

And i haven't met anyone on the hunting field going OOOH great look at that fox getting torn up, the entertainment value is elsewhere for (I'd hazard) most followers. I pottered about in the field for a few seasons pre-ban, purely along for the ride in the eventing off-season. 

and although few people would want to see the inside of a chicken production unit, plenty of people like to eat the product


----------



## Miss_Millie (30 December 2021)

mariew said:



			It's an easy focused domestic and therefore kind of tangible target.  *I'd like to see the same dedication and effort made to ending the killing of whales for their fins* or stopping catching swallows off the coast of Africa.

If I ever went on a legal trailhunt no way would I want to be on a video in social media in this day and age. Especially with the possibility to be identified by someone who means harm and twisting the truth with two clicks of a mouse. Maybe if all faces and horses could be blurred so not to be able to recognise individuals but that's a lot of work.

This thread will never end as there are two opposite views that will never meet and one fuels the other and vice versa. No matter how hard each side tries. I do feel often it is a bit of a personal attack on Palo though sometimes.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe you haven't heard of Sea Shepherds? They have been campaigning against whaling since the 70s, and they aren't the only ones.


----------



## Gallop_Away (30 December 2021)

I think we can argue the sabs vs hunting argument round and around until we are blue in the face. Ultimately there is right and wrong on both sides. 
Some sabs don't give a fig about animal welfare, its purely an exercise in "sticking it to the toffs". They harass, intimidate and trespass constantly which does their "cause" no favours. However, there are those peaceful monitors who genuinely care about British wildlife.
Equally there is clearly a huge problem with illegal hunting happening right now. Those hunts that continue to flout the law and ruin it for those that are genuinely hunting within the law. It is truly shameful and I've not seen anyone try and justify this awful behaviour on this or any other hunting thread.
Ultimately there is a huge distrust on both sides it would seem. In order for things to finally end I think both sides will need to compromise. 
Hunts need to be more transparent, and open with sabs but equally sabs must also be prepared for the intimidation and harassment of hunts to stop. Otherwise I see neither side reaching an understanding with the other.

* Edit as I hit save far too soon *


----------



## mariew (30 December 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			Maybe you haven't heard of Sea Shepherds? They have been campaigning against whaling since the 70s, and they aren't the only ones.
		
Click to expand...

My apologies, that should have been sharks, not whales. Too much multitasking. Fortunately whaling isn't anywhere near as common anymore!


----------



## TGM (30 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			No nutter attacks resulted from this video.  An hour of what I think was the last boxing day meet before this hunt disbanded due at least in part to difficulties of laying trails with all the new development in the area around Manchester Airport.







Click to expand...

Totally agree.  Our local bloodhound pack regularly publishes hundreds of videos - some GoPros from hunt staff, some from field followers, plus mobile phone footage from foot followers and also just from interested bystanders (who have come to see the hunt because all meets are very openly listed on their public FB page and website).  Occasionally you might get the odd negative comment from those who don't understand bloodhounding (who are then educated).  But certainly no-one refrains from sharing videos because of the worry of 'attack by nutters '.  Why do genuine trail hunts think they will be treated differently?


----------



## Regandal (30 December 2021)

mariew said:



			This thread will never end as there are two opposite views that will never meet and one fuels the other and vice versa. No matter how hard each side tries. I do feel often it is a bit of a personal attack on Palo though sometimes.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly. I commend Palo1 on her civility and patience. Anyone would think she single-handedly ran fox hunting in this country.


----------



## Miss_Millie (30 December 2021)

mariew said:



			My apologies, that should have been sharks, not whales. Too much multitasking. Fortunately whaling isn't anywhere near as common anymore!
		
Click to expand...

Sea Shepherds are also hot on shark conservation, and they aren't the only ones.


----------



## meleeka (30 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Before I give up on this discussion entirely (again!) please, please can someone explain to me why a truly minority activity around animal welfare, which is important to me, commands so much attention when there are massively significant animal welfare issues that need all the manpower they can get.   I mean the scale of some welfare issues totally dwarf any amount of illegal  hunting yet there are clearly people who have dedicated their lives to anti-hunting activities.  Why do the animal welfare issues around hunting prove such a potent driving force for some people?  The animal welfare issue is clear to me but there seem so many more significant welfare problems to address.  Anti hunter and pro hunters agree that hunting is a minority activity too.   I am asking this question absolutely sincerely and because no-one from an anti-hunting perspective has ever managed to answer that question.
		
Click to expand...

I think it’s because people like yourself defend it when most others see it as an animal welfare problem  I imagine if there were a handful of posters  strongly defending racing on public roads with traps, for example (which is also hugely anti-social),   the replies from most other posters would be very similar.  I expect the people that do that would
argue it’s merits as a sport  all day long too. I personally know of people who do devote a lot of time and energy disrupting the activities of people who live in caravans and race horses, the same as some do to prevent fox hunting.


----------



## Gallop_Away (30 December 2021)

Regandal said:



			Exactly. I commend Palo1 on her civility and patience. Anyone would think she single-handedly ran fox hunting in this country.
		
Click to expand...

Palo I truly commend you for keeping your cool and writing such well thought out replies to frankly rude and aggressive comments that are made towards you by some posters. It is a shame some people can not show you the same courtesy in return.


----------



## Miss_Millie (30 December 2021)

I think that the majority of people posting on this thread have been polite on both sides.


----------



## ycbm (30 December 2021)

milliepops said:



			And i haven't met anyone on the hunting field going OOOH great look at that fox getting torn up, the entertainment value is elsewhere for (I'd hazard) most followers.
		
Click to expand...

Of course.  But followers,  mounted and foot,  can't deny that they are complicit in the kill in the kill,  can they?  And hunting did,  I don't know if it still does post ban,  celebrate a kill by cutting up the fox and giving bits of it to various people and wiping its blood on the face of someone who was in at the kill, a practice called blooding.




			I pottered about in the field for a few seasons pre-ban, purely along for the ride in the eventing off-season.
		
Click to expand...

I did the same until I actually saw a fox run for its life and experienced cub hunting. I can't recall now which was my last straw.  




			and although few people would want to see the inside of a chicken production unit, plenty of people like to eat the product 

Click to expand...

The issue of vegetarian and vegan diets and limiting eating high welfare animal protein to the wealthy is a different one.  Broiler chicken feed people, fox carcasses do not.
.


----------



## Koweyka (30 December 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			I think that the majority of people posting on this thread have been polite on both sides.
		
Click to expand...

So do I, I am fairly certain I am being referred too, when considering all the derogatory things that I by “deflection” have been called, I have really kept my cool.
The hunts are the ones maintaining this class war image, I don’t believe anyone involved in hunting animals as any class whatsoever, I have never referred to them as toffs. I don’t see horse ownership as a sign of class.


----------



## palo1 (30 December 2021)

T


meleeka said:



			I think it’s because people like yourself defend it when most others see it as an animal welfare problem  I imagine if there were a handful of posters  strongly defending racing on public roads with traps, for example (which is also hugely anti-social),   the replies from most other posters would be very similar.  I expect the people that do that would
argue it’s merits as a sport  all day long too. I personally know of people who do devote a lot of time and energy disrupting the activities of people who live in caravans and race horses, the same as some do to prevent fox hunting.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry to shout but I AM NOT DEFENDING ILLEGAL HUNTING. I never have done that although I have defended pre-ban hunting with what I believe are sincere and informed views.


----------



## ycbm (30 December 2021)

This photo was taken in 2005. It shows a 6 year old boy having fox blood wiped onto his face in celebration of a kill.  I know this activity lasted a lot later than that,  but hunts got wise to showing pictures of it.


----------



## Koweyka (30 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			T


Sorry to shout but I AM NOT DEFENDING ILLEGAL HUNTING. I never have done that although I have defended pre-ban hunting with what I believe are sincere and informed views.
		
Click to expand...

It really isn’t the impression you give though ….


----------



## milliepops (30 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			It really isn’t the impression you give though ….
		
Click to expand...

It is if you read what she's actually written though, instead of what people choose to interpret from it 😒


----------



## Miss_Millie (30 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			So do I, I am fairly certain I am being referred too, when considering all the derogatory things that I by “deflection” have been called, I have really kept my cool.
The hunts are the ones maintaining this class war image, I don’t believe anyone involved in hunting animals as any class whatsoever, I have never referred to them as toffs. I don’t see horse ownership as a sign of class.
		
Click to expand...

Lots of working class people hunt, I think that fact that a lot of wealthy MPs hunt and rural police hunt, adds to the general image of corruption. To me 'class' is completely irrelevant, although I'm sure there is ignorance about this on both sides. In the same way that all antis are apparently 'townies', but that is not the case either. You only have to go on farm forums to see how much some farmers hate trail hunting and the nuisance it causes them.


----------



## ycbm (30 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Sorry to shout but I AM NOT DEFENDING ILLEGAL HUNTING. I never have done that although I have defended pre-ban hunting with what I believe are sincere and informed views.
		
Click to expand...


I know that Palo, (though I'd be a lot more comfortable with it if you would condemn the webinars)   and I know it frustrates you,  but hunters' defence of legal fox hunting, clear desire to return to it and apparent belief that it can be returned to are a big part of what drives the sabs to keep sabbing, I think.  And it saddens me that hunters are likely to lose trail hunting and take drag hunting down with them because they can't accept that. 
.


----------



## meleeka (30 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			T


Sorry to shout but I AM NOT DEFENDING ILLEGAL HUNTING. I never have done that although I have defended pre-ban hunting with what I believe are sincere and informed views.
		
Click to expand...

You have defended the practice of hunting foxes with dogs, which plenty of people find cruel.


----------



## Gallop_Away (30 December 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			I think that the majority of people posting on this thread have been polite on both sides.
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps I am reading a different thread. The vast majority are polite but the same posters seem to continually respond to palo's post in a manner which comes across as rude and borderline aggressive, which is a shame in an otherwise polite debate.


----------



## milliepops (30 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			The issue of vegetarian and vegan diets and limiting eating high welfare animal protein to the wealthy is a different one.  Broiler chicken feed people, fox carcasses do not.
.
		
Click to expand...

Hmmm. As a lifelong veggie I feel that eating broilers is as much a choice as following hounds tbh.  

For me it's an animal death one way or the other that wasn't strictly necessary. 

Im not about to push an agenda either way because people feel differently. 
 But objectively i feel pretty similar about both, it doesn't matter if it was a hunt follower or a KFC-lover that gets the accompanying "benefit" but I appreciate that's a minority view.

Personally years ago I could do the doublethink to have a day out with my horse, other people do it to eat cheap meat.


----------



## Gallop_Away (30 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			So do I, I am fairly certain I am being referred too, when considering all the derogatory things that I by “deflection” have been called, I have really kept my cool.
The hunts are the ones maintaining this class war image, I don’t believe anyone involved in hunting animals as any class whatsoever, I have never referred to them as toffs. I don’t see horse ownership as a sign of class.
		
Click to expand...

I'm glad for you at least it is about animal welfare, but just as some hunts are hunting illegally while others do it within the law, many sabs seem to make it a "class war".
I can not tell you how many times we have been called things like "posh tw@ts" and "f**k the toffs" from our local sabs. The irony in that I hunt with a Welsh pack thats history is made from local people, farmers and miners, and today the vast majority is made up from working class people.


----------



## palo1 (30 December 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			Maybe you haven't heard of Sea Shepherds? They have been campaigning against whaling since the 70s, and they aren't the only ones.
		
Click to expand...

Incidentally Sea Shepherd very nearly succeeded in closing down whaling but their approach to the Faroese situation has been arguably counter-productive.  That whaling culture there was virtually dead until Sea Shepherd arrived.  The documentary film maker Mike Day explores the change there in his award winning film The Islands and The Whales.  The pressure exerted on the Faroese from the anti-whaling groups effectively resulted in retaliation against them and the actual increase in whaling activity.  Ironically enough, the levels of mercury in harvested whales are hugely toxic and have resulted in significant cognitive impairments in children by the age of 14 years old.  Children in the Faroe Isles have been born with dangerously high levels of mercury, developmental issues and double the expected rate of heart problems and Parkinsons disease.

There are lessons for us all in that tale.

I am not in support of whaling and have supported Sea Shepherd but the issues are always more nuanced than people want to imagine and potentially whaling would have died a natural cultural death in the Faroe Isles and their population would have been healthier now without that external pressure.


----------



## Amymay (30 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			It really isn’t the impression you give though ….
		
Click to expand...

Unfair, and not true.

Palo has also debated this issue thoroughly and with great constraint.


----------



## meleeka (30 December 2021)

Gallop_Away said:



			I'm glad for you at least it is about animal welfare, but just as some hunts are hunting illegally while others do it within the law, many sabs seem to make it a "class war".
I can not tell you how many times we have been called things like "posh tw@ts" and "f**k the toffs" from our local sabs. The irony in that I hunt with a Welsh pack thats history is made from local people, farmers and miners, and today the vast majority is made up from working class people.
		
Click to expand...

I think that’s pretty standard towards horse owners in general, not just those that hunt.


----------



## Amymay (30 December 2021)

meleeka said:



			You have defended the practice of hunting foxes with dogs, which plenty of people find cruel.
		
Click to expand...

That is not defending illegal hunting 😉


----------



## Sandstone1 (30 December 2021)

Its nothing to do with class for me.   I simply hate the fact that a living, feeling animal is chased and killed for fun.  Also that it is illegal.  A sport is made out of terrifying and killing.  Along side this is the disruption and stress caused by the hunt.
I feel very strongly about it.


----------



## Clodagh (30 December 2021)

I think that most people never thought about hunting and cruelty. I can’t even verbalise why I never had a problem with fox hunting (although not madly keen on deer hunting). Doublethink maybe, I just can’t say. At the end of the day it was banned due it largely being an outdated sport, imo. 
The anti hunt people have improved their evidence catching and therefore are coming up with unspeakable video like the fox being stabbed. This , and possibly the webinars (although I’m not sure that the majority cared) , have really caught some hunts, and sadly the governing body, with their pants down. This arrogance will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Just my thoughts. I love foxhounds, great goofy lumps, and hope they don’t die out as a breed but things really need to change now.
The MFHA need to condemn anyone proven to be illegal hunting or doing things like stabbing a fox with a fork.
Every accidental death of a fox, deer, cat, whatever, needs an apology and censure for the people that do it.
Hunting needs to start following the law.
The loopholes were handy but I think that attitudes have changed and it’s time to step up and deal.


----------



## ycbm (30 December 2021)

Clodagh said:



			I think that most people never thought about hunting and cruelty. I can’t even verbalise why I never had a problem with fox hunting (although not madly keen on deer hunting). Doublethink maybe, I just can’t say. At the end of the day it was banned due it largely being an outdated sport, imo. 
The anti hunt people have improved their evidence catching and therefore are coming up with unspeakable video like the fox being stabbed. This , and possibly the webinars (although I’m not sure that the majority cared) , have really caught some hunts, and sadly the governing body, with their pants down. This arrogance will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Just my thoughts. I love foxhounds, great goofy lumps, and hope they don’t die out as a breed but things really need to change now.
The MFHA need to condemn anyone proven to be illegal hunting or doing things like stabbing a fox with a fork.
Every accidental death of a fox, deer, cat, whatever, needs an apology and censure for the people that do it.
Hunting needs to start following the law.
The loopholes were handy but I think that attitudes have changed and it’s time to step up and deal.
		
Click to expand...

BIG like


----------



## Clodagh (30 December 2021)

As I no longer hunt so don’t really see sabs in action, I also think the view of them being stupid Trotskyites is a bit dated.
I have only ever heard class bought into it when class has been an issue (Lord to peasant type attitudes). I think most of them don’t really care.


----------



## Gallop_Away (30 December 2021)

Ultimately there seems to be a lot of "it's not us it's them" attitude from both sides. It's certaimnly not productive to anyone's cause. 
I fear neither side will ever see eye to eye but a good starting point would be for BOTH sides to admit their own faults and work together for a solution. 
I think hunting may well and truly have shot itself in the foot. There may well be time to turn things around but as time goes on its looking more doubtful. 
In my opinion it would be a shame if horses and hounds working together was to dissappear from our countryside entirely. Sadly this may very well be the case because some hunts clearly felt above the law. It is hugely frustrating to those of us who are now getting dragged down with them. 
One thought I do have on the matter of sabs and vigilantism....if hunting with hounds ends, where then will their attention turn? Shooting, fishing, farming........ I don't agree with illegal hunting, but neither do I agree with vigilantes taking the law into their own hands and I find it terribly worrying what precedents are being laid down allowing things to continue. Neither illegal hunting nor masked vigilantes belong in our society imo.


----------



## Miss_Millie (30 December 2021)

milliepops said:



			Hmmm. As a lifelong veggie I feel that eating broilers is as much a choice as following hounds tbh. 

For me it's an animal death one way or the other that wasn't strictly necessary.

Im not about to push an agenda either way because people feel differently.
But objectively i feel pretty similar about both, it doesn't matter if it was a hunt follower or a KFC-lover that gets the accompanying "benefit" but I appreciate that's a minority view.

Personally years ago I could do the doublethink to have a day out with my horse, other people do it to eat cheap meat.
		
Click to expand...

I agree that it's a choice, but (to me at least as a veggie) I can excuse people more who eat meat on the grounds that cognitive dissonance is at play. As Paul McCartney once said, if slaughterhouses were made of glass then everyone would be vegetarian. When meat is neatly packaged up and doesn't resemble an animal, people can easily forget that it ever was one and the suffering it endured.

Whereas there is a lot of evidence to suggest that many people who hunt fox, get a thrill out of seeing it ripped apart, wiping blood on the face etc - to me that is an enjoyment of violence and suffering. Someone who kills a deer in one clean shot to feed their family is a different matter.


----------



## palo1 (30 December 2021)

meleeka said:



			You have defended the practice of hunting foxes with dogs, which plenty of people find cruel.
		
Click to expand...

I believe, and I have been open about it, that foxes were better off as was their environment when hunting was legal.   I understand the cruelty issue though I would argue that the hunting I witnessed was not cruel - as it largely enabled the fox to evade a predator in his own territory.  I would not deny that the end of a hunt was brutal.  I don't know how most people imagine most animals lives to end; often wild animals have a very difficult death through starvation, illness, injury or through aging processes which leave them sick or vulnerable in another way.  The way in which crows take out the eyes of sheep or ponies when they are sick is grim, undoubtedly cruel and suffering in that situation is inevitable - often only relieved by human intervention.  I don't and never have seen myself as uniquely superior to any other animal.

I understood the Hunting Act and I have hunted within the law since that ban came in.  I do not think foxes are better off, nor is their welfare improved; foxes are less in number, sicker and many more are shot so those foxes haven't won at all and their welfare has seen no benefit which was supposed to be the point of the act.  I understood, as I have posted earlier, why many hunting people felt the act would be repealed but we are where we are. 

You are right in that I have defended the practice of hunting foxes with dogs, before the ban.  I have not defended that since the ban though I accept I have tried to explain that 'other' perspective.


----------



## palo1 (30 December 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			I agree that it's a choice, but (to me at least as a veggie) I can excuse people more who eat meat on the grounds that cognitive dissonance is at play. As Paul McCartney once said, if slaughterhouses were made of glass then everyone would be vegetarian. When meat is neatly packaged up and doesn't resemble an animal, people can easily forget that it ever was one and the suffering it endured.

Whereas there is a lot of evidence to suggest that many people who hunt fox, get a thrill out of seeing it ripped apart, wiping blood on the face etc - to me that is an enjoyment of violence and suffering. Someone who kills a deer in one clean shot to feed their family is a different matter.
		
Click to expand...

Where is that evidence please?


----------



## Amymay (30 December 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			Whereas there is a lot of evidence to suggest that many people who hunt fox, get a thrill out of seeing it ripped apart, wiping blood on the face etc .
		
Click to expand...

What a complete load of nonsense - etc…


----------



## Clodagh (30 December 2021)

Amymay in a manger said:



			What a complete load of nonsense - etc…
		
Click to expand...

Ballcocks. 🤪 sorry wrong quote 😀. I meant Miss Millie not AM.


----------



## Tiddlypom (30 December 2021)

Well, I hunted pre ban with 7 different packs (5 foxhounds, 2 harriers) and never knowingly saw anyone relish the act of the kill for its own sake.

There would be a sense of a job well done if we'd caught a known troublesome fox that the farmer asked us to target. But most of us followers were perfectly happy if the quarry got away after giving us a good run.

I drew the line at stag hunting though , though lots of people I knew used to go.

I never witnessed a 'blooding', either.


----------



## milliepops (30 December 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			Whereas there is a lot of evidence to suggest that many people who hunt fox, get a thrill out of seeing it ripped apart, wiping blood on the face etc - to me that is an enjoyment of violence and suffering.
		
Click to expand...

I don't recognise that at all. Even pre ban I knew blooding was supposedly "a thing" but in my area it was something firmly confined to the history books. 

In the field it was mainly a chance for a nice ride and a gossip. A few of the older folk watched the hounds. Hand on heart never came across any bloodthirsty crackpots. 

Hunting was never my scene really but im glad to have had that experience. Just to have a bit of a balanced viewpoint for my own sake, more than anything.


----------



## Miss_Millie (30 December 2021)

milliepops said:



			I don't recognise that at all. Even pre ban I knew blooding was supposedly "a thing" but in my area it was something firmly confined to the history books.

In the field it was mainly a chance for a nice ride and a gossip. A few of the older folk watched the hounds. Hand on heart never came across any bloodthirsty crackpots.

Hunting was never my scene really but im glad to have had that experience. Just to have a bit of a balanced viewpoint for my own sake, more than anything.
		
Click to expand...

To quote this article, published in 2015, written by a man who fox hunter for over 20 years before giving up. These are some of the cruel things he witnessed:

Clifford, of Newport, South Wales, told of one truly horrendous moment when hounds pulled a pregnant fox from her den and ripped it apart.

Afterwards, *the hunt master put the heel of his boot on the three squirming pups that had been inside her and crushed them.*

He added: “On one occasion *we had a live fox in a sack which we tipped out in the field, but before it was tipped out they allowed the hounds to bite into the sack.*

“There were other times when foxes were brought from somewhere else, so they didn’t know where they were. This meant that they ran with their head up.

"A fox brought in was trapped in a wood and then allowed to run across a few fields into a farm where it fell into the slurry pit. The farmer’s son shot it.

“It fell in because it didn’t know the pit was there, simple as that.

*“Another time they dragged a fox across a couple of fields into a dry ditch before flinging the rope over a branch of a tree.*

"They hoisted it up, and then let it drop a bit so the hounds could bite it. They kept doing this to work the hounds up. In the end they just dropped it into the pack of hounds.

“I remember looking at the fox being kept in the milk churn and thinking, ‘Tomorrow, you’ll be dead’. They are lovely creatures. I am totally ashamed at my cruelty to those animals.

“It’s quite awful, quite barbaric really. What I myself did was quite awful.”

If this isn't getting a kick out of hurting animals then I honestly don't know what is. I don't think most people who eat meat relish the thought of how the animal died, whereas the man mentioned above clearly enjoyed stamping on the unborn cubs of the vixen.

So to those above saying nonsense and bollocks, maybe not everyone who hunts gets a kick out of the cruelty, but there sure as hell are a lot of people who did/do.


----------



## Koweyka (30 December 2021)

I once walked with a sab carrying the head end of a fox that had literally been torn too shreds, there were teenage girls laughing at us, there was another smaller group that toasted us with their hip flasks, without doubt they revelled in the death.
Another fox was being bagged up at the side of the road for evidence with the police, a group of hunt support were making pretend crying faces and laughing at certainly my obvious distress. 
This wasn’t pre ban it was just a few years ago.


----------



## milliepops (30 December 2021)

Im still not convinced that one man's account makes for "lots of evidence " about "many people".
Your previous post read like half the field was rubbing their hands with glee 😒

Eta I also think that people will respond differently when sabs are around, both sides rile each other up 😔


----------



## Amymay (30 December 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			To quote this article, published in 2015, written by a man who fox hunter for over 20 years before giving up. These are some of the cruel things he witnessed:

Clifford, of Newport, South Wales, told of one truly horrendous moment when hounds pulled a pregnant fox from her den and ripped it apart.

Afterwards, *the hunt master put the heel of his boot on the three squirming pups that had been inside her and crushed them.*

He added: “On one occasion *we had a live fox in a sack which we tipped out in the field, but before it was tipped out they allowed the hounds to bite into the sack.*

“There were other times when foxes were brought from somewhere else, so they didn’t know where they were. This meant that they ran with their head up.

"A fox brought in was trapped in a wood and then allowed to run across a few fields into a farm where it fell into the slurry pit. The farmer’s son shot it.

“It fell in because it didn’t know the pit was there, simple as that.

*“Another time they dragged a fox across a couple of fields into a dry ditch before flinging the rope over a branch of a tree.*

"They hoisted it up, and then let it drop a bit so the hounds could bite it. They kept doing this to work the hounds up. In the end they just dropped it into the pack of hounds.

“I remember looking at the fox being kept in the milk churn and thinking, ‘Tomorrow, you’ll be dead’. They are lovely creatures. I am totally ashamed at my cruelty to those animals.

“It’s quite awful, quite barbaric really. What I myself did was quite awful.”

If this isn't getting a kick out of hurting animals then I honestly don't know what is. I don't think most people who eat meat relish the thought of how the animal died, whereas the man mentioned above clearly enjoyed stamping on the unborn cubs of the vixen.

So to those above saying nonsense and bollocks, maybe not everyone who hunts gets a kick out of the cruelty, but there sure as hell are a lot of people who did/do.

Click to expand...

Absolute barbarity, and not something I ever experienced with the 4 packs I hunted with.


----------



## Miss_Millie (30 December 2021)

milliepops said:



			Im still not convinced that one man's account makes for "lots of evidence " about "many people".
*Your previous post read like half the field was rubbing their hands with glee* 😒
		
Click to expand...

Well that is your interpretation. The point that I was trying to make is that I don't think fox hunting can be compared to meat eating (as some were trying to do above) because people who buy meat from the supermarket are happily ignorant to the suffering of the animal they are eating. Whereas those who hunt/hunted fox, know exactly the kind of suffering the animal endures, and in some cases as written above, delight in tormenting the animal and prolonging its death.

The video of the man dragging out the fox and torturing it with a pitch fork is recent evidence that SOME people who hunt, take glee in causing suffering to the foxes.


----------



## Miss_Millie (30 December 2021)

Amymay in a manger said:



			Absolute barbarity, and not something I ever experienced with the 4 packs I hunted with.
		
Click to expand...

Yes it is, and I never said that everyone who hunts is like this. But there are definitely some people who get a power rush from causing suffering, and the chance to kill an animal certainly attracts those kinds of deranged individuals.


----------



## Koweyka (30 December 2021)

"They hoisted it up, and then let it drop a bit so the hounds could bite it. They kept doing this to work the hounds up. In the end they just dropped it into the pack of hounds.”

I once discovered a skeleton of a fox hanging in a disused barn, there were several other fox skeletons piled in a corner, there was also an artificial earth, all in same location a fox was killed in prime hunt country.


----------



## Amymay (30 December 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			Well that is your interpretation. The point that I was trying to make is that I don't think fox hunting can be compared to meat eating (as some were trying to do above) because people who buy meat from the supermarket are happily ignorant to the suffering of the animal they are eating. Whereas those who hunt/hunted fox, know exactly the kind of suffering the animal endures, and in some cases as written above, delight in tormenting the animal and prolonging its death.

The video of the man dragging out the fox and torturing it with a pitch fork is recent evidence that SOME people who hunt, take glee in causing suffering to the foxes.
		
Click to expand...

Is it _many _people, or _some_ people?


----------



## milliepops (30 December 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			Well that is your interpretation. The point that I was trying to make is that I don't think fox hunting can be compared to meat eating (as some were trying to do above) because people who buy meat from the supermarket are happily ignorant to the suffering of the animal they are eating. Whereas those who hunt/hunted fox, know exactly the kind of suffering the animal endures, and in some cases as written above, delight in tormenting the animal and prolonging its death.

The video of the man dragging out the fox and torturing it with a pitch fork is recent evidence that SOME people who hunt, take glee in causing suffering to the foxes.
		
Click to expand...

I understand the point you're making. 
But I don't think the cognitive dissonance  (or willful ignorance) re unidentifiable lumps of supermarket meat is any better tbh, it happens on a potentially much wider scale so I find it hard to condemn one over the other really. Just my personal pov.


----------



## Koweyka (30 December 2021)

This is disgusting….


https://apple.news/AmoZwzTYdSCSQ_JLlmN4WQw


----------



## Miss_Millie (30 December 2021)

Amymay in a manger said:



			Is it _many _people, or _some_ people?
		
Click to expand...

I can't give you an exact number sorry, I'm not omniscient!


----------



## Miss_Millie (30 December 2021)

milliepops said:



			I understand the point you're making.
But I don't think the cognitive dissonance  (or willful ignorance) re unidentifiable lumps of supermarket meat is any better tbh, it happens on a potentially much wider scale so I find it hard to condemn one over the other really. Just my personal pov.
		
Click to expand...

I get it, lots of people are aware of the suffering caused to farm animals and continue to eat meat anyway. I just understand it slightly more because 86% of people eat across the globe eat meat so it is very normalised/acceptable. And also, some people with certain autoimmune conditions do actually need to eat some meat to stay healthy.


----------



## Amymay (30 December 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			I can't give you an exact number sorry, I'm not omniscient!
		
Click to expand...


But you said…




			Whereas *there is a lot of evidence* to suggest that many people who hunt fox, get a thrill out of seeing it ripped apart, wiping blood on the face etc
		
Click to expand...

.

Is it just ‘he said, she said’ lots of evidence then? 🤷🏻‍♀️


----------



## milliepops (30 December 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			I get it, lots of people are aware of the suffering caused to farm animals and continue to eat meat anyway. I just understand it slightly more because 86% of people eat across the globe eat meat so it is very normalised/acceptable. And also, some people with certain autoimmune conditions do actually need to eat some meat to stay healthy.
		
Click to expand...

Yeah so this is going off topic a bit but it shows how much social norms shape people's opinions of what is acceptable, it's pretty subconscious  a lot of the time.


----------



## Upthecreek (30 December 2021)

I hunted regularly pre-ban. I hunted for the thrill of it. The huge adrenaline rush of following hounds in full cry over testing country alongside friends. I think it’s a mis-conception that most of those who hunted were anywhere near or remotely interested in the kill. I couldn’t even tell you most days whether there was a kill or not and I expect they killed one or two out of every ten foxes chased, if that. Most of the field were completely unaware of what went on so if there was blooding or dodgy activities by terrier men I never witnessed it. To be totally honest I never even considered animal welfare at the time.


----------



## Fred66 (30 December 2021)

shortstuff99 said:



			I don't support illegal fox hunting (or killing of foxes pre ban) but I do find some of the language around it a bit uncomfortable.

While I understand the animal rights issues, most of the language I see aimed at hunters always includes some form of 'posh', 'toff', 'lording' etc which tells me it has become about more than just animal welfare.

There also seems to be a misnomer (which I think the sabs encourage) that hunting ie riding out hounds and horses is illegal, not only killing the fox with the hounds is illegal. This makes the public go for anyone.
		
Click to expand...

Tell enough lies and people believe you. Trail hunting is not illegal


shortstuff99 said:



			I mean most of this could all be sorted if the MFH actually made trail hunts stick to the law and prove it. Then everyone could, possibly, be happy.
		
Click to expand...

But most do !!!
It makes no difference, you have hunt saboteurs out to many hunts, they aren’t interested in dialogue, they don’t want to see that you are following a legally laid trail. They enjoy intimidating, threatening and abusing people from a position of anonymity (including children). They break the law every time they come out but they do it under the guise of “animal welfare”.
Those of you who defend their actions then I hope you never have the misfortune to fall foul of people who act in this way. You might feel that they have a just cause in this instance but if they do succeed in getting all forms of hunting banned what next? Shooting, fishing, racing, eventing, eventually something that matters to you would be caught up by this type of illegal extremist behavior.
Why don’t they follow the hunts openly, unmasked, engage with the masters to find out how they are laying the trails, follow legally, don’t shout abuse to try and provoke a reaction or intimidate, especially when children are involved.


----------



## shortstuff99 (30 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			Tell enough lies and people believe you. Trail hunting is not illegal

But most do !!!
It makes no difference, you have hunt saboteurs out to many hunts, they aren’t interested in dialogue, they don’t want to see that you are following a legally laid trail. They enjoy intimidating, threatening and abusing people from a position of anonymity (including children). They break the law every time they come out but they do it under the guise of “animal welfare”.
Those of you who defend their actions then I hope you never have the misfortune to fall foul of people who act in this way. You might feel that they have a just cause in this instance but if they do succeed in getting all forms of hunting banned what next? Shooting, fishing, racing, eventing, eventually something that matters to you would be caught up by this type of illegal extremist behavior.
Why don’t they follow the hunts openly, unmasked, engage with the masters to find out how they are laying the trails, follow legally, don’t shout abuse to try and provoke a reaction or intimidate, especially when children are involved.
		
Click to expand...

I know trail is not illegal, but from what I see online general members of the public think the WHOLE thing is illegal and can't understand still seeing the hunt. This is perpetuated by SABS and what I think they need to counter if they want to survive.

As I've said before the antis/sabs etc are winning the PR war on this by miles. I KNOW people shouldn't have to justify themselves but if they want to survive then they really do need to. A strong response to any wrong doing and full transparency will go a long way to doing that.

I hunted pre ban and post ban I know what it is all about.


----------



## Sandstone1 (30 December 2021)

Maybe tell all this to the Warwickshire who have killed THREE times recently.  One of which was a deer.  Now that is fact with evidence.


----------



## Upthecreek (30 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			Maybe tell all this to the Warwickshire who have killed THREE times recently.  One of which was a deer.  Now that is fact with evidence.
		
Click to expand...

But nobody is condoning that. At all. Absolutely nobody. In my opinion hunts who do this should be stopped from hunting if they cannot or will not hunt within the law. It is not the fault of any posters on here that they are not punished appropriately for breaking the law.


----------



## palo1 (30 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			Tell enough lies and people believe you. Trail hunting is not illegal

But most do !!!
It makes no difference, you have hunt saboteurs out to many hunts, they aren’t interested in dialogue, they don’t want to see that you are following a legally laid trail. They enjoy intimidating, threatening and abusing people from a position of anonymity (including children). They break the law every time they come out but they do it under the guise of “animal welfare”.
Those of you who defend their actions then I hope you never have the misfortune to fall foul of people who act in this way. You might feel that they have a just cause in this instance but if they do succeed in getting all forms of hunting banned what next? Shooting, fishing, racing, eventing, eventually something that matters to you would be caught up by this type of illegal extremist behavior.
Why don’t they follow the hunts openly, unmasked, engage with the masters to find out how they are laying the trails, follow legally, don’t shout abuse to try and provoke a reaction or intimidate, especially when children are involved.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, quite. And why do sabs insist on giving Police edited footage of alleged illegal hunting when they know that cannot be used?  Possibly there are things they don't wish to have to explain.  The assertion that most sabs are peaceful and committed to animal welfare may be true but it is incredibly easy to find contradictions to that in all manner of ways. For example:-

Purely bizarre but probably harmless trespass: 


	
	





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=717628812532727



Calling hounds onto a road: 


	
	





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=626661957776781



Splitting of hounds: https://www.facebook.com/Hunting-fo...1/photos/pcb.879723919330535/879723682663892/

Imaginative design on a church door: https://www.facebook.com/Hunting-fo...41/photos/pcb.875991993037061/875991923037068

Safety first!! : https://www.facebook.com/127375934565341/photos/a.129978400971761/864405900862337/

Interesting choice of self protection: 


	
	





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1252472728499032



More safety advice: (throwing snap bangs at horses)  https://www.facebook.com/Hunting-fo...1/photos/pcb.821443175158610/821441591825435/ Sabs would never hurt an animal’ we give you Tony. In Tony’s bio he is an advocate of Peace and Love. Yet his idea is to throw snap bangers at horses to cause them a great deal of stress and potential injury and make them to throw their riders. More proof if ever needed that the Sab ethos has nothing to do with animal welfare.

Looking after wildlife on the LACS estate at Baronsdown:-

A photograph of the concentration of deer on a farm near the League Against Cruel Sport's Barronsdown 'sanctuary' on exmoor. As you can see there are huge numbers. Would you be successfully able to farm with such a high concentration of deer on your land?
Once upon a time the farmers would rely on the hunt, not nessssaryly to kill deer but to disperse them.
The league artificially fed deer into the 'sanctuary'. Unfortunately this attracted so many deer that 107 were found dead of starvation and disease in a 12 month period in and around the leagues land.
So then the league started to medicate the deer for things like worms....which happens with high population densities. This unfortunately ment any deer shot on surrounding land had to be dumped rather than enter the food chain as medicated animals need a withdrawal period before they can be eaten.
Of all the deer found to be suffering from TB on exmoor 86% where in the area surrounding Barronsdown due to such artificial population densities.






Certainly not taking the moral high ground on this character: https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman....cOlqnvtDy1s0hzTrDNbRBP5ZoMYyOnfH5yF8YJcBQ1cNk

And just looking after the countryside of course:
North Wales Hunt Sabs got themselves into a little bother yesterday. Despite being warned that their vehicle was leaking diesel, these wildlife warriors and all round environmentalists decided to drive their land rover through private land and over a heavy populated salmon river, despite the protests of the landowner who was concerned about pollution entering the watercourse.
The NW Sabs have previously been warned by police about overloading their clapped out Landy and after travelling another 200 yards their vehicle finally collapsed under the load



__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=397865128477019


----------



## Sandstone1 (30 December 2021)

https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/n...sm-zhh-vQiAfD6oa6mdJQJ846I0dCc5CrWND5QxU_-REo



__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=618487526134222



I can copy and paste too.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...eaCKGUHEgBAiQW_XXnBZBz9dT_4k8IVGi3LqRF-MaLtQE
There is SO much more but I can not be bothered at this point.  It goes round in circles again and again.  Fact is illegal hunting IS going on and when trail hunting is banned too you will know who to blame.


----------



## meleeka (30 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Yes, quite. And why do sabs insist on giving Police edited footage of alleged illegal hunting when they know that cannot be used?  Possibly there are things they don't wish to have to explain.  The assertion that most sabs are peaceful and committed to animal welfare may be true but it is incredibly easy to find contradictions to that in all manner of ways. For example:-

Purely bizarre but probably harmless trespass: 


	
	





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=717628812532727



Calling hounds onto a road: 


	
	





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=626661957776781



Splitting of hounds: https://www.facebook.com/Hunting-fo...1/photos/pcb.879723919330535/879723682663892/

Imaginative design on a church door: https://www.facebook.com/Hunting-fo...41/photos/pcb.875991993037061/875991923037068

Safety first!! : https://www.facebook.com/127375934565341/photos/a.129978400971761/864405900862337/

Interesting choice of self protection: 


	
	





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1252472728499032



More safety advice: (throwing snap bangs at horses)  https://www.facebook.com/Hunting-fo...1/photos/pcb.821443175158610/821441591825435/ Sabs would never hurt an animal’ we give you Tony. In Tony’s bio he is an advocate of Peace and Love. Yet his idea is to throw snap bangers at horses to cause them a great deal of stress and potential injury and make them to throw their riders. More proof if ever needed that the Sab ethos has nothing to do with animal welfare.

Looking after wildlife on the LACS estate at Baronsdown:-

A photograph of the concentration of deer on a farm near the League Against Cruel Sport's Barronsdown 'sanctuary' on exmoor. As you can see there are huge numbers. Would you be successfully able to farm with such a high concentration of deer on your land?
Once upon a time the farmers would rely on the hunt, not nessssaryly to kill deer but to disperse them.
The league artificially fed deer into the 'sanctuary'. Unfortunately this attracted so many deer that 107 were found dead of starvation and disease in a 12 month period in and around the leagues land.
So then the league started to medicate the deer for things like worms....which happens with high population densities. This unfortunately ment any deer shot on surrounding land had to be dumped rather than enter the food chain as medicated animals need a withdrawal period before they can be eaten.
Of all the deer found to be suffering from TB on exmoor 86% where in the area surrounding Barronsdown due to such artificial population densities.






Certainly not taking the moral high ground on this character: https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman....cOlqnvtDy1s0hzTrDNbRBP5ZoMYyOnfH5yF8YJcBQ1cNk

And just looking after the countryside of course:
North Wales Hunt Sabs got themselves into a little bother yesterday. Despite being warned that their vehicle was leaking diesel, these wildlife warriors and all round environmentalists decided to drive their land rover through private land and over a heavy populated salmon river, despite the protests of the landowner who was concerned about pollution entering the watercourse.
The NW Sabs have previously been warned by police about overloading their clapped out Landy and after travelling another 200 yards their vehicle finally collapsed under the load



__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=397865128477019



Click to expand...

Another round of whataboutery.


----------



## Fred66 (30 December 2021)

meleeka said:



			Another round of whataboutery.
		
Click to expand...

No it’s about showing decent people the unacceptable side of hunt saboteurs. 
Hunt monitors I have no problem with, they are there to monitor and reassure themselves (and others??) that the hunts are following a trail. They don‘t engage in abuse, intimidation or illegal activity. Hunt saboteurs are different and I can’t understand how any decent person can support their actions.


----------



## Sossigpoker (30 December 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			To quote this article, published in 2015, written by a man who fox hunter for over 20 years before giving up. These are some of the cruel things he witnessed:

Clifford, of Newport, South Wales, told of one truly horrendous moment when hounds pulled a pregnant fox from her den and ripped it apart.

Afterwards, *the hunt master put the heel of his boot on the three squirming pups that had been inside her and crushed them.*

He added: “On one occasion *we had a live fox in a sack which we tipped out in the field, but before it was tipped out they allowed the hounds to bite into the sack.*

“There were other times when foxes were brought from somewhere else, so they didn’t know where they were. This meant that they ran with their head up.

"A fox brought in was trapped in a wood and then allowed to run across a few fields into a farm where it fell into the slurry pit. The farmer’s son shot it.

“It fell in because it didn’t know the pit was there, simple as that.

*“Another time they dragged a fox across a couple of fields into a dry ditch before flinging the rope over a branch of a tree.*

"They hoisted it up, and then let it drop a bit so the hounds could bite it. They kept doing this to work the hounds up. In the end they just dropped it into the pack of hounds.

“I remember looking at the fox being kept in the milk churn and thinking, ‘Tomorrow, you’ll be dead’. They are lovely creatures. I am totally ashamed at my cruelty to those animals.

“It’s quite awful, quite barbaric really. What I myself did was quite awful.”

If this isn't getting a kick out of hurting animals then I honestly don't know what is. I don't think most people who eat meat relish the thought of how the animal died, whereas the man mentioned above clearly enjoyed stamping on the unborn cubs of the vixen.

So to those above saying nonsense and bollocks, maybe not everyone who hunts gets a kick out of the cruelty, but there sure as hell are a lot of people who did/do.

Click to expand...

Jesus this is just sick.
As is anyone who takes part in it.


----------



## Tiddlypom (31 December 2021)

As we're talking about the misinformation and editing of footage, of which both pro and anti hunt are guilty, please can I point out that the the pro hunt FB page 'Hunting for Truth' which was quoted is notoriously ill-named. I wouldn't trust anything that they put out .

HFT take a particular interest in hunting in Cheshire, and delight in lumping sabs and monitors together, though the groups are very different.


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			No it’s about showing decent people the unacceptable side of hunt saboteurs.
Hunt monitors I have no problem with, they are there to monitor and reassure themselves (and others??) that the hunts are following a trail. They don‘t engage in abuse, intimidation or illegal activity. Hunt saboteurs are different and I can’t understand how any decent person can support their actions.
		
Click to expand...

How about the unacceptable side to fox hunting?
As in the clip shown, a deer killed which was filmed from a fair distance.  Hounds clearly out of control.  Is that acceptable to you?


----------



## meleeka (31 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			No it’s about showing decent people the unacceptable side of hunt saboteurs.
Hunt monitors I have no problem with, they are there to monitor and reassure themselves (and others??) that the hunts are following a trail. They don‘t engage in abuse, intimidation or illegal activity. Hunt saboteurs are different and I can’t understand how any decent person can support their actions.
		
Click to expand...

This thread isn’t about sabs though.


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=686985829342551



In the interest of fairness another clip from another hunt.  Beware bad language.


----------



## Gallop_Away (31 December 2021)

Hmm now who's engaging in deflection and "whataboutery" 😉

With the greatest of respect can we not just agree both sides wind each other up and there is inappropriate behaviour on  both sides? 

This thread may not be about sabs but if you want to discuss an overall view of hunting they are part of it like it or not. They could also be part of finding a solution to the issue.


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

meleeka said:



			Another round of whataboutery.
		
Click to expand...

It's not whataboutery at all; it is exactly the mirror of the sab argument about illegal hunting.  There is illegal hunting and there is sab misinformation, violence, illegality and anti-social behaviour.  That has to stop too.  The reason I posted those things was because of the anti 'This has to stop' chant.  There is very little recognition or acceptance from antis that many people are trying to hunt and now demonstrate hunting within the law, neither is there any recognition, acceptance or angst from antis about the kind of behaviour I have posted.  No poster on here has justified any of the dire things posted about illegal hunting but I don't think a single anti posting has condemned some of the worst anti behaviour.  Rustling plastic bags at horses legs, advocating snap bangs, calling hounds onto a road (especially when hounds on the road is something antis use very frequently as evidence of bad behaviour) poor animal welfare of animals under the care of LACS etc etc.   This is not a 'clean' conflict of ideologies.  That needs to be recognised by both sides.


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

Gallop_Away said:



			Hmm now who's engaging in deflection and "whataboutery" 😉

With the greatest of respect can we not just agree both sides wind each other up and there is inappropriate behaviour on  both sides?

This thread may not be about sabs but if you want to discuss an overall view of hunting they are part of it like it or not. They could also be part of finding a solution to the issue.
		
Click to expand...

Well I did say I could copy and paste too.!
  Its not really whatabouterery  though is it as its clearly about illegal hunting and the way hunters treat sabs, its not all one sided is it?
I have never said there are not faults on both sides have I?
I also find it interesting to see the way the huntsmans horse is ridden and see spur marks on her side...  If that horse was ridden in dressage for example they would be elimminated on welfare grounds
I would certainly not agree with hurting horses or hounds in the name of protesting.  If it happens its wrong.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (31 December 2021)

It's a bit odd how folk seem to think that you have to be a huge supporter of hunt saboteurs to be against fox hunting. I don't particularly follow what is posted to saboteurs sites and can't imagine for a minute that all of them are whiter than white but they've managed to expose a worrying amount of horrific things through the use of covert filming that the general public would otherwise have had no clue about. 

How the Kimblewick are still permitted to function for example is incomprehensible and for me again just confirms that there is no overall desire to bring trail hunting into this century.


----------



## ycbm (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			I don't think a single anti posting has condemned some of the worst anti behaviour.
		
Click to expand...

I'm sure we have.
.


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

CrunchieBoi said:



			It's a bit odd how folk seem to think that you have to be a huge supporter of hunt saboteurs to be against fox hunting. I don't particularly follow what is posted to saboteurs sites and can't imagine for a minute that all of them are whiter than white but they've managed to expose a worrying amount of horrific things through the use of covert filming that the general public would otherwise have had no clue about.

How the Kimblewick are still permitted to function for example is incomprehensible.
		
Click to expand...

Well the same is true of the other side too.  I meet people who have no interest in hunting but who loathe the rural vigilantes.  I don't think that is news to anyone!


----------



## Gallop_Away (31 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			Well I did say I could copy and paste too.!
  Its not really whatabouterery  though is it as its clearly about illegal hunting and the way hunters treat sabs, its not all one sided is it?
I have never said there are not faults on both sides have I?
I also find it interesting to see the way the huntsmans horse is ridden and see spur marks on her side...
		
Click to expand...

It is whataboutery as instead of acknowledging that the sabs behaviour is inappropriate you just respond with "but what about what hunts are doing" so its whataboutery to a T I'm afraid. 
Not one single person has said illegal hunting is acceptable. Not one. 
In order to move forward sabs and hunts need to be prepared to acknowledge their own faults, not just respond with the attitude "but they're doing this!"


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			I'm sure we have.
.
		
Click to expand...

There was some criticism of the Police Bill protestors who were also sabs throwing fireworks at horses but other than that, there is invariably a response of 'well they wouldn't need to do that if hunting was ok'.  For the vast majority of antis the end appears to justify any means.  Even when there is no 'end' in terms of evidence that is sufficient for prosecution; of which there have been some very significant ones but actually few in relation to the claims of illegality.


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			I'm sure we have.
.
		
Click to expand...

I have said that there are faults on both sides more than once and certainly do not agree with horses or hounds being harmed by either side.


----------



## Gallop_Away (31 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			I'm sure we have.
.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think so... there has been the occasional mumble of "there's faults on both sides" which seems to be said with a grudge if I'm honest, but the response has usually been along the lines of "BUT LOOK WHAT HUNTS ARE DOING" and the implication that it's somehow the hunts own fault for sabs acting inappropriately even where the hunt isn't breaking any laws. 
This attitude isn't going to get anyone anywhere.


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			There was some criticism of the Police Bill protestors who were also sabs throwing fireworks at horses but other than that, there is invariably a response of 'well they wouldn't need to do that if hunting was ok'.  For the vast majority of antis the end appears to justify any means.  Even when there is no 'end' in terms of evidence that is sufficient for prosecution; of which there have been some very significant ones but actually few in relation to the claims of illegality.
		
Click to expand...

So any comment on the language or violence in the clips?  The sabs were at one point trying to open a gate for the hunt until they were abused by them.  It was also a bridlepath they were being ordered off.


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

Gallop_Away said:



			I don't think so... there has been the occasional mumble of "there's faults on both sides" which seems to be said with a grudge if I'm honest, but the response has usually been along the lines of "BUT LOOK WHAT HUNTS ARE DOING" and the implication that it's somehow the hunts own fault for sabs acting inappropriately even where the hunt isn't breaking any laws.
This attitude isn't going to get anyone anywhere.
		
Click to expand...

Well maybe it is BECAUSE OF WHAT HUNTS ARE DOING!!!!!


----------



## ycbm (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			There was some criticism of the Police Bill protestors who were also sabs throwing fireworks at horses but other than that, there is invariably a response of 'well they wouldn't need to do that if hunting was ok'.  For the vast majority of antis the end appears to justify any means.  Even when there is no 'end' in terms of evidence that is sufficient for prosecution; of which there have been some very significant ones but actually few in relation to the claims of illegality.
		
Click to expand...




Gallop_Away said:



			I don't think so..
		
Click to expand...


I am certain that I have posted agreeing that sabs should not be acting illegally and also agreed that some of their activities are not defensible.
.


----------



## Gallop_Away (31 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			So any comment on the language or violence in the clips?  The sabs were at one point trying to open a gate for the hunt until they were abused by them.  It was also a bridlepath they were being ordered off.
		
Click to expand...

There you go again.......


----------



## CanteringCarrot (31 December 2021)

People read or extrapolate what they want to in order to fit their narrative 🤷‍♀️


----------



## Gallop_Away (31 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			Well maybe it is BECAUSE OF WHAT HUNTS ARE DOING!!!!!
		
Click to expand...

Not all hunts. Does the fact some hunts are hunting illegally justify sabs inappropriate behaviour towards legal hunts?


----------



## ycbm (31 December 2021)

Gallop_Away said:



			Not all hunts. Does the fact some hunts are hunting illegally justify sabs inappropriate behaviour towards legal hunts?
		
Click to expand...

Do you understand at all why they think you are lying? 
.


----------



## Gallop_Away (31 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			Do you understand at all why they think you are lying?
.
		
Click to expand...

We've been over this many times. I do understand why there is a huge distrust of hunts but when our hunt have gone to great lengths to prove we are hunting within the law and still face constant abuse, you start to question whether they are motivated by animal welfare at all. 
Also it is not them continuing to monitor hunts that is the inappropriate behaviour. It is the intimidation, harassment, trespass, bad language, and general thuggery they engage in. 
You can not honestly tell me this behaviour is justified regardless of whether they believe us or not.


----------



## Koweyka (31 December 2021)

Well when you have the head of the MFHA convicted in crown court for advising hunts on “how to kill foxes and get away with it” and the hunting act which makes it incredibly difficult to secure a conviction due to the fallacy of “getting the golden shot” and the CPS setting the evidence bar very high. Then combine that with what was up until the conviction a very biased police force who also fell for the smokescreen, getting a hunting conviction was nigh on impossible. 

Though times are changing and more police forces have seen through the smoke and we expect to see more prosecutions going forward.

Also there is a bill going through parliament at the moment that will hopefully stop the use of animal based scents on hunts, which will clearly cause issues for a lot of hunts, but after seventeen years you can’t say you haven’t had enough time to retrain your hounds can you.


----------



## ycbm (31 December 2021)

Gallop_Away said:



			You can not honestly tell me this behaviour is justified regardless of whether they believe us or not.
		
Click to expand...

I wouldn't try,  I hope your "you" is  "one" and not directed at me personally,  because I would find that quite insulting.
.


----------



## Gallop_Away (31 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			I wouldn't try,  I hope your "you" is  "one" and not directed at me personally,  because I would find that quite insulting.
.
		
Click to expand...

Yes apologies if that was unclear. It was certainly meant in the sense of the general "you" as opposed to you personally ycbm


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

Gallop_Away said:



			There you go again.......
		
Click to expand...

That is a completely related question.
I will put this very simply for you...
I do not condone any violence or abuse on either side.  No one should be harming animals sabs or hunters.   If sabs harm hounds or horses that is clearly wrong as it is if hunters do the same.
This thread is titled "  HUNTING IS IN A SPOT OF BOTHER."  it clearly is and mainly because hunts ARE hunting foxes.  That is the plain truth.  from the webinars to the fox stabbing incident to the Warwickshire killing THREE times in a matter of days.
IF trail hunting wants to survive its got to stop all this.  FOX hunting is illegal and should be stopped NOW After all you have had 16 years to get used to it.
The fact is if there were no illegal hunting there would be no need for sabs but as clearly hunts can not be trusted to hunt within the law sabs will continue to go out.
Yes, there are faults on both sides here, but come on admit it to yourselves hunts break the law by hunting foxes.  If they didnt there would be no need for sabs.


----------



## ycbm (31 December 2021)

I liken this quite a lot to football violence back in the 70's and 80's . It wasn't the fault of the owners and managers of football clubs that there was violence associated on a large scale with attendance at football matches.  But it was within the powers of those people to stop it,  and stop it they eventually did. 

I believe it's within the power of trail hunting to stop the confrontation.  This is what i would do in the same situation as you face. 

Disassociate yourselves very publicly, with a big PR push,  from illegal hunters. People inside hunting know who they are.  Let everyone know that any hunt which is not a member of your new association can be assumed to be hunting illegally.

Lay your trails with a non-fox  scent and film yourselves doing it.  Film yourselves following that trail. Ask for official hunt monitoring from an independent organisation.  

I'd be extremely surprised if your sabbing problems continued.  
.


----------



## Miss_Millie (31 December 2021)

Something that I have been wondering about...could all hounds not be muzzled? The plastic mesh type muzzles so they can still smell normally. That would solve the issue of them 'accidentally' happening upon foxes or killing livestock or pets.


----------



## Miss_Millie (31 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			I liken this quite a lot to football violence back in the 70's and 80's . It wasn't the fault of the owners and managers of football clubs that there was violence associated on a large scale with attendance at football matches.  But it was within the powers of those people to stop it,  and stop it they eventually did.

I believe it's within the power of trail hunting to stop the confrontation.  This is what i would do in the same situation as you face.

Disassociate yourselves very publicly, with a big PR push,  from illegal hunters. People inside hunting know who they are.  Let everyone know that any hunt which is not a member of your new association can be assumed to be hunting illegally.

Lay your trails with a non-fox  scent and film yourselves doing it.  Film yourselves following that trail. Ask for official hunt monitoring from an independent organisation. 

I'd be extremely surprised if your sabbing problems continued. 
.
		
Click to expand...

I agree, I think that hunting needs a re-brand and to make its stance on illegal fox hunting extremely clear. I think this is what it will take to save the sport now, after several years of really bad press.


----------



## Koweyka (31 December 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			Something that I have been wondering about...could all hounds not be muzzled? The plastic mesh type muzzles so they can still smell normally. That would solve the issue of them 'accidentally' happening upon foxes or killing livestock or pets.
		
Click to expand...

This is something a lot of anti’s ask tbh, we were concerned that muzzles would be caught on the undergrowth they are invariably put through when looking for a fox or whether there would be issues with them panting when they need to cool down.


----------



## Gallop_Away (31 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			That is a completely related question.
I will put this very simply for you...
I do not condone any violence or abuse on either side.  No one should be harming animals sabs or hunters.   If sabs harm hounds or horses that is clearly wrong as it is if hunters do the same.
This thread is titled "  HUNTING IS IN A SPOT OF BOTHER."  it clearly is and mainly because hunts ARE hunting foxes.  That is the plain truth.  from the webinars to the fox stabbing incident to the Warwickshire killing THREE times in a matter of days.
IF trail hunting wants to survive its got to stop all this.  FOX hunting is illegal and should be stopped NOW After all you have had 16 years to get used to it.
The fact is if there were no illegal hunting there would be no need for sabs but as clearly hunts can not be trusted to hunt within the law sabs will continue to go out.
Yes, there are faults on both sides here, but come on admit it to yourselves hunts break the law by hunting foxes.  If they didnt there would be no need for sabs.
		
Click to expand...

Agree with you on every point and thank you for clearly acknowledging the bad behaviour of some hunt sabs. However I don't agree with your last point as my own experience has taught me something quite different, but that is a different topic entirely.


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Well when you have the head of the MFHA convicted in crown court for advising hunts on “how to kill foxes and get away with it” and the hunting act which makes it incredibly difficult to secure a conviction due to the fallacy of “getting the golden shot” and the CPS setting the evidence bar very high. Then combine that with what was up until the conviction a very biased police force who also fell for the smokescreen, getting a hunting conviction was nigh on impossible.

Though times are changing and more police forces have seen through the smoke and we expect to see more prosecutions going forward.

Also there is a bill going through parliament at the moment that will hopefully stop the use of animal based scents on hunts, which will clearly cause issues for a lot of hunts, but after seventeen years you can’t say you haven’t had enough time to retrain your hounds can you.
		
Click to expand...

When you consider the absolute conditions you are talking about; the law which the anti-hunt pressed so hard for, the law the Parliament Act had to be invoked for in order to pass it, the law that the legislators and the prime minister of the time admitted was not about animal welfare, the law that allowed for fox hunting to continue albeit 'through the back door' if you like; the law that has no support due to it's unworkability or enforcement, the pressure on police forces to deal with all manner of other things which impact more people more severely; the law that allows for legal exemptions that are sneaky, ill-conceived and designed to trap both hunters and anti-hunters into an constant cycle of accusation, claim and counter claim, do you really feel you have the high moral ground or that it is so 'shocking' that there has been abuse of the law?  

Apart from your very personal view about hunting, how do you think the hunting community, after nearly 700 years of hunting with hounds was suddenly going to abandon their attitudes, customs and ideologies under those conditions and because a group that they were deeply and fundamentally opposed to, told them to?   I understand your commitment to animal welfare but can you look outside your own views and see how things look from a very different perspective without those judgements?  If not, then you are missing a trick in terms of trying to make change - it is an absolute essential tenet of negotiation to understand, truly understand, the viewpoints and experiences of your opponents. 

The Head of the MFHA being convicted is probably a good thing - though the trap was laid for him in the passing of the act and the refusal of hunters to keep firmly on the right side of an almost impossibly thin line in terms of the Act.  Enacting change upon a community rarely ends well (see my post about the Faroe Islands earlier) but forcing us (and I mean both hunters and anti-hunters, the police, the CPS) to interpret and work according to that act is not the fault of hunters.  Appalling behaviour should be dealt with, as should any instance of animal cruelty on all sides and the law exists for that even outside the Hunting Act.  Any change in the use of scent for trail hunting would help to clarify things for some people - though I think personally that is a bit of a red herring and again, very, very difficult to enforce.   That change will not cause a lot of issues for a lot of hunts @Koweyka because in spite of your constant rhetoric many hunts are safely and successfully hunting within the law now.  Btw, beggar all hunts will be buying fox urine (though some might) so please do not think that hunting is contributing to fox farming; as far as I know, more hunts use dead shot fox or the huntsman's own urine (cheap and accessible)  as Drag hunts have done for years.

On an entirely personal note I have to say that I would like to have seen anti hunt protestors do more to support fox populations and habitats to replace those lost with the Hunting Act.  I think so much more could and should have been done by a community who asserted they wanted to save foxes and improve the conditions of life for foxes than has ever been done.  I think the anti hunt movement should have made the most of the Act to carry out research about the impact of that on Foxes.  That hasn't been done of course and I think it is because they preferred fund raising for  the masking up and confrontation than fund raising for research, habitat preservation or working with landowners and other agencies to that end.

I don't like seeing the shot dead foxes (often 6 or 7 at a time) and feel sadness and anger that an animal that was, somewhat by chance, revered and supported by a community in this country because of it's association with hunting, to have been reduced and brought low in the way it has.  I lay part of the blame for that, for the decline in fox numbers, for it's loss of viable country, for it's loss of status in our culture , for the poor health of many urban foxes (and their being dumped in the countryside only to starve or be attacked by other foxes) at the hands of the anti-hunt movement who have used a baseline of sentimentality and the blunt, un-specified and sometimes appallingly anthropomorphic instrument of 'cruelty' to base their wider campaign on.  The association of the anti-hunt movement with other organisations that base their work entirely on human assumptions about what is good for animals is pretty undisputed, though I get that you will say I am also trying to assert what is 'good' for animals.   I guess I hope that I don't base that judgement on just one requisite of 'cruelty'.  That is important of course but I think in the wider environmental sense there are definitely difficulties and issues in the relationship between animal welfare and environmental gains.   I don't want, and never have wanted to return to some pre-industrial fantasised landscape but it is absolutely vital that we use what we know, without prejudice or sentimentality, to support nature, our environment and the health of all our species of animals.   The Hunting Act and all the ground won and lost by both parties seems pretty irrelevant to that more important task to me.


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

Gallop_Away said:



			Agree with you on every point and thank you for clearly acknowledging the bad behaviour of some hunt sabs. However I don't agree with your last point as my own experience has taught me something quite different, but that is a different topic entirely.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe the hunt you go out with does trail hunt, but sadly there are many that do not,  I have no doubt that there are sabs that behave badly as there are hunters.   Hunts like the Warwickshire and others are clearly spoiling trail hunting for the hunts that do hunt within the law.  The fact is in this day and age with drones, mobile phones and cameras the law breakers can not and will not get away with it.


----------



## Koweyka (31 December 2021)

Yes yes you have said all of that before and you have been answered and you ignore the answers so forgive me for not going through it all point by point.
What I will say is because something has happened for 700 years does not make it right, by your logic burning at the stake, children in chimneys, bear baiting should not be frowned upon as they took place for an extended time, there is the great quote “tradition is peer pressure by dead people” this is true of hunting.

Moral high ground …. Well I have never killed an animal for fun or “sport” or supported or taken part in any organisation that harms or has the potential to harm a living sentient creature, so yes I believe I have the moral high ground when it comes to animal welfare over anyone who sets out to hurt, chase and terrify and kill a living creature.

I try to see from the other side, in fact I have had many discussions with hunters over the years, I have been able to understand their point of view, I don’t agree with it,  but I know I have made them change their views and in some cases their ways. 

Then I watch the attached video of the Warwickshire killing this tiny little deer yesterday, I watched him struggle in the mud trying to escape before his throat was ripped out and hounds trotted off with his flesh in their jaws and it’s reminded me just how vile hunting is and I hope the Warwickshire hurry the demise of trail hunting.

For all the Blood/Drag packs you should be worried because the theory amongst the antis is ….when trail hunting ends and it will, all those involved in trail will move to blood and drag packs and why should we believe that they have changed their ways and not set out to corrupt and hunt fox or deer or hares or pet cats. The trail hunts will and are dragging you down with them


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...HQ_7WnafVOSs8MUzjMA6fUGKtHfK25t1FyomReLo4BEuU


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Yes yes you have said all of that before and you have been answered and you ignore the answers so forgive me for not going through it all point by point.
What I will say is because something has happened for 700 years does not make it right, by your logic burning at the stake, children in chimneys, bear baiting should not be frowned upon as they took place for an extended time, there is the great quote “tradition is peer pressure by dead people” this is true of hunting.

Moral high ground …. Well I have never killed an animal for fun or “sport” or supported or taken part in any organisation that harms or has the potential to harm a living sentient creature, so yes I believe I have the moral high ground when it comes to animal welfare over anyone who sets out to hurt, chase and terrify and kill a living creature.

I try to see from the other side, in fact I have had many discussions with hunters over the years, I have been able to understand their point of view, I don’t agree with it,  but I know I have made them change their views and in some cases their ways.

Then I watch the attached video of the Warwickshire killing this tiny little deer yesterday, I watched him struggle in the mud trying to escape before his throat was ripped out and hounds trotted off with his flesh in their jaws and it’s reminded me just how vile hunting is and I hope the Warwickshire hurry the demise of trail hunting.

For all the Blood/Drag packs you should be worried because the theory amongst the antis is ….when trail hunting ends and it will, all those involved in trail will move to blood and drag packs and why should we believe that they have changed their ways and not set out to corrupt and hunt fox or deer or hares or pet cats. The trail hunts will and are dragging you down with them


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...HQ_7WnafVOSs8MUzjMA6fUGKtHfK25t1FyomReLo4BEuU

Click to expand...

Completely agree with everything you have said and also can not be bothered to reply once again to Palo1s reams of waffle.


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

Could I ask a polite question of the pro hunters and or people who trail hunt please?   In the case of a accidental kill happening does the hunt have a legal requirement to inform the Police what has happened?  I was under the impression that they do but am not 100% sure.


----------



## Clodagh (31 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			Could I ask a polite question of the pro hunters and or people who trail hunt please?   In the case of a accidental kill happening does the hunt have a legal requirement to inform the Police what has happened?  I was under the impression that they do but am not 100% sure.
		
Click to expand...

Not so far as I am aware. It wouldn’t actually be necessary as otherwise every dog that caught a squirrel would be reported?
I hope they do if they kill a pet but I don’t know if it’s a requirement. Do you have to inform the police if you run over a cat or dog? I don’t know.
And I’m not even qualified as although I am pro hunt I stopped after the ban.


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			Could I ask a polite question of the pro hunters and or people who trail hunt please?   In the case of a accidental kill happening does the hunt have a legal requirement to inform the Police what has happened?  I was under the impression that they do but am not 100% sure.
		
Click to expand...

There isn't as far as I am aware a requirement to inform the police if an accidental kill happens.  You do have to inform the police if you run over a dog but not a cat.


----------



## Tiddlypom (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Apart from your very personal view about hunting, how do you think the hunting community, after nearly 700 years of hunting with hounds was suddenly going to abandon their attitudes, customs and ideologies under those conditions and because a group that they were deeply and fundamentally opposed to, told them to? I understand your commitment to animal welfare but can you look outside your own views and see how things look from a very different perspective without those judgements? If not, then you are missing a trick in terms of trying to make change - it is an absolute essential tenet of negotiation to understand, truly understand, the viewpoints and experiences of your opponents.
		
Click to expand...

The law changed, that's what, so old style fox hunting is illegal, and has been since the Hunting Act 2004 came into force. What's so hard to comprehend about that 🤷‍♀️?

So some people weren't happy, and would rather that the old ways continued?

Tough. Deal with it. It's well past time to move on.


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

@Koweyka ''Then I watch the attached video of the Warwickshire killing this tiny little deer yesterday, I watched him struggle in the mud trying to escape before his throat was ripped out and hounds trotted off with his flesh in their jaws and it’s reminded me just how vile hunting is and I hope the Warwickshire hurry the demise of trail hunting.''

The Warwickshire are certainly doing a great deal to bring hunting down - I agree.  As a fox hound pack there is no way those hounds should have rioted on that deer, with or without the huntsman nearby.   That is dire management and control no doubt about it.  Appalling.  I don't think it constitutes an offence under the law unless there is evidence that the huntsman deliberately encouraged hounds in that situation.  As a fox hound pack that would be 'odd'.  There is no situation in which that should have happened but I still don't think it is illegal or would 'have' to be reported.  Deer have few rights under the law except that of ownership.


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			The law changed, that's what, so old style fox hunting is illegal, and has been since the Hunting Act 2004 came into force. What's so hard to comprehend about that 🤷‍♀️?

So some people weren't happy, and would rather that the old ways continued?

Tough. Deal with it. It's well past time to move on.
		
Click to expand...

I think you entirely misunderstood my question but there we are.


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

Clodagh said:



			Not so far as I am aware. It wouldn’t actually be necessary as otherwise every dog that caught a squirrel would be reported?
I hope they do if they kill a pet but I don’t know if it’s a requirement. Do you have to inform the police if you run over a cat or dog? I don’t know.
And I’m not even qualified as although I am pro hunt I stopped after the ban.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you, I see your point but I thought any more than two dogs could be classed as a pack.


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



@Koweyka ''Then I watch the attached video of the Warwickshire killing this tiny little deer yesterday, I watched him struggle in the mud trying to escape before his throat was ripped out and hounds trotted off with his flesh in their jaws and it’s reminded me just how vile hunting is and I hope the Warwickshire hurry the demise of trail hunting.''

The Warwickshire are certainly doing a great deal to bring hunting down - I agree.  As a fox hound pack there is no way those hounds should have rioted on that deer, with or without the huntsman nearby.   That is dire management and control no doubt about it.  Appalling.  I don't think it constitutes an offence under the law unless there is evidence that the huntsman deliberately encouraged hounds in that situation.  As a fox hound pack that would be 'odd'.  There is no situation in which that should have happened but I still don't think it is illegal or would 'have' to be reported.  Deer have few rights under the law except that of ownership.
		
Click to expand...

Would the law on having dogs dangerously out of control not apply here?   If I had my pet dogs rampaging around the countryside out of control I would be in trouble would I not?  Even more so given the amount of hounds that were out of control?  whats more out of sight?


----------



## HashRouge (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			I don't like seeing the shot dead foxes (often 6 or 7 at a time) and feel sadness and anger that an animal that was, somewhat by chance, revered and supported by a community in this country because of it's association with hunting, to have been reduced and brought low in the way it has.  I lay part of the blame for that, for the decline in fox numbers, for it's loss of viable country, for it's loss of status in our culture , for the poor health of many urban foxes (and their being dumped in the countryside only to starve or be attacked by other foxes) at the hands of the anti-hunt movement who have used a baseline of sentimentality and the blunt, un-specified and sometimes appallingly anthropomorphic instrument of 'cruelty' to base their wider campaign on.  .
		
Click to expand...

I don't really understand this argument at all. Have fox numbers actually declined? I had a quick google and couldn't find any evidence of that, other than the Breeding Bird Survey from a few years ago. But that is tricky to interpret without more data. Are red fox populations declining or are they moving or changing their habits? In fact, most sources I found suggested it is very hard to know as there is no other official data and no-one is really surveying fox numbers. And if fox numbers are actually declining, find me some evidence that this is actually because of the hunting ban and not because of habitat loss, intensive farming and the ever increasing number of cars on our roads.

I also don't understand the argument that antis are somehow to blame for farmers now shooting loads of foxes. Several posters on this thread keep saying that pre-ban landowners/ farmers were apparently happy to have foxes on their land and be part of the wonderful tradition of hunting, but now they apparently need to shoot bazillions of them. I'm sorry, but something doesn't add up for me here. According to several posters on this thread the hunt was mainly picking off the old/ sick/ weak foxes, leaving alone the healthy ones. So how was that really helping the farmers/ landowners? Why were they happy to welcome/ cultivate these healthy fox populations on their land whereas now apparently they have to shoot them all? If farmers and landowners are going around completely eradicating the fox population (which pro-hunt posters keep telling us the hunts absolutely would not have done/ been in favour of) then there is only one group responsible for that (and it's not the antis!). But I'm not sure we're getting anything other than vague, anecdotal evidence that this is actually the case.

Also, where is the evidence that urban foxes are less healthy? I live in an urban area and we have a lot of foxes, and as far as I can tell they look sleek and healthy. I see lots in the very rural area where I keep my horses too, especially late evening/ early morning in the summer. I don't see evidence of the fox population "brought low" where I live; in fact, there is rarely a day that goes by without me seeing at least one healthy-looking fox going about it's business. I know this is anecdotal, but then so is your above post palo, so...


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			There isn't as far as I am aware a requirement to inform the police if an accidental kill happens.  You do have to inform the police if you run over a dog but not a cat.
		
Click to expand...

May be then that needs to change?  If reporting each and every accidental kill was a requirement then maybe packs would be more careful.


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			Would the law on having dogs dangerously out of control not apply here?   If I had my pet dogs rampaging around the countryside out of control I would be in trouble would I not?  Even more so given the amount of hounds that were out of control?  whats more out of sight?
		
Click to expand...

I think the issue here would be that accidents with a pack of hounds are exempt under the Hunting Act.   It can only be a hunting offence if there is evidence that the huntsman deliberately, and with intent, controlled hounds in such a way as to hunt and kill that deer.  Whilst the video might show the most appalling lack of control and discipline those are not offences under the Hunting Act and hounds are treated differently in law to dogs.  In fact if anyone's dogs took down a deer whilst not under the owner's immediate control there would be no offence committed, neither under the Hunting Act nor any other legislation.  You would have to prove an offence under Animal Welfare laws and that is notoriously difficult I think.  

The issue with reporting each and every time a dog killed wildlife would be that the police would end up ignoring all those reports tbh.  People would make vexatious claims about others etc. Livestock has more protection than wildlife.  Or cats.  It would also make the owners of dogs that chase squirrels, rats or rabbits on the wrong side of the law.  That may be appropriate but it would require serious legislative change to achieve that and I don't think that is realistic or probably, for the vast majority of people, desirable.  It would also mean that what is currently termed humane pest control of rats (with dogs) would become illegal so there would be unintended consequences to that and of course it would instantly outlaw shooting by default which would be extremely difficult to achieve I think.


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

HashRouge said:



			I don't really understand this argument at all. Have fox numbers actually declined? I had a quick google and couldn't find any evidence of that, other than the Breeding Bird Survey from a few years ago. But that is tricky to interpret without more data. Are red fox populations declining or are they moving or changing their habits? In fact, most sources I found suggested it is very hard to know as there is no other official data and no-one is really surveying fox numbers. And if fox numbers are actually declining, find me some evidence that this is actually because of the hunting ban and not because of habitat loss, intensive farming and the ever increasing number of cars on our roads.

I also don't understand the argument that antis are somehow to blame for farmers now shooting loads of foxes. Several posters on this thread keep saying that pre-ban landowners/ farmers were apparently happy to have foxes on their land and be part of the wonderful tradition of hunting, but now they apparently need to shoot bazillions of them. I'm sorry, but something doesn't add up for me here. According to several posters on this thread the hunt was mainly picking off the old/ sick/ weak foxes, leaving alone the healthy ones. So how was that really helping the farmers/ landowners? Why were they happy to welcome/ cultivate these healthy fox populations on their land whereas now apparently they have to shoot them all? If farmers and landowners are going around completely eradicating the fox population (which pro-hunt posters keep telling us the hunts absolutely would not have done/ been in favour of) then there is only one group responsible for that (and it's not the antis!). But I'm not sure we're getting anything other than vague, anecdotal evidence that this is actually the case.

Also, where is the evidence that urban foxes are less healthy? I live in an urban area and we have a lot of foxes, and as far as I can tell they look sleek and healthy. I see lots in the very rural area where I keep my horses too, especially late evening/ early morning in the summer. I don't see evidence of the fox population "brought low" where I live; in fact, there is rarely a day that goes by without me seeing at least one healthy-looking fox going about it's business. I know this is anecdotal, but then so is your above post palo, so...
		
Click to expand...


I suggest you read some of the other material on the thread and elsewhere regarding fox numbers and fox health.  There is plenty of evidence for what I have said about fox numbers, habitat and health.


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			I think the issue here would be that accidents with a pack of hounds are exempt under the Hunting Act.   It can only be a hunting offence if there is evidence that the huntsman deliberately, and with intent, controlled hounds in such a way as to hunt and kill that deer.  Whilst the video might show the most appalling lack of control and discipline those are not offences under the Hunting Act and hounds are treated differently in law to dogs.  In fact if anyone's dogs took down a deer whilst not under the owner's immediate control there would be no offence committed, neither under the Hunting Act nor any other legislation.  You would have to prove an offence under Animal Welfare laws and that is notoriously difficult I think. 

The issue with reporting each and every time a dog killed wildlife would be that the police would end up ignoring all those reports tbh.  People would make vexatious claims about others etc. Livestock has more protection than wildlife.  Or cats.  It would also make the owners of dogs that chase squirrels, rats or rabbits on the wrong side of the law.  That may be appropriate but it would require serious legislative change to achieve that and I don't think that is realistic or probably, for the vast majority of people, desirable.  It would also mean that what is currently termed humane pest control of rats (with dogs) would become illegal so there would be unintended consequences to that and of course it would instantly outlaw shooting by default which would be extremely difficult to achieve I think.
		
Click to expand...

So by that rule then any hunt can go out and say they "Killed by accident"?    The law is a ass.


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			So by that rule then any hunt can go out and say they "Killed by accident"?    The law is a ass.
		
Click to expand...

I do mean packs of hounds reporting a kill by the way.  Not everytime someones pet dog kills a rabbit for example.
If all packs had a legal responsibility to report every kill then you might see things change for the better.  The law as it stands makes it far to easy to bend the rules.  I know that packs of hounds are different to pet dogs by the way otherwise the huntsman would have to carry poo bags and pick up after the hounds which does not happen even when they shit in churchyards!


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			So by that rule then any hunt can go out and say they "Killed by accident"?    The law is a ass.
		
Click to expand...

At last!! Yes, the law enables all manner of things.  There are both exemptions and accidents in a number of settings that are entirely 'legitimate'.  As @Koweyka has acknowledged, it is extraordinarily difficult to achieve certainty at any particular point that an offence under the Hunting Act has or has not been committed.  The bloke stabbing a fox with a fork is nothing to do with the Hunting Act thankfully but can be prosecuted under Animal Welfare laws. 

All manner of deeply offensive and unpleasant behaviour - such as chucking a dead fox at a pack of hounds in front of sabs with the intention of taunting them etc may well be disgusting and immoral but it isn't illegal.


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			I do mean packs of hounds reporting a kill by the way.  Not everytime someones pet dog kills a rabbit for example.
If all packs had a legal responsibility to report every kill then you might see things change for the better.  The law as it stands makes it far to easy to bend the rules.
		
Click to expand...

But of course it does as that is what the legislators and the Act enabled.  It would not have been possible for the Act to get through Parliament at all if it hadn't allowed for those loopholes.  They were there because of the lack of consensus and scientific evidence needed to create a watertight act.


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			But of course it does as that is what the legislators and the Act enabled.  It would not have been possible for the Act to get through Parliament at all if it hadn't allowed for those loopholes.  They were there because of the lack of consensus and scientific evidence needed to create a watertight act.
		
Click to expand...

I am glad we finally agree then that illegal hunting does go on.


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			So by that rule then any hunt can go out and say they "Killed by accident"?    The law is a ass.
		
Click to expand...

I am surprised that you were not aware of this.

ETA - To be honest for someone who is so anti-hunting I am quite shocked that you are not familiar with the Hunting Act and it's many inadequacies.  It seems pretty important to me that if you are going to campaign or protest about something that you understand it.


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			I am glad we finally agree then that illegal hunting does go on.
		
Click to expand...

I haven't denied that there is illegal hunting.  What I was clarifying was the ways in which hunts can result in a kill without it being illegal.


----------



## Clodagh (31 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			Thank you, I see your point but I thought any more than two dogs could be classed as a pack.
		
Click to expand...

Yes I didn’t include that. As Palo has said the law was so badly worded as it was very contentious, it ended up being virtually meaningless. It’s intention is clear but as has been shown actually getting successful prosecutions to clarify it has been almost impossible.


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			I haven't denied that there is illegal hunting.  What I was clarifying was the ways in which hunts can result in a kill without it being illegal.
		
Click to expand...

So if they kill "by accident"  its ok?  So by taking hounds to places well known to have foxes there is a good chance that hounds will find a scent and kill?


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			I am surprised that you were not aware of this.
		
Click to expand...

I was aware.  I was making a point!


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			So if they kill "by accident"  its ok?  So by taking hounds to places well known to have foxes there is a good chance that hounds will find a scent and kill?
		
Click to expand...

If you understand the Act as well as the exemptions why do you need to ask this?  If you are making a point about morality then that is entirely separate to matters of legality.


----------



## milliepops (31 December 2021)

still trying to get you to admit to being a bloodthirsty fox murderer palo, after 75 pages!


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			If you understand the Act as well as the exemptions why do you need to ask this?  If you are making a point about morality then that is entirely separate to matters of legality.
		
Click to expand...

Its more about making a point of how hunts try to get round killing foxes.   The Warwickshire for instance does not appear to lay trails and constantly takes hounds to places well know to have foxes so by default its not unlikely they will find a fox.
This is where evidence of laying a trail needs to be brought in.


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

milliepops said:



			still trying to get you to admit to being a bloodthirsty fox murderer palo, after 75 pages!
		
Click to expand...

Well yes, that probably would help a few folk out tbh!!  I prefer the truth and I am quite happy to represent my true views, opinions and experience cos honesty is the best policy!


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

milliepops said:



			still trying to get you to admit to being a bloodthirsty fox murderer palo, after 75 pages!
		
Click to expand...

Well, if hunts do not lay trails and if they do they use fox sent to do so and take hounds to known areas where foxes are likely to be found what would your estimate of whats likely to happen be?


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Well yes, that probably would help a few folk out tbh!!  I prefer the truth and I am quite happy to represent my true views, opinions and experience cos honesty is the best policy!
		
Click to expand...

So you honestly know that foxes are likely to be found and hunted?  I rest my case.


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			Its more about making a point of how hunts try to get round killing foxes.   The Warwickshire for instance does not appear to lay trails and constantly takes hounds to places well know to have foxes so by default its not unlikely they will find a fox.
This is where evidence of laying a trail needs to be brought in.
		
Click to expand...

Yes I get the point thanks - in fact some hunts will try to 'get round' the law but that is because there are those exemptions and absolute loopholes/gaps/anomalies which make those 'get rounds' legal/are classed as a legal exemption. They are there because the Hunting Act could not have been brought in without those.   Whatever you think about that, a lot of what you think (and possibly should be) illegal is not.


----------



## milliepops (31 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			Well, if hunts do not lay trails and if they do they use fox sent to do so and take hounds to known areas where foxes are likely to be found what would your estimate of whats likely to happen be?
		
Click to expand...

this doesn't make any sense. a few on this thread seem to be trying to get palo to admit to more or less being responsible for all illegal hunting related fox deaths (and probably a fair few legal ones too) when all along she has said she supports legal trail hunting only.
Why should she personally answer to events that she has already condemned? I don't get that way of thinking.

I think i'm pretty patient palo but you have some extraordinary reserves


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			I am surprised that you were not aware of this.

ETA - To be honest for someone who is so anti-hunting I am quite shocked that you are not familiar with the Hunting Act and it's many inadequacies.  It seems pretty important to me that if you are going to campaign or protest about something that you understand it.
		
Click to expand...

Oh. I understand it all right.  I am making a point which seems to go over your head.


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			Well, if hunts do not lay trails and if they do they use fox sent to do so and take hounds to known areas where foxes are likely to be found what would your estimate of whats likely to happen be?
		
Click to expand...

That is conjecture and those things are not illegal.  That is why we are in the trouble that we are. One lot of people wanted a watertight act to prevent all and any way of allowing any traditional hunting activity, including the killling of foxes whilst the other could not see that as legitimate (I am talking parliamentarians, committees and legislators not hunters and anti-hunt protestors).   The parliamentary process even in the Commons could not be convinced that trails had to be proven and it is essentially impossible to have hounds in the UK countryside without the likelihood of encountering foxes. Except possibly in parts of Essex it would seem where they have to make artificial earths for them.  I don't think that is illegal either!  Whilst you might wish that parliament and the Act were better and more in tune with your own view, they are not and the law is what it is.   The lack of consensus and conviction at the time of drafting and bringing the Act into law has had many reverberations.


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

milliepops said:



			this doesn't make any sense. a few on this thread seem to be trying to get palo to admit to more or less being responsible for all illegal hunting related fox deaths (and probably a fair few legal ones too) when all along she has said she supports legal trail hunting only.
Why should she personally answer to events that she has already condemned? I don't get that way of thinking.

I think i'm pretty patient palo but you have some extraordinary reserves 

Click to expand...

I am not and never have said that Palo1 is responsible for all illegal hunting.   It is clear she supports fox hunting though from her many, many answers and her many copies of reports etc.  Yes, the law makes mistakes all too likely but some hunts know this or why would they take hounds to known areas for example along side main roads etc.  We will never agree on this and its a complete waste of time so I need to go and do something more productive.


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

milliepops said:



			this doesn't make any sense. a few on this thread seem to be trying to get palo to admit to more or less being responsible for all illegal hunting related fox deaths (and probably a fair few legal ones too) when all along she has said she supports legal trail hunting only.
Why should she personally answer to events that she has already condemned? I don't get that way of thinking.

I think i'm pretty patient palo but you have some extraordinary reserves 

Click to expand...

Yes, I think I am patient and tolerant too - well I hope so.  At least my absolute trojan effort to explain my viewpoint is entertaining just a few regular posters...Not expecting any kind of 'result' tbh though I am pleased that some posters are finally understanding the Hunting Act and it's stupidities.


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

milliepops said:



			still trying to get you to admit to being a bloodthirsty fox murderer palo, after 75 pages!
		
Click to expand...

IF the cap fits and all that


----------



## YorksG (31 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			IF the cap fits and all that

Click to expand...

What a mature and well reasoned response!


----------



## milliepops (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			That is conjecture and those things are not illegal.  That is why we are in the trouble that we are. One lot of people wanted a watertight act to prevent all and any way of allowing any traditional hunting activity, including the killling of foxes whilst the other could not see that as legitimate (I am talking parliamentarians, committees and legislators not hunters and anti-hunt protestors).   The parliamentary process even in the Commons could not be convinced that trails had to be proven and it is essentially impossible to have hounds in the UK countryside without the likelihood of encountering foxes. Except possibly in parts of Essex it would seem where they have to make artificial earths for them.  I don't think that is illegal either!  Whilst you might wish that parliament and the Act were better and more in tune with your own view, they are not and the law is what it is.   The lack of consensus and conviction at the time of drafting and bringing the Act into law has had many reverberations.
		
Click to expand...

i did my dissertation on the hunting act. I have pushed it all out of my head over the years. this thread is reminding me why!!


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			So you honestly know that foxes are likely to be found and hunted?  I rest my case.
		
Click to expand...

What? I know that the law makes it possible for hounds to be where foxes are likely to be.  I know that the law does not require 'proof' of trail laying (though that is wise in case of contention of course).  After that, it is virtually impossible for anyone to 'know' exactly what may or may not happen in advance of it actually happening.


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Yes, I think I am patient and tolerant too - well I hope so.  At least my absolute trojan effort to explain my viewpoint is entertaining just a few regular posters...Not expecting any kind of 'result' tbh though I am pleased that some posters are finally understanding the Hunting Act and it's stupidities.
		
Click to expand...

I am aware of the hunting act and how hunts bend the rules, thanks all the same.  You have not educated me if thats what you like to think.


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			IF the cap fits and all that

Click to expand...

That is a pretty offensive thing to say and imply @Sandstone.  I hope I have treated posters with more respect than this in spite of my difference of opinion on some things.


----------



## Koweyka (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			That is conjecture and those things are not illegal.  That is why we are in the trouble that we are. One lot of people wanted a watertight act to prevent all and any way of allowing any traditional hunting activity, including the killling of foxes whilst the other could not see that as legitimate (I am talking parliamentarians, committees and legislators not hunters and anti-hunt protestors).   The parliamentary process even in the Commons could not be convinced that trails had to be proven and it is essentially impossible to have hounds in the UK countryside without the likelihood of encountering foxes. Except possibly in parts of Essex it would seem where they have to make artificial earths for them.  I don't think that is illegal either!  Whilst you might wish that parliament and the Act were better and more in tune with your own view, they are not and the law is what it is.   The lack of consensus and conviction at the time of drafting and bringing the Act into law has had many reverberations.
		
Click to expand...

But this is the problem, hunts are putting hounds in areas very likely containing foxes and foxes are killed, laying trails of fox urine into coverts and copses and undergrowth, is so dangerous to wildlife, the hunt says sorry it was an accident and proving intent is practically impossible which is why we want the recklessness clause added, please don’t start the what if’s three dogs chase a squirrel nonsense because it needs to be clear how it should be applied. Then these hunts wonder why they get sabbed when they are laying trails ….
#smokescreen


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			I am aware of the hunting act and how hunts bend the rules, thanks all the same.  You have not educated me if thats what you like to think.
		
Click to expand...

The problem is that the 'rules' are not 'bent' - they expressly allow for a completely different outcome to the spirit and intention of the Act.  The Hunting Act depends on huntsmen, in part, following the spirit and not the letter of the law.  You will, of course, know that.


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			What? I know that the law makes it possible for hounds to be where foxes are likely to be.  I know that the law does not require 'proof' of trail laying (though that is wise in case of contention of course).  After that, it is virtually impossible for anyone to 'know' exactly what may or may not happen in advance of it actually happening.
		
Click to expand...

SO if you dont lay a trail and take hounds to where foxes are likely to be and hounds find and hunt a fox where is the control of a huntsman to call hounds off a trail?  If he does not have control he shouldnt be hunting them, if he lets them hunt on hes breaking the law.


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			But this is the problem, hunts are putting hounds in areas very likely containing foxes and foxes are killed, laying trails of fox urine into coverts and copses and undergrowth, is so dangerous to wildlife, the hunt says sorry it was an accident and proving intent is practically impossible which is why we want the recklessness clause added, please don’t start the what if’s three dogs chase a squirrel nonsense because it needs to be clear how it should be applied. Then these hunts wonder why they get sabbed when they are laying trails ….
#smokescreen
		
Click to expand...

Exactly....


----------



## Gallop_Away (31 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			IF the cap fits and all that

Click to expand...

Rude and totally unnecessary!


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			The problem is that the 'rules' are not 'bent' - they expressly allow for a completely different outcome to the spirit and intention of the Act.  The Hunting Act depends on huntsmen, in part, following the spirit and not the letter of the law.  You will, of course, know that.
		
Click to expand...

They do not follow the law at all they take hounds expressly to areas they know they are likely to find...They either dont lay a trail at all or use fox scent.  They do encourage hounds on to the scent and they hunt them on..
This is why sabs have to disrupt hunts.


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

Gallop_Away said:



			Rude and totally unnecessary!
		
Click to expand...

Really?  but true.  If you think thats rude you should see me when I really try


----------



## Tiddlypom (31 December 2021)

Re artificial earths. They were common pre ban. They were put in to encourage foxes to the more poorly foxed parts of a hunt country.

A farmer might happily watch a family of young cubs who'd been born in an artificial earth that he'd put in playing on his land all summer, and ensure that they were safe. Then he'd tip the wink to the huntsman come the cubbing season in autumn, who would send hounds in. The field would be positioned around the outside of the covert 'holding up', ie making lots of noise when the (now virtually fully grown) cubs tried to escape, and the young entry of hounds would learn their trade by killing most of the cubs near their birthplace.

As far as I know the creation of an artificial earth with the intention of encouraging foxes is still not illegal, though cubbing as described above has been banned since the Hunting Act came in.

One does wonder what the 'official' reason was for the relatively recent refurbishment of the artificial earth in E.Essex country, though 🤔. Clearly not so that a sicko with a fork could harvest and torture foxes.


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			But this is the problem, hunts are putting hounds in areas very likely containing foxes and foxes are killed, laying trails of fox urine into coverts and copses and undergrowth, is so dangerous to wildlife, the hunt says sorry it was an accident and proving intent is practically impossible which is why we want the recklessness clause added, please don’t start the what if’s three dogs chase a squirrel nonsense because it needs to be clear how it should be applied. Then these hunts wonder why they get sabbed when they are laying trails ….
#smokescreen
		
Click to expand...

Well we agree on some things but the issue for a lot of hunters (probably those who wish to follow the letter rather than the spirit of the law) is that their actions may well be legal and cannot known be be illegal until the point at which they cross the line of the law.  This may be why the presence of sabs and their interference will be seen as illegitimate, even where I understand that is entirely possible for illegal hunting to take place and for anti hunters to feel passionately, actively angry about that.   For other hunts where hunting is carried out entirely legally and in the spirit of the law too, sabs are utterly unwarranted and the constant assertions of illegality are totally unhelpful to any furthering of animal welfare causes.   The issue of danger to wildlife with legal trailhunting is really not proven and even the dear old National Trust have publicly stated that hunting activities are no more disruptive than any other legal activity.  

Even Knepp estate have accepted trail hunting on their land as 'safe' when their entire raison d'etre is the improvement of conditions for nature and wildlife.


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			Really?  but true.  If you think thats rude you should see me when I really try

Click to expand...

Please don't.


----------



## Gallop_Away (31 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			Really?  but true.  If you think thats rude you should see me when I really try

Click to expand...

Palo has made it quite clear she does not support illegal hunting. That response was completely unnecessary. 
Palo has been nothing but polite throughout this debate. What a shame others can't show her the same courtesy.


----------



## milliepops (31 December 2021)

requiring people to follow the spirit of the law when the letter says something different is always going to go wrong.
Remember all the "but what can i get away with" kind of stuff at the start of the pandemic.
If you're writing a law that is intended to be effective or watertight you have to say what you mean.  attacking the law instead of individuals would be a better use of sabs time.

resorting to personal insults makes the debate a total farce.


----------



## ycbm (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			how do you think the hunting community, after nearly 700 years of hunting with hounds was suddenly going to abandon their attitudes, customs and ideologies under those conditions and because a group that they were deeply and fundamentally opposed to, told them to?
		
Click to expand...

I don't.  I would though,  have expected them up have woken up to the fact that the tide of public opinion had been gradually turning against them for at least 50 years.  The Act was not sudden or unexpected, and it was felt by many to be long overdue.  




palo1 said:



			If you are making a point about morality then that is entirely separate to matters of legality.
		
Click to expand...

Not in my view.  You write consistently as if the loopholes in the law designed so that people are not prosecuted for a genuine mistakenly killed fox somehow gives people the right to ignore the spirit of the law, and continue to use fox scent in fox country in the full knowledge that it makes those "accidents"  likely. 

I'm afraid that for me that very much weakens your statement that you disagree with illegal hunting.   



palo1 said:



			an animal that was, somewhat by chance, revered and supported by a community in this country because of it's association with hunting
		
Click to expand...

 Foxes were supported so they could be hunted.  Can you see the conflict in being proud of that? You later in the post I took this from say sabs misuse  sentimentality. Revered?  If that isn't sentimentality I don't know what it is. I've never heard a word of reverence for the fox from any of the many fox hunters I've known.   It's also the first time I've seen an animal described as revered  by people prepared to see it run until exhausted and die torn in pieces, often after being dragged out of an earth by some terriers after escaping the hounds.   
.


----------



## AdorableAlice (31 December 2021)

Miss_Millie said:



			I agree, I think that hunting needs a re-brand and to make its stance on illegal fox hunting extremely clear. I think this is what it will take to save the sport now, after several years of really bad press.
		
Click to expand...

I wonder if the anti hunt groups raise money for charity as the hunts do ?  Tens of thousands of pounds are raised by the hunts for many charities through the years.  Just recently 10k was raised by my local pack for the air ambulance for instance.  Other charities receiving donations include MacMillan, Breast Cancer and The Heart Foundation.  Many activities go on organised by the various hunts raising money for charity and always have done.  There is no big public statement made when the money is handed over, just perhaps a note on the hunt website.  Maybe more publicity is needed.  I hunted for 22 seasons pre ban and enjoyed many of the charity events as well.  Fun rides, summer shows etc etc.  I no longer hunt and if the MFHA don't address the current problems there is no doubt hunting will finish.  Major changes are needed.

Perhaps those anti hunt prolific posters on this thread can tell me how much money their groups have raised for worthy causes ?


----------



## ycbm (31 December 2021)

milliepops said:



			requiring people to follow the spirit of the law when the letter says something different is always going to go wrong.
		
Click to expand...

The letter of the law is to prevent innocent people being prosecuted for a completely accidental kill.  It is not an accidental kill,  but a very predictable one,  if weak scent is laid in an area known to have foxes.  

A comparison would be that the letter of the law says that for something to be theft there must be an attempt to "permanently deprive" the owner of the stolen goods.   Every thief could mount the defence "but I always intended to take it back", which would mean it was not theft.  Only nobody believes them, so they get convicted.

And since the webinars, few people  any longer believe the innocence of the hunts "accidentally" catching fox  and I would expect to see convictions somewhat easier to obtain in future. 
.


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			They do not follow the law at all they take hounds expressly to areas they know they are likely to find...They either dont lay a trail at all or use fox scent.  They do encourage hounds on to the scent and they hunt them on..
This is why sabs have to disrupt hunts.
		
Click to expand...

But taking hounds to an area where there are likely to be foxes is definitely not illegal.  Using a fox scent is legal.  Encouraging hounds to follow a scent is legal.  Deliberately encouraging hounds to follow a *particular scent of a known, live fox with the intention of killing it *is not legal.  What is legal and what is not are so incredibly close that as @milliepops has said expecting people to follow the spirit rather than the letter of the law is never going to work.  You may feel that what is legal is actually immoral but that is entirely different.


----------



## ycbm (31 December 2021)

AdorableAlice said:



			I wonder if the anti hunt groups raise money for charity as the hunts do ?  Tens of thousands of pounds are raised by the hunts for many charities through the years.  Just recently 10k was raised by my local pack for the air ambulance for instance.  Other charities receiving donations include MacMillan, Breast Cancer and The Heart Foundation.  Many activities go on organised by the various hunts raising money for charity and always have done.  There is no big public statement made when the money is handed over, just perhaps a note on the hunt website.  Maybe more publicity is needed.  I hunted for 22 seasons pre ban and enjoyed many of the charity events as well.  Fun rides, summer shows etc etc.  I no longer hunt and if the MFHA don't address the current problems there is no doubt hunting will finish.  Major changes are needed.

Perhaps those anti hunt prolific posters on this thread can tell me how much money their groups have raised for worthy causes ?
		
Click to expand...


I'm sorry AA, it really isn't relevant.  It isn't necessary to hunt fox to raise money for charity.
.


----------



## ycbm (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			.  You may feel that what is legal is actually immoral but that is entirely different.
		
Click to expand...

The problem is that you don't.  And then complain about hunts being sabbed.


----------



## Koweyka (31 December 2021)

milliepops said:



			requiring people to follow the spirit of the law when the letter says something different is always going to go wrong.
Remember all the "but what can i get away with" kind of stuff at the start of the pandemic.
If you're writing a law that is intended to be effective or watertight you have to say what you mean.  attacking the law instead of individuals would be a better use of sabs time.

resorting to personal insults makes the debate a total farce.
		
Click to expand...

I regularly meet with MP’s to discuss the hunting act, I have had a statement read in Parliament debating the hunting act, I also speak at council meetings, newspapers, I have also been on television several times discussing the hunting act, which is extremely nerve wracking,  however while there is a Conservative Government there will be no change, they won’t rock the boat, though I am extremely heartened that more and more Tory MP’s are taking a stance against trail hunting.


----------



## milliepops (31 December 2021)

there are all sorts of moral wrongs that are legally right though. in an argument it's useful to be logical or clear which is which, that's all i take from palo's distinctions.


----------



## Koweyka (31 December 2021)

AdorableAlice said:



			I wonder if the anti hunt groups raise money for charity as the hunts do ?  Tens of thousands of pounds are raised by the hunts for many charities through the years.  Just recently 10k was raised by my local pack for the air ambulance for instance.  Other charities receiving donations include MacMillan, Breast Cancer and The Heart Foundation.  Many activities go on organised by the various hunts raising money for charity and always have done.  There is no big public statement made when the money is handed over, just perhaps a note on the hunt website.  Maybe more publicity is needed.  I hunted for 22 seasons pre ban and enjoyed many of the charity events as well.  Fun rides, summer shows etc etc.  I no longer hunt and if the MFHA don't address the current problems there is no doubt hunting will finish.  Major changes are needed.

Perhaps those anti hunt prolific posters on this thread can tell me how much money their groups have raised for worthy causes ?
		
Click to expand...

We give our free time to many animal charities, we don’t brag or make a big deal of it sometime boots on the ground is worth far more than money.


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			The letter of the law is to prevent innocent people being prosecuted for a completely accidental kill.  It is not an accidental kill,  but a very predictable one,  if weak scent is laid in an area known to have foxes.

A comparison would be that the letter of the law says that for something to be theft there must be an attempt to "permanently deprive" the owner of the stolen goods.   Every thief could mount the defence "but I always intended to take it back", which would mean it was not theft.  Only nobody believes them, so they get convicted.

And since the webinars, few people  any longer believe the innocence of the hunts "accidentally" catching fox  and I would expect to see convictions somewhat easier to obtain in future.
.
		
Click to expand...

Well those are your interpretations and I understand your view.  The fact is that the law remains the basis for prosecution and under UK laws evidence has to be provided in relation to the law that stands, not the law as others would like it to work.  A predictable incident is not the same as an illegal one. 

 It is predictable that people going to the pub will drink drive, and they do every year with several tragic deaths as a result.  But it isn't illegal to go to the pub, it's not illegal to drive to the pub or any other event where there is a plentiful supply of alcohol and encouragement to partake in it.  The law says that it is illegal to drink over a certain amount.  It might be wiser and better if you were not allowed any alcohol as that would more likely prevent any drink driving or reduce the incidence of that.  That is not what the law states however so prosecutions have to work with the law.  I don't know why that is so difficult to grasp.


----------



## Steerpike (31 December 2021)

Just saw a post on a local fb group of someone going to check their resting field for storm damage to find the hunt have been all over her field, shod hoof prints when her horses are barefoot, she's not impressed and rightly so.


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

Steerpike said:



			Just saw a post on a local fb group of someone going to check their resting field for storm damage to find the hunt have been all over her field, shod hoof prints when her horses are barefoot, she's not impressed and rightly so.
		
Click to expand...

Well if they haven't had permission to be on her land,  under the new laws relating to trespass as long as she can identify who has been in her field she will be able to refer the matter to the police.  Last week or so 2 anti hunt protestors were arrested for trespassing at a shoot; it seems likely that the law will be workable if individuals are identifiable.


----------



## Gallop_Away (31 December 2021)

AdorableAlice said:



			Perhaps those anti hunt prolific posters on this thread can tell me how much money their groups have raised for worthy causes ?
		
Click to expand...

Prior to covid our hunt would organise several events throughout the summer season. There would usually be an annual fun ride, also several shows and a point to point.
Some of the funds raised would go towards the hunt but a portion also went to a local horse rescue and a cancer hospital.


----------



## ycbm (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			. I don't know why that is so difficult to grasp.
		
Click to expand...

It isn't. 

Why does it seem so difficult for hunting people to grasp that sabbing will never stop, and they may lose their entire sport,  if they don't find a way to get all hunts to act within the spirit of the law? 
.


----------



## ycbm (31 December 2021)

Gallop_Away said:



			Prior to covid our hunt would organise several events throughout the summer season. There would usually be an annual fun ride, also several shows and a point to point.
Some of the funds raised would go towards the hunt but a portion also went to a local horse rescue and a cancer hospital.
		
Click to expand...


A lot of the people who "buy" a knighthood do it by giving vast sums, sometimes from very dodgy sources,   to charitable causes.

Charitable giving is not relevant to the discussion.  
.


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			It isn't.

Why does it seem so difficult for hunting people to grasp that sabbing will never stop, and they may lose their entire sport,  if they don't find a way to get all hunts to act within the spirit of the law?
.
		
Click to expand...

Because 'spirit' isn't ever going to make fair or acceptable laws.  Sabbing might not stop but the courts can't act outside of what is actually within the letter of the law.  The police can't be expected to interpret the law either and have regularly expressed considerable frustration about anti-hunt footage of alleged illegal hunting which is edited.  That happens because they too are trying to 'get round' the law by removing evidence that would change the footage from potentially legal to potentially illegal. Or possibly to remove evidence of their own potentially illegal activity.


----------



## Gallop_Away (31 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			A lot of the people who "buy" a knighthood do it by giving vast sums, sometimes from very dodgy sources,   to charitable causes.

Charitable giving is not relevant to the discussion. 
.
		
Click to expand...

It is relevant because of the bad PR hunting has. Hunts need to do more to address the public's perception of them and doing more for local communities is a good start. They have a very long way to go.


----------



## ycbm (31 December 2021)

Palo your argument is leaving out the whole question of intent.  I think the law is broken if the intent was that there was a deliberate or reckless disregard for whether foxes were or were not killed. 

You claim that you are against illegal hunting.  But i don't think you are.  You seem only to be against illegal hunting where the intent can be proven to the satisfaction of a court.

And where you get evidence of intent,  like the webinar prosecutions, you somehow manage to convince yourself that it's all been taken out of context.,

And here's another problem.  The legal trail hunts constantly assure us that they are hunting entirely legally and avoid catching foxes.  So why can't the others?  There's only one answer to that,  because they are hunting with a deliberate or reckless disregard for the law.  

I think your statements that you are against illegal hunting are  misleading.


----------



## ycbm (31 December 2021)

Gallop_Away said:



			It is relevant because of the bad PR hunting has. Hunts need to do more to address the public's perception of them and doing more for local communities is a good start. They have a very long way to go.
		
Click to expand...

I get your point but I don't think the public will buy it until you stop other hunts killing foxes.  
.


----------



## Gallop_Away (31 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			I get your point but I don't think the public will buy it until you stop other hunts killing foxes. 
.
		
Click to expand...

I was referring to legal hunts in my post. 
I completely agree that we should be distancing ourselves from the illegal hunts and condemning their behaviour as loudly as possible. I also think we have a long way to go with the PR side. 
Sadly I worry this will all come too late and it really is only a matter of time before all hunting legal or not is stopped. 
I for one would be very sad to see the legal hunts dissappear with the illegal ones.


----------



## ycbm (31 December 2021)

Gallop_Away said:



			I was referring to legal hunts in my post. 
I completely agree that we should be distancing ourselves from the illegal hunts and condemning their behaviour as loudly as possible. I also think we have a long way to go with the PR side. 
Sadly I worry this will all come too late and it really is only a matter of time before all hunting legal or not is stopped.
		
Click to expand...


I know you were.  But the public no longer trust any hunt to be legal,  and you won't get far with a PR campaign based on your charity funding until you stop hunts catching fox,  ime.





			I for one would be very sad to see the legal hunts dissappear with the illegal ones.
		
Click to expand...

So would I.


----------



## YorksG (31 December 2021)

If the registered packs are forced to quit, then there will be a proliferation of "pirate" packs. They will do as our local pack did this weekend, take out say 15 couple of hounds and 15 people will take guns, and then claim they are each attempting to flush, by two hounds, to each gun. The pirate packs will have no governance, other than already hard pressed local police services.


----------



## ycbm (31 December 2021)

Palo, to clarify what you mean why you say you are against illegal hunting,   can you give us a straight yes or no answer to this question? 

Are you personally against the activities  of hunts which are either deliberately or recklessly setting trails of a type and in an area which make it likely that they will catch fox?
.


----------



## stangs (31 December 2021)

Trail hunting needs to unambiguously, clearly state that it condemns the hunts that continue to hunt illegally. 

Saying "but, pre-ban, killing foxes was actually good bc a) ... b) ..." only muddies any condemnations/apologises.


----------



## Clodagh (31 December 2021)

FestiveG said:



			If the registered packs are forced to quit, then there will be a proliferation of "pirate" packs. They will do as our local pack did this weekend, take out say 15 couple of hounds and 15 people will take guns, and then claim they are each attempting to flush, by two hounds, to each gun. The pirate packs will have no governance, other than already hard pressed local police services.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with your post but at the moment the whole shebang is unmanaged due to the mfha’s arrogance and incompetence.


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			Palo, to clarify what you mean why you say you are against illegal hunting,   can you give us a straight yes or no answer to this question?

Are you personally against the activities  of hunts which are either deliberately or recklessly setting trails of a type and in an area which make it likely that they will catch fox?
.
		
Click to expand...

Because of the way the UK countryside is @ycbm all trail hunts necessarily are working where there are foxes but I am against deliberate and/or reckless trail hunting and know for certain that a decent pack of hounds can absolutely hunt a laid trail safely.  Hounds must be controlled and effectively trained in the same way as sheepdogs and other 'working' dogs.  I am furious with hunts and huntsmen/women who are exhibiting reckless bad behaviour, poor manners - including the taunting of sabs as well as bringing all hunting into disrepute, not to mention their poor control or discipline of hounds which are demonstrably capable of moving along a trail safely.

I have no qualms in repeating ad nauseam my position that I am against illegal hunting through intent.


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

Clodagh said:



			I agree with your post but at the moment the whole shebang is unmanaged due to the mfha’s arrogance and incompetence.
		
Click to expand...

Quite so! I suspect that the pirate packs are far more discreet in relation to where they feel they can go and how they operate.  Sadly enough, because the MFHA have let hunting down so badly I imagine a number of hunts may choose to de-register where they feel they can find insurance elsewhere (in fact my hunt does not get it's insurance through the MFHA and others are in that situation too)  and where they don't feel they are gaining much from registration or formal association with the MFHA.


----------



## Koweyka (31 December 2021)

Well there is also a train of thought that insurance companies may pull the plug on insuring hunts due to the “badly” behaved hunts and the fallout from the webinars. Then you will all be screwed just like the hunts in Ireland.


----------



## YorksG (31 December 2021)

This is just an observation, but the tone and language of the anti hunt people on this thread, is particularly aggressive, bordering on abusive, which is in contrast to the more pro hunt posters.


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Well there is also a train of thought that insurance companies may pull the plug on insuring hunts due to the “badly” behaved hunts and the fallout from the webinars. Then you will all be screwed just like the hunts in Ireland.
		
Click to expand...

There will always be someone prepared to provide insurance; it is a business and conditions of recklessness can be built into insurance more easily than law.  I think insurance refusing to do business is wishful thinking to be honest.


----------



## Koweyka (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			There will always be someone prepared to provide insurance; it is a business and conditions of recklessness can be built into insurance more easily than law.  I think insurance refusing to do business is wishful thinking to be honest.
		
Click to expand...

The hunts in Ireland have struggled to find insurance, I hope the premiums will be astronomical.


----------



## Koweyka (31 December 2021)

My colleagues are out at the moment unblocking badger setts under police supervision after a particularly vile hunt has packed up. On top of the sett there are very fresh boot and spade marks and quad bike tracks, the hunt turned up in the same wood. This happens at every meet location this hunt meets at.

How do the pro hunts explain this ? How do you feel about sett blocking by your soft underbelly?


----------



## Upthecreek (31 December 2021)

Unless there are drastic changes to the Hunting Act nothing will change. In reality you have something which is banned, but allowed to continue. The law is practically unenforceable due to the difficulty in proving intent as far as illegal hunting is concerned. Even when intent has been proven, the penalties are not severe.

Intent in my opinion would be defined as hounds being proven to be ineffectively trained and managed because they chase and kill animals. If they cannot ignore live fox, deer or hare the hunt should be disbanded. This would mean that all packs would have to properly train and manage the hounds to follow a trail only because the consequences of not doing so would be not being allowed to continue hunting.


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			I don't.  I would though,  have expected them up have woken up to the fact that the tide of public opinion had been gradually turning against them for at least 50 years.  The Act was not sudden or unexpected, and it was felt by many to be long overdue. 




Not in my view.  You write consistently as if the loopholes in the law designed so that people are not prosecuted for a genuine mistakenly killed fox somehow gives people the right to ignore the spirit of the law, and continue to use fox scent in fox country in the full knowledge that it makes those "accidents"  likely.

I'm afraid that for me that very much weakens your statement that you disagree with illegal hunting.  



Foxes were supported so they could be hunted.  Can you see the conflict in being proud of that? You later in the post I took this from say sabs misuse  sentimentality. Revered?  If that isn't sentimentality I don't know what it is. I've never heard a word of reverence for the fox from any of the many fox hunters I've known.   It's also the first time I've seen an animal described as revered  by people prepared to see it run until exhausted and die torn in pieces, often after being dragged out of an earth by some terriers after escaping the hounds.  
.
		
Click to expand...

I have just had to come back to this @ycbm.  You haven't at all taken on board the impact of culture on a community and how difficult it is in practical terms to get rid of cultural activities, values and behaviours.  Whilst you might think it easy, history absolutely proves it to be not so!!  The fox has been genuinely 'special' in British culture with much song, poetry, art, music and ritual -including hunting around that animal.  That isn't actually easily dismantled in a trice, especially not where there are communities that still want to refer to those things in their life.  I think you know better than what you suggest - either that or you are extraordinarily naive about how society and culture really works....

 Revered isn't a sentimental term at all - it means raising something above it's basic status and that exactly describes the fox in British culture.  Today the fox remains emblematic - it is everywhere; on everything from pajamas to animal rights activists literature. In any object analysis this suggests that that animal is far more significant than just a red-brown canine.    I cannot see the conflict in me acknowledging that supporting an animal for hunting purposes when that was entirely legal might have been positive for that species.  Many other people will have said the same about foxes and other animals.   Moral judgements are entirely separate to legal ones; in the same way that religious practices make moral judgements about food, about sex, about contraception; they are entirely different to legality.  For some their morality and the law clash, for others they co-exist happily and for most of us there are shades of grey between the two on many issues.

I don't think I have the right to censure someone if they are obeying the law of the land regardless of how I feel about their attitudes, behaviour or beliefs.  I might express my own views of course, hopefully respectfully and within the law. That is how our society works.


----------



## AdorableAlice (31 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			We give our free time to many animal charities, we don’t brag or make a big deal of it sometime boots on the ground is worth far more than money.
		
Click to expand...

I doubt the charities receiving donations would agree with you and your response is very blinkered which I expected,  and whilst I agree that my comment is not particularly relevant to the discussion on this thread, it is relevant that the anti hunt groups and the general public should be aware that the rural community do a lot for charity for both their own and others.


----------



## Tiddlypom (31 December 2021)

FestiveG said:



			This is just an observation, but the tone and language of the anti hunt people on this thread, is particularly aggressive, bordering on abusive, which is in contrast to the more pro hunt posters.
		
Click to expand...

You think that all the anti hunt people, by which I presume you mean the anti illegal hunting people (who comprise the vast majority of posters on this thread) are using aggressive, bordering on abusive language? Really?

ETA I also think that it would be easier to police the pirate hunts if all legal hunting goes to the wall, as the police would instantly know that such groups were up to no good.


----------



## paddy555 (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			I have just had to come back to this @ycbm.  You haven't at all taken on board the impact of culture on a community and how difficult it is in practical terms to get rid of cultural activities, values and behaviours.  Whilst you might think it easy, history absolutely proves it to be not so!!  The fox has been genuinely 'special' in British culture with much song, poetry, art, music and ritual -including hunting around that animal.  That isn't actually easily dismantled in a trice, especially not where there are communities that still want to refer to those things in their life.  I think you know better than what you suggest - either that or you are extraordinarily naive about how society and culture really works....
		
Click to expand...

what about the impact of that culture on the community who hate it? Not just one or two people but a lot. If you did a poll of our area, which is reasonably rural, I am pretty sure there would be a large number who wanted it stopped both trail and fox.

I think you are very naive if you really think the vast  majority of people living in the country (which is where hunting in whatever form takes place) actually want it.  

It could be dismantled tomorrow very easily and quickly.


----------



## Koweyka (31 December 2021)

AdorableAlice said:



			I doubt the charities receiving donations would agree with you and your response is very blinkered which I expected,  and whilst I agree that my comment is not particularly relevant to the discussion on this thread, it is relevant that the anti hunt groups and the general public should be aware that the rural community do a lot for charity for both their own and others.
		
Click to expand...

But you have absolutely no idea what anti hunt groups do for charity, how much money they raise, how much time they give freely to causes, we just don’t brag, as for the blinkered comment ….well pot, kettle, black to you too.


----------



## Fred66 (31 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			The problem is that you don't.  And then complain about hunts being sabbed.
		
Click to expand...

I think it is immoral and illegal for a group of people to threaten and intimidate others in an attempt to force them to bend to their view. Especially when trespassing which is illegal once it is pointed out to them and keeping their faces masked.
Do you think this is acceptable?


----------



## paddy555 (31 December 2021)

AdorableAlice said:



			the general public should be aware that the rural community do a lot for charity for both their own and others.
		
Click to expand...

are you equating the rural community with the hunt. Two very different things.


----------



## Koweyka (31 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			I think it is immoral for a group of people to threaten and intimidate others in an attempt to force them to bend to their view. Especially when trespassing and keeping their faces masked.
Do you think this is acceptable?
		
Click to expand...

It’s not illegal to wear face coverings, just ask your terrier thugs.


----------



## paddy555 (31 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			Especially when trespassing which is illegal once it is pointed out to them and keeping their faces masked.
Do you think this is acceptable?
		
Click to expand...

what about the hunt letting their hounds trespass on people's land where they are specifically not allowed and then causing damage. That is no more acceptable.


----------



## Tiddlypom (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			You haven't at all taken on board the impact of culture on a community and how difficult it is in practical terms to get rid of cultural activities, values and behaviours. Whilst you might think it easy, history absolutely proves it to be not so!! The fox has been genuinely 'special' in British culture with much song, poetry, art, music and ritual -including hunting around that animal. That isn't actually easily dismantled in a trice, especially not where there are communities that still want to refer to those things in their life. I think you know better than what you suggest - either that or you are extraordinarily naive about how society and culture really works....
		
Click to expand...

But their culture wasn't dismantled in a trice, there was plenty of time to get used to the idea of a ban and of what should come after it.

There will be people on here who started hunting longer ago than me, but I was about 14 and it was about 1973 when I hacked (on my own) to my first hunt meet. I had a fabulous day, and I had many more fabulous days after that, but the writing was on the wall even then. It was just a question of when, not if, hunting would be banned.


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			You think that all the anti hunt people, by which I presume you mean the anti illegal hunting people (who comprise the vast majority of posters on this thread) are using aggressive, bordering on abusive language? Really?

ETA I also think that it would be easier to police the pirate hunts if all legal hunting goes to the wall, as the police would instantly know that such groups were up to no good.
		
Click to expand...

I don't see how you work that one out @Tiddlypom because if a landowner is happy to have a pirate pack on their land and no offence is committed then it is not a police matter.  The problem would be that it would be incredibly hard to monitor in any way as pirate packs are not registered nor do they have any need or want to engage with the public.  I have no idea how much attention they have had from anti-hunting groups but I would guess that as they are a much harder target to find, very little attention has been paid to their activities, legal or not.


----------



## stangs (31 December 2021)

What fascinates me is how fox hunting continues despite the ban (even though people claim that there's been a decrease in the population of rural foxes), but, to the best of my knowledge, when otter populations decreased, packs stopped hunting them without a ban. Was it that people turned to hunting mink instead back then, or that certain train hunts today are affronted by the existence of a ban? 

Anyone here know anything about otter packs?


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			But their culture wasn't dismantled in a trice, there was plenty of time to get used to the idea of a ban and of what should come after it.

There will be people on here who started hunting longer ago than me, but I was about 14 and it was about 1973 when I hacked (on my own) to my first hunt meet. I had a fabulous day, and I had many more fabulous days after that, but the writing was on the wall even then. It was just a question of when, not if, hunting would be banned.
		
Click to expand...

20 years is nothing in comparison to the structures and roots of a tradition and a set of beliefs and practices.  Christianity over 2000 years has failed to totally overwrite earlier cultural traditions - cleverly early Christians adapted and absorbed the old stuff.  You are naive if you think you can enforce complete cultural change on a community in just one or two generations.  Changes can be made and have been but it takes a long time.


----------



## Gallop_Away (31 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			My colleagues are out at the moment unblocking badger setts under police supervision after a particularly vile hunt has packed up. On top of the sett there are very fresh boot and spade marks and quad bike tracks, the hunt turned up in the same wood. This happens at every meet location this hunt meets at.

How do the pro hunts explain this ? How do you feel about sett blocking by your soft underbelly?
		
Click to expand...

I really don't understand what more you want people say that hasn't already been said!? NOT ONE PERSON has defended illegal hunting activities. I'm not sure what more you want people to say?


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

stangs said:



			What fascinates me is how fox hunting continues despite the ban (even though people claim that there's been a decrease in the population of rural foxes), but, to the best of my knowledge, when otter populations decreased, packs stopped hunting them without a ban. Was it that people turned to hunting mink instead back then, or that certain train hunts today are affronted by the existence of a ban?

Anyone here know anything about otter packs?
		
Click to expand...

I really don't but I suspect that otters were actually hunted (and killed in other ways including poison and environmental damage etc) until they were no longer viable for anyone to kill for any reason.  Originally they had been hunted because people felt they competed with them for fish.  Thank goodness, for a number of reasons our otter population is increasing.


----------



## ycbm (31 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			I think it is immoral and illegal for a group of people to threaten and intimidate others in an attempt to force them to bend to their view. Especially when trespassing which is illegal once it is pointed out to them and keeping their faces masked.
Do you think this is acceptable?
		
Click to expand...

No I don't think that's acceptable.  But they think you are lying. They aren't trying to stop you doing what you're doing,  they're trying to stop you doing what they think you are lying about.

I completely understand why they think you are lying as I have already explained several times. 
.


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			My colleagues are out at the moment unblocking badger setts under police supervision after a particularly vile hunt has packed up. On top of the sett there are very fresh boot and spade marks and quad bike tracks, the hunt turned up in the same wood. This happens at every meet location this hunt meets at.

How do the pro hunts explain this ? How do you feel about sett blocking by your soft underbelly?
		
Click to expand...

For goodness sake @Koweyka, whoever blocked badger setts is not 'my' (or probably any other poster on this thread's) soft underbelly! Stop conflating all of your hatred for a different group of people into one thing.  Interfering with a badger sett is an offence under the Protection of Badgers Act and this may be part of a hunt's activity and may be part of a Hunting Act offence but it is nothing to do with the legal trail hunting that is supported on this thread.


----------



## ycbm (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			I have just had to come back to this @ycbm.  You haven't at all taken on board the impact of culture on a community and how difficult it is in practical terms to get rid of cultural activities, values and behaviours.  Whilst you might think it easy, history absolutely proves it to be not so!!  The fox has been genuinely 'special' in British culture with much song, poetry, art, music and ritual -including hunting around that animal.  That isn't actually easily dismantled in a trice, especially not where there are communities that still want to refer to those things in their life.  I think you know better than what you suggest - either that or you are extraordinarily naive about how society and culture really works....

 Revered isn't a sentimental term at all - it means raising something above it's basic status and that exactly describes the fox in British culture.  Today the fox remains emblematic - it is everywhere; on everything from pajamas to animal rights activists literature. In any object analysis this suggests that that animal is far more significant than just a red-brown canine.    I cannot see the conflict in me acknowledging that supporting an animal for hunting purposes when that was entirely legal might have been positive for that species.  Many other people will have said the same about foxes and other animals.   Moral judgements are entirely separate to legal ones; in the same way that religious practices make moral judgements about food, about sex, about contraception; they are entirely different to legality.  For some their morality and the law clash, for others they co-exist happily and for most of us there are shades of grey between the two on many issues.

I don't think I have the right to censure someone if they are obeying the law of the land regardless of how I feel about their attitudes, behaviour or beliefs.  I might express my own views of course, hopefully respectfully and within the law. That is how our society works.
		
Click to expand...

I think you are grossly overstating the cultural impact of fox hunting. It's a minority sport done for the most part by people who want a whizz across country on horseback.  

Within all the geographical areas that I have hunted there were people who disagreed with it,  many of them dyed in the wool country folk.  
.


----------



## Fred66 (31 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			No I don't think that's acceptable.  But they think you are lying. They aren't trying to stop you doing what you're doing,  they're trying to stop you doing what they think you are lying about.

I completely understand why they think you are lying as I have already explained several times.
.
		
Click to expand...

What they think is irrelevant. They have no legal or moral right to take the actions they do. 
They can monitor and follow openly, without the masks in a legal manner.


----------



## Tiddlypom (31 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			I think it is immoral and illegal for a group of people to threaten and intimidate others in an attempt to force them to bend to their view. Especially when trespassing which is illegal once it is pointed out to them and keeping their faces masked.
Do you think this is acceptable?
		
Click to expand...

The masked aggressive trespassers in these parts were at least as likely to be the hunt terrier men as the sabs.

In fact, on reflection, the sabs were probably the less intimidating of the two groups as viewed by us residents.


----------



## paddy555 (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			20 years is nothing in comparison to the structures and roots of a tradition and a set of beliefs and practices.  Christianity over 2000 years has failed to totally overwrite earlier cultural traditions - cleverly early Christians adapted and absorbed the old stuff.  You are naive if you think you can enforce complete cultural change on a community in just one or two generations.  Changes can be made and have been but it takes a long time.
		
Click to expand...

but as I said earlier and you ignored many in the community don't want hunting. Which bit of that are you failing to get? Why is it imposed on the many because the few like their tradition and need several generations to change. 

We are having hunting imposed on us. I think your comments about Christianity are simply twaddle. Sorry. 

Ban the whole lot. Make sure the wording makes pirate packs illegal, all dogs and horses to be confiscated if/when they are caught. That will remove any doubts over who is hunting legally.


----------



## YorksG (31 December 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			The masked aggressive trespassers in these parts were at least as likely to be the hunt terrier men as the sabs.

In fact, on reflection, the sabs were the less intimidating of the two groups.
		
Click to expand...

Then your experience is different from others. Our local foot hunt has been targeted at local pubs, among other places in recent years, they were hardly illegally hunting there!


----------



## AdorableAlice (31 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			But you have absolutely no idea what anti hunt groups do for charity, how much money they raise, how much time they give freely to causes, we just don’t brag, as for the blinkered comment ….well pot, kettle, black to you too.
		
Click to expand...

Please tell me what you and your friends do for charity, that was my very first question to you and a simple one in my view.  I have seen many of you over the years and all I see is rent a mob who are happy to throw ball bearings under horses and lure hounds onto the roads.


----------



## ycbm (31 December 2021)

This went well. 



palo1 said:



			Because of the way the UK countryside is @ycbm all trail hunts necessarily are working where there are foxes but I am against deliberate and/or reckless trail hunting and know for certain that a decent pack of hounds can absolutely hunt a laid trail safely.  Hounds must be controlled and effectively trained in the same way as sheepdogs and other 'working' dogs.  I am furious with hunts and huntsmen/women who are exhibiting reckless bad behaviour, poor manners - including the taunting of sabs as well as bringing all hunting into disrepute, not to mention their poor control or discipline of hounds which are demonstrably capable of moving along a trail safely.

I have no qualms in repeating ad nauseam my position that I am against illegal hunting through intent.
		
Click to expand...

And then you wrote this,  once again removing any reference to intent and seeming to sanction the catching of foxes as long as there isn't enough evidence to prosecute.



palo1 said:



			I don't think I have the right to censure someone if they are obeying the law of the land regardless of how I feel about their attitudes, behaviour or beliefs.
		
Click to expand...

We all have the right to censure people whose behaviour we believe is wrong but legal.  It's legal but wrong to borrow someone else's property and use it without permission, it's legal but wrong to tell a stranger you think they are ugly or fat,  it's legal but wrong (in the UK) to queue jump. We censure behaviour all the time.

I don't have any problem believing that it's wrong to trail hunt with the scent of an animal you are not legally allowed to hunt.


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

paddy555 said:



			but as I said earlier and you ignored many in the community don't want hunting. Which bit of that are you failing to get? Why is it imposed on the many because the few like their tradition and need several generations to change.

We are having hunting imposed on us. I think your comments about Christianity are simply twaddle. Sorry.

Ban the whole lot. Make sure the wording makes pirate packs illegal, all dogs and horses to be confiscated if/when they are caught. That will remove any doubts over who is hunting legally.
		
Click to expand...

You are definitely not having hunting imposed on you and never have.  It is like everything else - if you don't like it don't access it or join in! It is like many other elements of society and culture.


----------



## ycbm (31 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			What they think is irrelevant. They have no legal or moral right to take the actions they do.
		
Click to expand...

I agree,  but at the same time I understand why they think they have a moral right,  and trail hunting could change that,  but here we go round in a circle again.


----------



## Amymay (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			I think you entirely misunderstood my question but there we are.
		
Click to expand...

My response would have been the same as Tiddlypom’s.  So I must have misunderstood too 🤷🏻‍♀️


----------



## ycbm (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			You are definitely not having hunting imposed on you and never have.  It is like everything else - if you don't like it don't access it or join in! It is like many other elements of society and culture.
		
Click to expand...


The arrogance of this statement is astounding. 

Everyone who is in  an area which is being  hunted has hunting imposed upon them whether they like it or not.


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2845510402408017



.

My new years resolution is to stay off this thread.  Its not good for me!   If you feel I have been rude I will not apologise.    Its a subject that I feel very strongly about and recognise the opposite side do too.  It brings out strong feelings on both sides but I honestly do not feel I have been rude, its a pretty tame thread given the subject matter!   
Its just a waste of time going over old ground again and again because we will never agree.
I am pleased that other than a few posters on here it does seem most are against illegal hunting which does give me some hope.
I leave this video here from yesterday when the Warwickshire hunt killed yet again at a childrens meet.
I shall not comment on it.


----------



## Koweyka (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			For goodness sake @Koweyka, whoever blocked badger setts is not 'my' (or probably any other poster on this thread's) soft underbelly! Stop conflating all of your hatred for a different group of people into one thing.  Interfering with a badger sett is an offence under the Protection of Badgers Act and this may be part of a hunt's activity and may be part of a Hunting Act offence but it is nothing to do with the legal trail hunting that is supported on this thread.
		
Click to expand...

It’s every


AdorableAlice said:



			Please tell me what you and your friends do for charity, that was my very first question to you and a simple one in my view.  I have seen many of you over the years and all I see is rent a mob who are happy to throw ball bearings under horses and lure hounds onto the roads.
		
Click to expand...

Have a read back through the thread and I have stated exactly what my particular groups does for local wildlife charities.
Surely you filmed these events, post the videos and what did the police say ? Lots of accusations like this are made with barely any substance to back the claims up.


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			The arrogance of this statement is astounding.

Everyone who is in  an area which is being  hunted has hunting imposed upon them whether they like it or not.
		
Click to expand...

Is it equally true then that everyone who lives near a church where the congregation park and where the bells ring and weddings, christenings and funerals are carried out has Christianity imposed on them?  Are the mosques in the big cities imposing Islam on everyone?  I think it is time people actually practiced the tolerance that our society values tbh.


----------



## Koweyka (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			For goodness sake @Koweyka, whoever blocked badger setts is not 'my' (or probably any other poster on this thread's) soft underbelly! Stop conflating all of your hatred for a different group of people into one thing.  Interfering with a badger sett is an offence under the Protection of Badgers Act and this may be part of a hunt's activity and may be part of a Hunting Act offence but it is nothing to do with the legal trail hunting that is supported on this thread.
		
Click to expand...

So you aren’t condemning it then, especially as hunt terriermen were covertly filmed …. 

If I want to ask a question or an opinion on something entirely relevant to why this thread was started it’s my prerogative to do so, it clearly makes you uncomfortable as you trot out the same lame rhetoric about legal hunting when quite frankly the only people who believe you are the people that can’t let go of the past.


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:






__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2845510402408017



.

My new years resolution is to stay off this thread.  Its not good for me!   If you feel I have been rude I will not apologise.    Its a subject that I feel very strongly about and recognise the opposite side do too.  It brings out strong feelings on both sides but I honestly do not feel I have been rude, its a pretty tame thread given the subject matter!  
Its just a waste of time going over old ground again and again because we will never agree.
I am pleased that other than a few posters on here it does seem most are against illegal hunting which does give me some hope.
I leave this video here from yesterday when the Warwickshire hunt killed yet again at a childrens meet.
I shall not comment on it.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think one single poster on this thread supports illegal hunting.


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			So you aren’t condemning it then, especially as hunt terriermen were covertly filmed ….

If I want to ask a question or an opinion on something entirely relevant to why this thread was started it’s my prerogative to do so, it clearly makes you uncomfortable as you trot out the same lame rhetoric about legal hunting when quite frankly the only people who believe you are the people that can’t let go of the past.
		
Click to expand...

You are absolutely inventing things @Koweyka. I have no idea what has happened at the badger sett you are talking about.  I have made it clear that I know an offence may have been committed under 2 separate laws - that might suggest that I would condemn whatever has taken place.  If it makes you feel better I will say clearly here that I condemn interfering with a badger sett; which I do of course.


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			I don't think one single poster on this thread supports illegal hunting.
		
Click to expand...

  Oh really, you do surprise me.


----------



## Tiddlypom (31 December 2021)

FestiveG said:



			Then your experience is different from others. Our local foot hunt has been targeted at local pubs, among other places in recent years, they were hardly illegally hunting there!
		
Click to expand...

That is most unfortunate if your local foot hunt is a legal hunt. But if it's a naughty hunt, then catching them at the pub before or after the meet is probably fair game.

Repeated bad publicity from the antis brought to businesses and landowners which supported my local pack before it switched from illegal to legal hunting helped to force the hunt to ditch illegal hunting.

Now they are legit, the bad publicity has stopped.


----------



## Amymay (31 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			I think you are grossly overstating the cultural impact of fox hunting. It's a minority sport done for the most part by people who want a whizz across country on horseback.
		
Click to expand...

I completely agree.  A minority sport, with a clique within that minority for whom the practice _does_ have cultural importance.


----------



## Koweyka (31 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:






__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2845510402408017



.

My new years resolution is to stay off this thread.  Its not good for me!   If you feel I have been rude I will not apologise.    Its a subject that I feel very strongly about and recognise the opposite side do too.  It brings out strong feelings on both sides but I honestly do not feel I have been rude, its a pretty tame thread given the subject matter!  
Its just a waste of time going over old ground again and again because we will never agree.
I am pleased that other than a few posters on here it does seem most are against illegal hunting which does give me some hope.
I leave this video here from yesterday when the Warwickshire hunt killed yet again at a childrens meet.
I shall not comment on it.
		
Click to expand...

The Pro hunt won’t watch or comment on this, doesn’t fit in with their fantasy world. My wish for 2022 is that hunting finally dies and consigned to history. I won’t say what else I want to because other posters are right, I hate hunting and trail hunting and all that are associated with it, watching that video has reinforced my feelings of disgust for the whole shameful lot of them.


----------



## Indy (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Is it equally true then that everyone who lives near a church where the congregation park and where the bells ring and weddings, christenings and funerals are carried out has Christianity imposed on them?  Are the mosques in the big cities imposing Islam on everyone?  I think it is time people actually practiced the tolerance that our society values tbh.
		
Click to expand...

So when the hunt trespass on your land, trash newly drilled fields, worry your sheep and terrorise your horses you should practice tolerance? (Because that's what Jesus would do)


----------



## Amymay (31 December 2021)

Indy said:



			So when the hunt trespass on your land, trash newly drilled fields, worry your sheep and terrorise your horses you should practice tolerance? (Because that's what Jesus would do)
		
Click to expand...

Boom 🎤🤣👍


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			The Pro hunt won’t watch or comment on this, doesn’t fit in with their fantasy world. My wish for 2022 is that hunting finally dies and consigned to history. I won’t say what else I want to because other posters are right, I hate hunting and trail hunting and all that are associated with it, watching that video has reinforced my feelings of disgust for the whole shameful lot of them.
		
Click to expand...

I know they will not comment as what can they say?
Happy New year and I hope you get your wish.


----------



## Koweyka (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			You are absolutely inventing things @Koweyka. I have no idea what has happened at the badger sett you are talking about.  I have made it clear that I know an offence may have been committed under 2 separate laws - that might suggest that I would condemn whatever has taken place.  If it makes you feel better I will say clearly here that I condemn interfering with a badger sett; which I do of course.
		
Click to expand...

No I am not,  I asked a question and asked what pro hunts feelings were on it, especially as it’s more proof of illegal hunting and mentioned in the webinars which this thread was originally about, then you pipe up claiming irrelevance, there is nothing you say that makes me feel much of anything to be honest, other than pity with a dash of amusement.


----------



## Fred66 (31 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			Oh really, you do surprise me.
		
Click to expand...

See you can use sarcasm. 😀 Could you point out any posts that indicate that anyone is pro illegal hunting?


----------



## Koweyka (31 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			I know they will not comment as what can they say?
Happy New year and I hope you get your wish.
		
Click to expand...

Happy New Year to you too, stick on the thread, to outsiders looking in some posters on here are doing plenty to pop another nail in the coffin of hunting!


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			See you can use sarcasm. 😀 Could you point out any posts that indicate that anyone is pro illegal hunting?
		
Click to expand...

I could do but where would I start, so much to choose from.


----------



## ycbm (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Is it equally true then that everyone who lives near a church where the congregation park and where the bells ring and weddings, christenings and funerals are carried out has Christianity imposed on them?  Are the mosques in the big cities imposing Islam on everyone?  I think it is time people actually practiced the tolerance that our society values tbh.
		
Click to expand...


I have never heard of a bunch of Moslems running down the road past a field of horses cause any injuries,  never mind ones resulting in death.  I don't think a group of Christians has ever killed a pet cat or a deer while out for a  jog, either.  

I cannot believe you would compare the potential irritation of being held up by a funeral cortège with being held up by a road blocked by a load of people having a jolly on horseback.  
.


----------



## YorksG (31 December 2021)

Tiddlypom said:



			That is most unfortunate if your local foot hunt is a legal hunt. But if it's a naughty hunt, then catching them at the pub before or after the meet is probably fair game.

Repeated bad publicity from the antis brought to businesses and landowners which supported my local pack before it switched from illegal to legal hunting helped to force the hunt to ditch illegal hunting.

Now they are legit, the bad publicity has stopped.
		
Click to expand...

So violence by people who believe that an offence* may* be committed later is OK by you? I'm surprised that such law abiding people are supporting Vigilantism.


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			I have never heard of a bunch of Moslems running down the road past a field of horses cause any injuries,  never mind ones resulting in death.  I don't think a group of Christians has ever killed a pet cat or a deer while out for a  jog, either. 

I cannot believe you would compare the potential irritation of being held up by a funeral cortège with being held up by a road blocked by a load of people having a jolly on horseback. 
.
		
Click to expand...

 There you have a good example of the mind set we have here.


----------



## Fred66 (31 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			No I am not,  I asked a question and asked what pro hunts feelings were on it, especially as it’s more proof of illegal hunting and mentioned in the webinars which this thread was originally about, then you pipe up claiming irrelevance, there is nothing you say that makes me feel much of anything to be honest, other than pity with a dash of amusement.
		
Click to expand...

We keep saying that we do not agree with illegal hunting or actions linked to illegal hunting, you just don’t listen.
Can I also point out that it doesn’t provide evidence of illegal fox hunting. Whilst it may be linked to the hunt you have not provided any evidence that it is.
To be honest based on your lack of acknowledgment of the appalling behaviour by many sabs and other comments made by you, then I would hazard a guess that you’re out breaking the law on a regular basis yourself. So to try and put yourself on some moral high ground over others who have denounced illegal hunting is laughable.


----------



## paddy555 (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			You are definitely not having hunting imposed on you and never have.  It is like everything else - if you don't like it don't access it or join in! It is like many other elements of society and culture.
		
Click to expand...

but when it is running across my fields and causing disturbance, blocking roads etc what do you suggest I do? 
I haven't exactly noticed other elements of society and culture doing that sort of thing.


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

The problem is that while you keep saying you do not agree with illegal hunting you make a very good show of doing just that.  Do you comment on the clear law breaking on the videos etc on here?


----------



## Fred66 (31 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			I cannot believe you would compare the potential irritation of being held up by a funeral cortège with being held up by a road blocked by a load of people having a jolly on horseback. 
.
		
Click to expand...

I don’t believe Palo did compare this. These were examples of things that require tolerance.
Same as cycle races, horse fun rides etc.
Also horses being on roads are there whether they are hunting legally or not.
It appears that tolerance is no longer something that is to be applauded. Persecution of minority groups is apparently acceptable to you, if that minority doesn’t meet your moral code.


----------



## paddy555 (31 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			I don’t believe Palo did compare this. These were examples of things that require tolerance.
Same as cycle races, horse fun rides etc.
Also horses being on roads are there whether they are hunting legally or not.
It appears that tolerance is no longer something that is to be applauded. Persecution of minority groups is apparently acceptable to you, if that minority doesn’t meet your moral code.
		
Click to expand...

I think when we bring Christianity and persecution of minority groups into it then it is just starting to show hunt supporters up for being totally ridiculous.


----------



## Fred66 (31 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			The problem is that while you keep saying you do not agree with illegal hunting you make a very good show of doing just that.  Do you comment on the clear law breaking on the videos etc on here?
		
Click to expand...

No I don’t. 
I have stated my position repeatedly, I don’t feel the need to keep repeating that in response to every link you post. Especially as I don’t know the provenance of the links.


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			I don’t believe Palo did compare this. These were examples of things that require tolerance.
Same as cycle races, horse fun rides etc.
Also horses being on roads are there whether they are hunting legally or not.
It appears that tolerance is no longer something that is to be applauded. Persecution of minority groups is apparently acceptable to you, if that minority doesn’t meet your moral code.
		
Click to expand...

The problem is the disruption caused by the hunt on roads as in holding up the traffic, completely blocking the road in some cases, hunting along side the road, expecting and actually demanding that traffic stops for them and riding on the road in the dark all just really annoys people and makes it much less likely that traffic will slow down for riders as we all get tarred with the same brush and labelled as rude, and arrogant by drivers.


----------



## Upthecreek (31 December 2021)

I’m all for freedom of choice as long as the activities people choose to participate in don’t negatively impact those who have nothing to do with the activity. And I don’t just mean hunting. For example I disagree with roads being closed for cycle races. Why should I be inconvenienced and have to take a 10 mile detour because some lads in Lycra want to pretend they’re in the Tour de France? If you happen to live near a football stadium, but have no interest in football, chances are you will resent the disruption on match days. Trouble is there are many many activities that impact on those that haven’t chosen to participate. Do we ban them all?


----------



## YorksG (31 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			The problem is the disruption caused by the hunt on roads as in holding up the traffic, completely blocking the road in some cases, hunting along side the road, expecting and actually demanding that traffic stops for them and riding on the road in the dark all just really annoys people and makes it much less likely that traffic will slow down for riders as we all get tarred with the same brush and labelled as rude, and arrogant by drivers.
		
Click to expand...

That could just as easily apply to the cyclist groups locally, who block the roads, both with their actual race and with their entourages who park most inconsiderate.


----------



## Koweyka (31 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			We keep saying that we do not agree with illegal hunting or actions linked to illegal hunting, you just don’t listen.
Can I also point out that it doesn’t provide evidence of illegal fox hunting. Whilst it may be linked to the hunt you have not provided any evidence that it is.
To be honest based on your lack of acknowledgment of the appalling behaviour by many sabs and other comments made by you, then I would hazard a guess that you’re out breaking the law on a regular basis yourself. So to try and put yourself on some moral high ground over others who have denounced illegal hunting is laughable.
		
Click to expand...

Yes total lawbreaker me, out day and night causing trouble while the little fox hunters sleep soundly dreaming of hunting foxes.

No wonder your hunt gets sabbed, they are clearly seeing what your attitude on this thread portrays. Because if you bothered to read back I have on many many occasions denounced the violence on both sides, but like all pro hunt don’t let the truth get in front of the trail hunt lie.


----------



## Fred66 (31 December 2021)

paddy555 said:



			I think when we bring Christianity and persecution of minority groups into it then it is just starting to show hunt supporters up for being totally ridiculous.
		
Click to expand...

Really why ?
I am not suggesting that hunts should get protected status just that with any minority sport or leisure activity tolerance should be shown.
Cyclists annoy me but they have as much right to be on the road as I do. So I just take a deep breath and think nice thoughts when I get held up by them.


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

FestiveG said:



			That could just as easily apply to the cyclist groups locally, who block the roads, both with their actual race and with their entourages who park most inconsiderate.
		
Click to expand...

It could do yes, but its hard enough to get traffic to slow for horses as it is without the hunt annoying people and making them less likely to slow down.


----------



## YorksG (31 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			It could do yes, but its hard enough to get traffic to slow for horses as it is without the hunt annoying people and making them less likely to slow down.
		
Click to expand...

Ah so that's about self interest, rather than anything else? Also I presume that followers of trail hunts cause this problem, so hardly an issue of illegal hunting.


----------



## Gallop_Away (31 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			We keep saying that we do not agree with illegal hunting or actions linked to illegal hunting, you just don’t listen.
Can I also point out that it doesn’t provide evidence of illegal fox hunting. Whilst it may be linked to the hunt you have not provided any evidence that it is.
To be honest based on your lack of acknowledgment of the appalling behaviour by many sabs and other comments made by you, then I would hazard a guess that you’re out breaking the law on a regular basis yourself. So to try and put yourself on some moral high ground over others who have denounced illegal hunting is laughable.
		
Click to expand...

Hear hear! Not one single person has said they support illegal hunting. It just goes to show we really can not win no matter what we do.


----------



## ycbm (31 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			Persecution of minority groups is apparently acceptable to you, if that minority doesn’t meet your moral code.
		
Click to expand...

Don't put words in my mouth 🤣

I don't agree with the persecution of any group, minor or major. Sensible and polite behaviour of legal (spirit of the law)  trail hunts does meet my moral code.  I am,  unlike some people,  able both to disagree with poor behaviour and to understand why it is happening. 

And Palo DID compare the irritation of a funeral with hunting.  
.


----------



## Tiddlypom (31 December 2021)

FestiveG said:



			So violence by people who believe that an offence* may* be committed later is OK by you? I'm surprised that such law abiding people are supporting Vigilantism.
		
Click to expand...

At no point did you mention that those antis used violence. I have made it clear many times that I do not support law breaking on either side.

My post was made assuming that it was a peaceful protest outside a pub against a hunt known to hunt illegally.

I do not know the hunts in your area, so have no idea if they hunt legally or illegally.


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

Indy said:



			So when the hunt trespass on your land, trash newly drilled fields, worry your sheep and terrorise your horses you should practice tolerance? (Because that's what Jesus would do)
		
Click to expand...

I think that is a really silly answer - I have never suggested that and have posted just a bit earlier about how that kind of incident may be dealt with under the trespass laws.  Not actually interested in Jesus btw!!


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

ycbm said:



			Don't put words in my mouth 🤣

I don't agree with the persecution of any group, minor or major. Sensible and polite behaviour of legal (spirit of the law)  trail hunts does meet my moral code.  I am,  unlike some people,  able both to disagree with poor behaviour and to understand why it is happening.

And Palo DID compare the irritation of a funeral with hunting. 
.
		
Click to expand...

No I didn't.


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			Really why ?
I am not suggesting that hunts should get protected status just that with any minority sport or leisure activity tolerance should be shown.
Cyclists annoy me but they have as much right to be on the road as I do. So I just take a deep breath and think nice thoughts when I get held up by them.
		
Click to expand...

Yup, because that is what tolerance looks like! It's clearly not something in fashion currently...


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

Cyclists do not often go round ripping foxes or deer apart though do they?  I mean I know they are annoying but I have not seen them in pursuit of a fox yet!


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

Gallop_Away said:



			Hear hear! Not one single person has said they support illegal hunting. It just goes to show we really can not win no matter what we do.
		
Click to expand...

Oh you can, Stop hunting!


----------



## minesadouble (31 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:






__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2845510402408017



.

My new years resolution is to stay off this thread.  Its not good for me!   If you feel I have been rude I will not apologise.    Its a subject that I feel very strongly about and recognise the opposite side do too.  It brings out strong feelings on both sides but I honestly do not feel I have been rude, its a pretty tame thread given the subject matter!  
Its just a waste of time going over old ground again and again because we will never agree.
I am pleased that other than a few posters on here it does seem most are against illegal hunting which does give me some hope.
I leave this video here from yesterday when the Warwickshire hunt killed yet again at a childrens meet.
I shall not comment on it.
		
Click to expand...

Ooh, your just like me, cramming those last few comments in before midnight in the same way I'm relishing this lovely glass of wine before dry January 🤣


----------



## ycbm (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			No I didn't.
		
Click to expand...




palo1 said:



			Is it equally true then that everyone who lives near a church where the congregation park and where the bells ring and weddings, christenings and *funerals* are carried out has Christianity imposed on them?  Are the mosques in the big cities imposing Islam on everyone?  I think it is time people actually practiced the tolerance that our society values tbh.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Amymay (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			You are definitely not having hunting imposed on you and never have.  It is like everything else - if you don't like it don't access it or join in! It is like many other elements of society and culture.
		
Click to expand...

Tbf Palo, you know that for some of us, that’s nonsense.  There’s plenty of examples of hunts being where they shouldn’t be, and causing havoc when they are. That’s imposing.

The hunt came on to my property a few years ago, well the hounds did.  To say I was incandescent is an understatement. 

There was no reason for them to be anywhere near it.


----------



## ycbm (31 December 2021)

Gallop_Away said:



			Hear hear! Not one single person has said they support illegal hunting. It just goes to show we really can not win no matter what we do.
		
Click to expand...

You have been told many times how you can win. 

Stop laying the scent of the animal you are not legally allowed to hunt. 
Split away from the hunts which people at the top of the MFA well know are hunting fox.  

But you don't want to hear it.  And the deafness of those at the top of trail hunting will result, I think,  in it being lost completely. 
.


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

Everyone who is in  an area which is being  hunted has hunting imposed upon them whether they like it or not.[/QUOTE]


Sandstone1 said:



			Oh you can, Stop hunting!
		
Click to expand...

You must have forgotten @Sandstone that trail hunting is legal.  Why should people stop carrying out a legal activity because other people don't like it?  This is not a fascist regime.  We are not talking about being allowed to or wanting to hunt illegally remember. This is about the mess that trail hunting is in.  Not a single person has said that illegal hunting should be allowed.  Every single poster in favour of trail hunting has recognised the impact of illegal hunting, every single one.  I think every pro-trail hunting poster has also said that the MFHA need a complete overhaul; there is very little support for the management of hunting here.  I think  you would like to think otherwise though as then you could take out your frustration and ire on people on an internet forum.  It beats me as to why but we are all different...


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

Amymay in a manger said:



			Tbf Palo, you know that for some of us, that’s nonsense.  There’s plenty of examples of hunts being where they shouldn’t be, and causing havoc when they are.

The hunt came on to my property a few years ago, well the hounds did.  To say I was incandescent is an understatement. 

There was no reason for them to be anywhere near it.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, that was wrong.  An imposition on your property for sure.  Without that act of trespass hunting would not be imposed on you though would it?  Perhaps it's very existence would make some people's lives miserable but I would claim the same about some factory farming, about the existence of political parties and social groups whose ideology I find disgusting, about the relentless march of supermarkets which are imposed on me visually and philosophically as I drive down the road.  We have to live together somehow and what other people do is what creates 'society'.  I think saying that hunting is imposed on people when it is clearly a minority activity is not accurate.


----------



## Gallop_Away (31 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			Oh you can, Stop hunting!
		
Click to expand...

And right there that is exactly my point! No matter what we do or how much we try to show you that we are not hunting foxes, you simply don't want to see the truth and will continue in your hate campaign against us. 
It just goes to prove my earlier point that you only see what you want to see and it has nothing to do with protecting foxes and everything to do with your blatant hatred for those who take part in hunting, the fact it is legal is immaterial to you. If it were you would take notice of the fact that myself and others on this thread have stated time and time again that we do not support illegal hunting and would not continue to come back with such blatantly insulting comments as the one I am quoting above. 
I do not see the point in engaging with yourself on this any further as you are clearly so caught up in your own short sighted hatred to see any reason.


----------



## Miss_Millie (31 December 2021)

Amymay in a manger said:



			Tbf Palo, you know that for some of us, that’s nonsense.  *There’s plenty of examples of hunts being where they shouldn’t be, and causing havoc when they are.* That’s imposing.

The hunt came on to my property a few years ago, well the hounds did.  To say I was incandescent is an understatement.

There was no reason for them to be anywhere near it.
		
Click to expand...

Like Mini and Spider the cat who both got killed on their owner's properties by hounds this past year. I don't see any cyclists killing cats!


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

Where exactly in that post did I mention a cortege or other specific aspects of worship or practice?  I was referring to church bells and parking both of which include space and noise.  Your determination to argue when my meaning is clear, is a bit ridiculous.


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

Gallop_Away said:



			And right there that is exactly my point! No matter what we do or how much we try to show you that we are not hunting foxes, you simply don't want to see the truth and will continue in your hate campaign against us.
It just goes to prove my earlier point that you only see what you want to see and it has nothing to do with protecting foxes and everything to do with your blatant hatred for those who take part in hunting, the fact it is legal is immaterial to you. If it were you would take notice of the fact that myself and others on this thread have stated time and time again that we do not support illegal hunting and would not continue to come back with such blatantly insulting comments as the one I am quoting above.
I do not see the point in engaging with yourself on this any further as you are clearly so caught up in your own short sighted hatred to see any reason.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you so much for telling me what I think and feel!   You may personally not hunt foxes but there is ample evidence to show it goes on.


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

FestiveG said:



			Ah so that's about self interest, rather than anything else? Also I presume that followers of trail hunts cause this problem, so hardly an issue of illegal hunting.
		
Click to expand...

We only have a hunt that hunts foxes here so I wouldnt know about trail hunts, presumably they dont cause as much disruption as they dont hunt by main roads?


----------



## YorksG (31 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			Cyclists do not often go round ripping foxes or deer apart though do they?  I mean I know they are annoying but I have not seen them in pursuit of a fox yet!
		
Click to expand...

Your argument is somewhat incoherent, and you appear to be attempting to change what you object to, depending on which action you think will garner most approval from those who hold similar views to yourself.


----------



## Gallop_Away (31 December 2021)

Sandstone1 said:



			Thank you so much for telling me what I think and feel!   You may personally not hunt foxes but there is ample evidence to show it goes on.
		
Click to expand...

Which no one has said any different and has in fact been condemned by ALL posters on this thread so what more do you want!?


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

FestiveG said:



			Your argument is somewhat incoherent, and you appear to be attempting to change what you object to, depending on which action you think will garner most approval from those who hold similar views to yourself.
		
Click to expand...

You what?  I do not understand that,  Not only do you not understand sarcasm you seem to have no sense of humour either.


----------



## Koweyka (31 December 2021)

I often wonder if the huntsman of any of the “legal packs” discussed on here attended the online webinars and if any the posters from these “legal packs” are brave enough to admit it if they were, be a massive coincidence if they all say no, given how many did attend ….


----------



## paddy555 (31 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			Cyclists annoy me but they have as much right to be on the road as I do. So I just take a deep breath and think nice thoughts when I get held up by them.
		
Click to expand...

well yes, but they normally stay on the road not my fields. The only reason I can see for a trail hunt going through fields/yards (with no right of way) is either hounds are out of control, not a brilliant idea or alternatively they are simply sticking 2 fingers up. Which of the 2 is it? neither is better than the other.


----------



## Fred66 (31 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			Yes total lawbreaker me, out day and night causing trouble while the little fox hunters sleep soundly dreaming of hunting foxes.

No wonder your hunt gets sabbed, they are clearly seeing what your attitude on this thread portrays. Because if you bothered to read back I have on many many occasions denounced the violence on both sides, but like all pro hunt don’t let the truth get in front of the trail hunt lie.
		
Click to expand...

I remember Sandstone saying once when pushed that they didn’t agree with violence, but at no point do I remember you doing so, please point me to your post if you have.
I am quite unashamedly pro-hunt, but I am also against illegal behaviour. Some hunts do claim to trail hunt when they aren’t but many more are actually hunting a trail.
But like all sabs you don’t want to know because that inconvenient truth would get in the way of your attempt at some moral high ground when in fact you enjoy the provocation and fear that you perpetuate, through your illegal behaviour. 
Hunt monitors are perfectly acceptable and I would welcome them but not sabs


----------



## bonny (31 December 2021)

This has to be the craziest long thread ever on here, you are all going round and round using the same arguments. Meeting in the middle is impossible and I’m beginning to think it’s going to go on forever 😁


----------



## Koweyka (31 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			I remember Sandstone saying once when pushed that they didn’t agree with violence, but at no point do I remember you doing so, please point me to your post if you have.
I am quite unashamedly pro-hunt, but I am also against illegal behaviour. Some hunts do claim to trail hunt when they aren’t but many more are actually hunting a trail.
But like all sabs you don’t want to know because that inconvenient truth would get in the way of your attempt at some moral high ground when in fact you enjoy the provocation and fear that you perpetuate, through your illegal behaviour.
Hunt monitors are perfectly acceptable and I would welcome them but not sabs[/

Post 1,759 ….it was in reply …..to you as a matter of fact
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

FestiveG said:



			Your argument is somewhat incoherent, and you appear to be attempting to change what you object to, depending on which action you think will garner most approval from those who hold similar views to yourself.
		
Click to expand...

I am sorry but I now have a vision of a field of cats on bikes.


----------



## Koweyka (31 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			I remember Sandstone saying once when pushed that they didn’t agree with violence, but at no point do I remember you doing so, please point me to your post if you have.
I am quite unashamedly pro-hunt, but I am also against illegal behaviour. Some hunts do claim to trail hunt when they aren’t but many more are actually hunting a trail.
But like all sabs you don’t want to know because that inconvenient truth would get in the way of your attempt at some moral high ground when in fact you enjoy the provocation and fear that you perpetuate, through your illegal behaviour.
Hunt monitors are perfectly acceptable and I would welcome them but not sabs
		
Click to expand...


I am also hunt monitor, I have been for many years.  I just don’t put up with threats and lies and untruths or the killing or attempted killing of animals.  I have never been arrested, never had so much as a caution, but what I do know is I have saved many many many lives and never been involved in taking one, can you make the same claim Freddie Pro Hunt, but you can’t remember what happened on Tuesday again post number 1,759 so I don’t expect a truthful answer.


----------



## Tiddlypom (31 December 2021)

Fred66 said:



			I remember Sandstone saying once when pushed that they didn’t agree with violence, but at no point do I remember you doing so, please point me to your post if you have.
I am quite unashamedly pro-hunt, but I am also against illegal behaviour. Some hunts do claim to trail hunt when they aren’t but many more are actually hunting a trail.
But like all sabs you don’t want to know because that inconvenient truth would get in the way of your attempt at some moral high ground when in fact you enjoy the provocation and fear that you perpetuate, through your illegal behaviour.
Hunt monitors are perfectly acceptable and I would welcome them but not sabs
		
Click to expand...

Looking back to a post of yours from 3 days ago.


Fred66 said:



			If this happened then this is disgusting behaviour, would you equally condemn the sabs who ganged up and assaulted one of the field who left early leaving him needing surgery to reconstruct his jaw ?
		
Click to expand...

And the reply.


Koweyka said:



			No if’s about it, it happened. She was completely unhinged.
I would condemn all violence, there is no need for it on any side.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			Everyone who is in  an area which is being  hunted has hunting imposed upon them whether they like it or not.
		
Click to expand...


You must have forgotten @Sandstone that trail hunting is legal.  Why should people stop carrying out a legal activity because other people don't like it?  This is not a fascist regime.  We are not talking about being allowed to or wanting to hunt illegally remember. This is about the mess that trail hunting is in.  Not a single person has said that illegal hunting should be allowed.  Every single poster in favour of trail hunting has recognised the impact of illegal hunting, every single one.  I think every pro-trail hunting poster has also said that the MFHA need a complete overhaul; there is very little support for the management of hunting here.  I think  you would like to think otherwise though as then you could take out your frustration and ire on people on an internet forum.  It beats me as to why but we are all different...[/QUOTE]

Something you seem to have forgotten about are the webinars detailing in great depth how to make fox hunting look like trail hunting.  Have you seen the videos of hunts killing?  Is it any surprise that you are not believed?   You say I want to take out my ire on a internet forum but you do not know why?  You are doing exactly that are you not?   You quote endless reports, you always have to have the last word, you have even brought in domestic cats in to it and try to say hunting is ok because cats kill birds.   We will never ever agree on this matter.


----------



## Fred66 (31 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			I am also hunt monitor, I have been for many years.  I just don’t put up with threats and lies and untruths or the killing or attempted killing of animals.  I have never been arrested, never had so much as a caution, but what I do know is I have saved many many many lives and never been involved in taking one, can you make the same claim Freddie Pro Hunt, but you can’t remember what happened on Tuesday again post number 1,759 so I don’t expect a truthful answer.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you for pointing me to a post where you did condemn violence, my apologies for not remembering it, it was approx 700 posts ago so forgive me for not remembering every single one.


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			I often wonder if the huntsman of any of the “legal packs” discussed on here attended the online webinars and if any the posters from these “legal packs” are brave enough to admit it if they were, be a massive coincidence if they all say no, given how many did attend ….
		
Click to expand...

I do know of someone in attendance.  They were astounded by the content and totally wrongfooted by it.  I don't know more than that about webinar attendance as I don't actually know the person who attended.  I don't think our huntsman would have attended but I haven't asked him; his opinion of the MFHA is already known to me.  Having met MH on more than one occasion, at least once in the hunting field, I was equally astounded as nothing I have heard of the man, or seen in person would suggest that he would encourage illegal hunting.  However he has been convicted of that crime.


----------



## Koweyka (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			I do know of someone in attendance.  They were astounded by the content and totally wrongfooted by it.  I don't know more than that about webinar attendance as I don't actually know the person who attended.  I don't think our huntsman would have attended but I haven't asked him; his opinion of the MFHA is already known to me.  Having met MH on more than one occasion, at least once in the hunting field, I was equally astounded as nothing I have heard of the man, or seen in person would suggest that he would encourage illegal hunting.  However he has been convicted of that crime.
		
Click to expand...

It wasn’t just him, several others should have been prosecuted for their part in it.


----------



## palo1 (31 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			It wasn’t just him, several others should have been prosecuted for their part in it.
		
Click to expand...

I have only met MH and do not know the person who attended the webinars.  I can only speak as I find but I am not expecting you to take seriously or believe anything I post tbh.


----------



## YorksG (31 December 2021)

Koweyka said:



			It wasn’t just him, several others should have been prosecuted for their part in it.
		
Click to expand...

The decision to prosecute, or not, will have been made by the CPS, based on the likelihood of conviction.


----------



## shortstuff99 (31 December 2021)

I've made my views on here quite clear, and I am plant based myself (don't call myself vegan as I ride horses) but this has literally just popped up on my Facebook, and I found it sort of threatening and I can see why it makes each side entrench more in their positions.


----------



## Koweyka (31 December 2021)

palo1 said:



			I have only met MH and do not know the person who attended the webinars.  I can only speak as I find but I am not expecting you to take seriously or believe anything I post tbh.
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for me I have met several of the other people and I am not surprised by anything I saw.


----------



## suestowford (1 January 2022)

The footage of the Warwickshire Hunt hounds killing a deer is really bad. I would not be surprised if they get done for this, but it probably won't be under the Hunting Act. They may get what the Western Hunt did, when their hounds killed someone's pet cat. The master of that hunt was found guilty of having more than one dog dangerously out of control.
If hounds kill an animal, either they are doing so because no-one is in control of them (an offence) or because they are being encouraged to do so (also an offence).


----------



## Nancykitt (1 January 2022)

suestowford said:



			If hounds kill an animal, either they are doing so because no-one is in control of them (an offence) or because they are being encouraged to do so (also an offence).
		
Click to expand...

I have always acknowledged the shortcomings with the Hunting Act but I feel that it must now come down to this. 
The notion of 'accidental kills' is causing a lot of problems here. 

I've been disgusted with the attitude of some sabs; I remember them commenting on a facebook post once about a rider who had died and the comments were full of laughing emojis, people celebrating and others saying she didn't die horribly enough. Sorry, but however strong anyone's feelings are, this is not a good attitude IMO. 

I've also been disgusted with the attitude of some hunt people I've encountered IRL who have shown blatant disregard for the law. They regard the kill as 'their right' and have taken the attitude that 'the law is an ass and therefore I have the right to ignore it.' I also remember one saying that she loved the Boxing Day meet because 'winding up the sabs is part of our sport!' 

Surely those who ride with trail hunts will have a good idea of whether the hunts they subscribe to have been involved in illegal hunting? There was a lot of talk amongst people I hunted with about the 'bad' hunts in the area and I wouldn't have ridden with any of them even if I was given a free ticket.
The hunts need members & subscribers, if everyone distanced themselves from those carrying out illegal hunting  - AND condemned it strongly in the public arena - this might not solve the problem but it would be a step in the right direction. 
At the same time, some sabs need to re-think their tactics too; personally I feel that hunt monitoring is the way forward. 

There are so many things about hunting (bloodhounds & draghounds) that I loved. Literally, some of the best days of my life. None of those days involved killing an animal.


----------



## Indy (1 January 2022)

palo1 said:



			I think that is a really silly answer - I have never suggested that and have posted just a bit earlier about how that kind of incident may be dealt with under the trespass laws.  Not actually interested in Jesus btw!!
		
Click to expand...

We didn't find it silly at the time, they cost us thousands of pounds during a year the farm was running at at a loss. We did report it to the police, who didn't bother turning up.


----------



## moosea (1 January 2022)

palo1 said:



			I have just had to come back to this @ycbm.  You haven't at all taken on board the impact of culture on a community and how difficult it is in practical terms to get rid of cultural activities, values and behaviours.  Whilst you might think it easy, history absolutely proves it to be not so!!  The fox has been genuinely 'special' in British culture with much song, poetry, art, music and ritual -including hunting around that animal.  That isn't actually easily dismantled in a trice, especially not where there are communities that still want to refer to those things in their life.
		
Click to expand...

 Is this acceptable... Becuse I'm sure the statement applies to dog fighting as much as it does to hunting

_You haven't at all taken on board the impact of culture on a community and how difficult it is in practical terms to get rid of cultural activities, values and behaviours.  Whilst you might think it easy, history absolutely proves it to be not so!!  The _*BULLTERRIER*_ has been genuinely 'special' in British culture with much song, poetry, art, music and ritual -including *FIGHTING* around that animal.  That isn't actually easily dismantled in a trice, especially not where there are communities that still want to refer to those things in their life.  _

There used to be a large part of society who thought dog fighting was a community activity. There were many livleyhoods dependent on dog fighting. It was a cultural activity. Do you think dog figting should be legal because of the cultural impact of it being illegal? If not why not?






Fred66 said:



			I think it is immoral and illegal for a group of people to threaten and intimidate others in an attempt to force them to bend to their view. Especially when trespassing which is illegal once it is pointed out to them and keeping their faces masked.
Do you think this is acceptable?
		
Click to expand...

Not sure if you are refering to sabs or hunts here as both are guilty of the above. Could you clarify please


----------



## shortstuff99 (1 January 2022)

Rather than dog fighting, I think a similar comparison would be bull fighting. It is very culturally significant in Spain and Portugal and has resisted many attempts to shut it down. In Portugal horses are still used in bull fights, but they aren't used any more in Spain.


----------



## mariew (1 January 2022)

Stuffed up some editing. Sorry!



shortstuff99 said:



			Rather than dog fighting, I think a similar comparison would be bull fighting. It is very culturally significant in Spain and Portugal and has resisted many attempts to shut it down. In Portugal horses are still used in bull fights, but they aren't used any more in Spain.
		
Click to expand...

Actually I think bull fighting is far more horrific. They take forever to kill the bull, I think maybe 3 swords? Can't remember exactly.


----------



## stangs (1 January 2022)

shortstuff99 said:



			Rather than dog fighting, I think a similar comparison would be bull fighting. It is very culturally significant in Spain and Portugal and has resisted many attempts to shut it down. In Portugal horses are still used in bull fights, but they aren't used any more in Spain.
		
Click to expand...

But bulls are still being used, and they're the equivalent of the fox in this scenario.


----------



## ycbm (1 January 2022)

.



shortstuff99 said:



			Rather than dog fighting, I think a similar comparison would be bull fighting. It is very culturally significant in Spain and Portugal and has resisted many attempts to shut it down. In Portugal horses are still used in bull fights, but they aren't used any more in Spain.
		
Click to expand...

Bullfighting is extremely culturally significant in Catalonia. So much so that a law banning it activated in 2012 was later overturned by the Spanish Courts. In spite of that, according to Wikipedia,  there have been no bullfights in Catalonia.

If Catalans can stop bullfighting even if it's a legally protected right,  why can't UK fox hunters abide by the spirit of the law?  And how can anyone defend them on any grounds for not abiding by the spirit of the law?
.


----------



## SilverLinings (1 January 2022)

I have been reading this thread for a while now, and am pleasantly surprised in the days of SM being used to say (and threaten) horrible things that on the whole it is still remaining a (fairly) civil discussion, despite the fact that both 'sides' clearly feel very strongly. I am glad that posters on HHO so far have retained some respect for the feelings and opinions of others.

Like several other people on the thread my opinions have changed over the years. I hunted pre-ban and for a couple of years post-ban when I was a teenager and in my 20s. I stopped because I grew old enough to develop my own feelings and opinions, and realised that I had only previously agreed with hunting because my parents and social circle was very strongly pro(fox)-hunting. At that time the local hunt was still clearly hunting fox (post-ban) so I no longer took part.

In the area I live in now there are four foxhound packs that I could hunt with, but ALL of them hunt illegally (not trail hunting). It is openly known- and visible- in the (very rural) area. The vast majority of the locals are vocally anti-hunt, mainly due to the arrogant attitude that they can break the law, and in doing so trespass and cause damage to fences/crops/stock/etc, but also for welfare reasons for many of them. There are many signs on footpaths, bridle paths and gateways stating in no uncertain (and often very angry) terms that the hunt is not permitted on the land, and that the Police will be informed if they trespass. 

Despite this widespread anti-hunt feeling, quite a few people I have spoken to- in particular the older generation for whom foxhunting was legal for most of their lives- say they miss the 'old' days when the hunts behaved, and say they would welcome trail hunting. They miss the tradition, the community spirit and the social side which they won't be a part of as long as the local pack is illegal. I have not spoken to anyone who would like trail hunting to be banned, even though they can't stand the local hunts.

In my opinion the local hunts (and any other illegal hunts) are very stupid. They don't seem to care how widely they are hated, and can't see that this arrogant, insular shortsightedness will be their downfall. If they all switched to trail hunting now (and did it properly) then they would be able to regain the support of the community, but at this rate no one except themselves will care if/when all hunting is banned.

I would like to trail hunt regularly, and would be sad if/when it is banned due to the current problems. I understand what Palo says about the loss of tradition and culture, but this could partly be avoided in the long-term if all hunts started behaving legally. I don't understand why (illegal) hunts are willing to risk their entire way of life by not changing to work within the law.

As others have said, I think the only way for legal trail hunting to survive is for the MFHA to condemn ALL illegal hunting, strongly sanction any 'accidental' kills (e.g. any more than X number of accidental kills during the life of the hunt and they will be de-registered and unable to obtain insurance), and invite hunt monitors to attend.

The hunt monitors and sabs would have to be willing to attend and behave civilly, and willing to honestly publicise that packs are behaving legally (i.e. no fox or other animals being killed). As Palo has said that hounds can and should be trained (and controlled) not to riot onto livestock/wildlife/pets, then this shouldn't be a problem if hunts are prepared to stop trying to hunt fox.

I am aware that there are already many hunts legally trail hunting, and have ridden with some of them when visiting friends in other parts of the country. It was an enjoyable experience, and the locals seemed far happier to see us that the reception I see my local hunts getting, possibly as it involved absolutely no trespassing as well as no animal death for 'sport'.


----------



## shortstuff99 (1 January 2022)

stangs said:



			But bulls are still being used, and they're the equivalent of the fox in this scenario.
		
Click to expand...

Yes I know, that is why I used it. 

One side says it is horrifically cruel the other side says it is culture and history.


----------



## shortstuff99 (1 January 2022)

mariew said:



			Stuffed up some editing. Sorry!


Actually I think bull fighting is far more horrific. They take forever to kill the bull, I think maybe 3 swords? Can't remember exactly.
		
Click to expand...

Yes I think it is worse too, I just think it is a similar scenario of one side saying horrifically cruel and one saying history and culture.


----------



## Rumtytum (1 January 2022)

SilverLinings said:



			I have been reading this thread for a while now, and am pleasantly surprised in the days of SM being used to say (and threaten) horrible things that on the whole it is still remaining a (fairly) civil discussion, despite the fact that both 'sides' clearly feel very strongly. I am glad that posters on HHO so far have retained some respect for the feelings and opinions of others.

Like several other people on the thread my opinions have changed over the years. I hunted pre-ban and for a couple of years post-ban when I was a teenager and in my 20s. I stopped because I grew old enough to develop my own feelings and opinions, and realised that I had only previously agreed with hunting because my parents and social circle was very strongly pro(fox)-hunting. At that time the local hunt was still clearly hunting fox (post-ban) so I no longer took part.

In the area I live in now there are four foxhound packs that I could hunt with, but ALL of them hunt illegally (not trail hunting). It is openly known- and visible- in the (very rural) area. The vast majority of the locals are vocally anti-hunt, mainly due to the arrogant attitude that they can break the law, and in doing so trespass and cause damage to fences/crops/stock/etc, but also for welfare reasons for many of them. There are many signs on footpaths, bridle paths and gateways stating in no uncertain (and often very angry) terms that the hunt is not permitted on the land, and that the Police will be informed if they trespass. 

Despite this widespread anti-hunt feeling, quite a few people I have spoken to- in particular the older generation for whom foxhunting was legal for most of their lives- say they miss the 'old' days when the hunts behaved, and say they would welcome trail hunting. They miss the tradition, the community spirit and the social side which they won't be a part of as long as the local pack is illegal. I have not spoken to anyone who would like trail hunting to be banned, even though they can't stand the local hunts.

In my opinion the local hunts (and any other illegal hunts) are very stupid. They don't seem to care how widely they are hated, and can't see that this arrogant, insular shortsightedness will be their downfall. If they all switched to trail hunting now (and did it properly) then they would be able to regain the support of the community, but at this rate no one except themselves will care if/when all hunting is banned.

I would like to trail hunt regularly, and would be sad if/when it is banned due to the current problems. I understand what Palo says about the loss of tradition and culture, but this could partly be avoided in the long-term if all hunts started behaving legally. I don't understand why (illegal) hunts are willing to risk their entire way of life by not changing to work within the law.

As others have said, I think the only way for legal trail hunting to survive is for the MFHA to condemn ALL illegal hunting, strongly sanction any 'accidental' kills (e.g. any more than X number of accidental kills during the life of the hunt and they will be de-registered and unable to obtain insurance), and invite hunt monitors to attend.

The hunt monitors and sabs would have to be willing to attend and behave civilly, and willing to honestly publicise that packs are behaving legally (i.e. no fox or other animals being killed). As Palo has said that hounds can and should be trained (and controlled) not to riot onto livestock/wildlife/pets, then this shouldn't be a problem if hunts are prepared to stop trying to hunt fox.

I am aware that there are already many hunts legally trail hunting, and have ridden with some of them when visiting friends in other parts of the country. It was an enjoyable experience, and the locals seemed far happier to see us that the reception I see my local hunts getting, possibly as it involved absolutely no trespassing as well as no animal death for 'sport'.
		
Click to expand...

Excellent post!


----------



## Tiddlypom (1 January 2022)

shortstuff99 said:



			I've made my views on here quite clear, and I am plant based myself (don't call myself vegan as I ride horses) but this has literally just popped up on my Facebook, and I found it sort of threatening and I can see why it makes each side entrench more in their positions.
		
Click to expand...

That is an alarming picture, and it will from be an extreme hunt sab group. There are aggressive and nasty nutters on both sides.

Firstly I will reiterate that I do not support hunt sabs of any sort. I support passive monitoring. But the sabs that I have inadvertently encountered out here were not violent or aggressive to man or beast - they were very intimidating, of course, which was the general idea, but not violent.

I don't doubt that other more violent sab groups exist, but they aren't all necessarily like that.


Nancykitt said:



			Surely those who ride with trail hunts will have a good idea of whether the hunts they subscribe to have been involved in illegal hunting? There was a lot of talk amongst people I hunted with about the 'bad' hunts in the area and I wouldn't have ridden with any of them even if I was given a free ticket.
The hunts need members & subscribers, if everyone distanced themselves from those carrying out illegal hunting - AND condemned it strongly in the public arena - this might not solve the problem but it would be a step in the right direction.
At the same time, some sabs need to re-think their tactics too; personally I feel that hunt monitoring is the way forward.
		
Click to expand...

I've postulated this too, NK, only to be rounded on by some HHOers who insist that they wouldn't have a clue if a hunt they were following was trail hunting or fox hunting.

I just don't believe that. How can anyone out hunting be so unaware of what's really happening, it's not credible. And if they really are so unaware, they need to start asking some searching questions to find out the true picture.

In these parts if someone says they ride with hunt A, they trail hunt. If it's hunt B, they fox hunt. It's well known locally which is which.

And yes to hunt monitoring.


----------



## lannerch (1 January 2022)

shortstuff99 said:



			Yes I think it is worse too, I just think it is a similar scenario of one side saying horrifically cruel and one saying history and culture.
		
Click to expand...

Fox hunting was not so one sided pre ban depending on the hunt admittedly but foxes usually got away . I was bought up in Surrey union country and if they ever caught a fox it was unusual. I don’t think the poor bull ever gets away.


----------



## shortstuff99 (1 January 2022)

lannerch said:



			Fox hunting was not so one sided pre ban depending on the hunt admittedly but foxes usually got away . I was bought up in Surrey union country and if they ever caught a fox it was unusual. I don’t think the poor bull ever gets away.
		
Click to expand...

This is true, I hunted pre ban and never saw a fox be killed but I did see plenty escape. I stopped hunting when I kept rooting for the fox to win 😂  

If I go now I only do drag as my old hunt breaks the law a lot and I don't want to be associated with that.


----------



## ycbm (1 January 2022)

To find out of your trail hunt is hunting within the law,  tell the trail setter that you want to do only a part day,  and ask them which leg of the trail will be the best to break on to get back to your box/trailer easily.  

If they can't tell you,  you are following an illegal hunt.  
.


----------



## palo1 (1 January 2022)

Indy said:



			We didn't find it silly at the time, they cost us thousands of pounds during a year the farm was running at at a loss. We did report it to the police, who didn't bother turning up.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't in any way mean to suggest that the incident was trivial or silly, but your response to my statement seemed silly.  I completely understand the issues of damage on farmland.


----------



## Miss_Millie (11 January 2022)

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/local-news/i-cried-whole-way-home-6464036

'*A woman called the police after witnessing a hunt's hounds chasing a fox out of a field and through the middle of a village*.

The 53-year-old Countesthorpe woman had gone for a walk with her husband near Peatling Magna and they were driving home at about 1.30pm on Saturday when the hounds and horses burst out of a field in front of them behind a fleeing fox.

*The hunt has told LeicestershireLive that the incident happened after a number of its hounds became "disorientated"* and that it took action to retrieve them immediately.'

Hounds in hot pursuit of a fox do not sound 'disorientated' to me...


----------



## GoldenWillow (11 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			I think it is immoral and illegal for a group of people to threaten and intimidate others in an attempt to force them to bend to their view. Especially when trespassing which is illegal once it is pointed out to them and keeping their faces masked.
Do you think this is acceptable?
		
Click to expand...




Tiddlypom said:



			That is most unfortunate if your local foot hunt is a legal hunt. But if it's a naughty hunt, then catching them at the pub before or after the meet is probably fair game.

Repeated bad publicity from the antis brought to businesses and landowners which supported my local pack before it switched from illegal to legal hunting helped to force the hunt to ditch illegal hunting.

Now they are legit, the bad publicity has stopped.
		
Click to expand...

I've kept away from this thread but have just caught up on the last 15 pages, many things jumped out at me but these resonated.

Fred66 every bit of your post apart from the faces masked bit applies to our hunt, illegally hunting, going over land they have explicitly been asked not to by landowner who gave his permission, and land which they have no permission to be on which has been raised many times with them. The reason they lost LO's permission to go on any land around us, approximately 1800 acres, is they were abusive to both farm manager and LO's partner on more than one occasion, including two times when all permission had been revoked by LO.

This was a pack hunting on foot, mixed pack hold both mounted and foot hunts depending where they are hunting.


----------



## minesadouble (11 January 2022)

GoldenWillow said:



			This was a pack hunting on foot, mixed pack hold both mounted and foot hunts depending where they are hunting.
		
Click to expand...

A mixed pack normally refers to the hounds being a mix of dogs and bitches rather than a same sex pack. 
Do you mind me asking which pack? It must be interesting country if they hold some meets on foot. Just being nosey so no worries if you'd rather not say.


----------



## GoldenWillow (12 January 2022)

Thank you for the info about mixed packs, I should  have put a mix of meets. Have pm'd you.


----------



## Tiddlypom (14 January 2022)

Another horse dies after an accident in his field after being panicked when the hunt made an unexpected visit. The owner would have got her horses in beforehand if she had known that the hunt was coming. 

https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/19849997.horse-put-bolting-fox-hunt-hounds/


_A HUNT has “offered its condolences” after its hounds raced on to private land and scared a horse which subsequently had to be put down.

Lisa Line’s horse, Barney, who lived in the Grove Estate, Wormingford, was panicked when about 40 dogs gained access to the land without permission.

The animal, which Lisa had loved for 21 years since it was four-months-old, bolted and ran straight through a gate on the land, breaking its leg._

_The family had to make the heartbreaking decision to have Barney put down after he laid in agony on the floor for more than 40 minutes._

So there you go, to the poster who opined that horses don't bother when the hunt comes past, and thought that their neighbour who wanted to be told was being over protective and was making a fuss.

This is what happens, and this is why I always expect to be told when the hunt is coming so that I can get my horses in.


----------



## Koweyka (14 January 2022)

I was going to share this but I was so utterly disgusted and angry I couldn’t bare it. I see it all the time, horses terrified and galloping madly around,  there is no regard for anyone else’s animals,  so determined to get their kicks and keep the meet a secret, they play Russian roulette, poor horse and owner.


----------



## Miss_Millie (14 January 2022)

This is completely heartbreaking  I'd be terrified too if 40 dogs came running towards me out of nowhere. Poor poor horse to die like that in his own field. The owner must be beside herself.


----------



## Crazy_cat_lady (14 January 2022)

Just ban it, that way there can be no "accidents" of which there seem to be far too many. Let's not forget those cats who were killed by them as well.


----------



## Chestnutmadness (15 January 2022)

I was brought up hunting every weekend and continued hunting avidly into adulthood. However... I had my head in a denial cloud. Then, briefly, I was in a relationship with a huntsman and saw a number of horrendous acts of cruelty on the front lines, not just with foxes but to horses and hounds too... 
I couldn't in good conscience continue hunting after this experience and hung up my boots years ago. Much as I love the beauty and tradition of hunting, I think it has seen its day.


----------



## Tiddlypom (15 January 2022)

_'A spokesperson for the Essex and Suffolk Hunt confirmed it was aware of the incident which took place while it hunted in Wormingford.'_

If the going rate for a cat killed by a hunt is a cheap bottle of whisky and a new kitten, what is the going rate for a much loved old coloured cob who has been in the family for over 20 years?

Barney pictured here with his owner's children before his tragic and completely unnecessary death. What a lovely sort he was.








Hounds out of control and where they shouldn't be AGAIN. Hunting and its governance is a joke.


----------



## PurBee (15 January 2022)

palo1 said:



			Before I give up on this discussion entirely (again!) please, please can someone explain to me why a truly minority activity around animal welfare, which is important to me, commands so much attention when there are massively significant animal welfare issues that need all the manpower they can get.   I mean the scale of some welfare issues totally dwarf any amount of illegal  hunting yet there are clearly people who have dedicated their lives to anti-hunting activities.  Why do the animal welfare issues around hunting prove such a potent driving force for some people?  The animal welfare issue is clear to me but there seem so many more significant welfare problems to address.  Anti hunter and pro hunters agree that hunting is a minority activity too.   I am asking this question absolutely sincerely and because no-one from an anti-hunting perspective has ever managed to answer that question.
		
Click to expand...

You think hunting is getting all the attention because, as you say, it’s an issue that‘s important to you, so you’re only seeing a narrow perspective of animal rights activists activities, only within the hunting scene.

Many other animal welfare issues are being ’sabbed’ too. I know someone who does media for major and minor animal rights groups and the protests/meets/exposes are extremely regular….you mostly won’t hear about them as they rarely hit mainstream news, unlike hunting. This also wrongly gives the impression that its just fox hunts getting all the focus by sabs, and animal welfare agents.

The meat industry is always a hot focus, and the outing of farms not keeping animals as per regulations are regularly evidenced and published. Again, rarely make mainstream news so hardly anyone is aware of these issues, and how many ‘super farms’ employ 24/7 security to prevent access by ‘sabs’.

The groups are very well organised, and many have more experience and knowledge with one issue than others. Its therefore rare to see hunt sabs at fur farming street protests, as they generally focus on their ‘speciality industry’. There are some cross-industry animal rights workers but those ‘out in the field’ obtaining evidence generally stick to that particular subject of animal welfare concerns.

Some methods sabs use, i dont always agree with, as it doesnt ultimately achieve the objective of advancing animal welfare, and just causes everyone to become disgruntled. Sabbing probably has become more commonplace due to the mainstream media blocking publishing evidence provided to them by animal welfare groups - so then these groups ‘get out there’ and hit the fields/streets with banners and cameras/video displays to try to make the issues known.

If the press were truly the ‘free press’ , jo public would have more general knowledge/information regarding for example, the methods the meat industry raises the animals. Many on here have stated in threads here and there to prefer their local organic farmer meat or shot wild meat than buying supermarket meat, as they have at least some knowledge of the inferior quality meat available through most mainstream meat industry chains of supply.

All industries raising animals for the pleasure of human sports or diet, are in the sights of all animal welfare groups.
To think otherwise is folly yet understandable as the media controls the mindset of the nation, and fox hunting has made it into mainstream media of late.


----------



## YorksG (15 January 2022)

Regarding "sabs" other than in hunting, we locally had two stand out events. One was the release of thousands of mink, with horrific consequences for both the mink and the local wildlife. The other was the arson at an intensive poultry farm, where all the hens were killed, along with three South Devon bulls, whose overnight housing was destroyed in the out of control fire.  How either of those events were based on animal welfare is beyond me! It is a form of terrorism, imo


----------



## Miss_Millie (15 January 2022)

YorksG said:



			Regarding "sabs" other than in hunting, we locally had two stand out events. One was the release of thousands of mink, with horrific consequences for both the mink and the local wildlife. The other was the arson at an intensive poultry farm, where all the hens were killed, along with three South Devon bulls, whose overnight housing was destroyed in the out of control fire.  How either of those events were based on animal welfare is beyond me! It is a form of terrorism, imo
		
Click to expand...

Is this to deflect from the fact that a hunt has killed yet another horse, once again trespassing on private property?

(FYI I don't condone either of the above that you have mentioned, however I find it very telling that those who are pro hunt go quiet whenever an innocent, by standing animal is killed by hounds)


----------



## paddy555 (15 January 2022)

Miss_Millie said:



			Is this to deflect from the fact that a hunt has killed yet another horse, once again trespassing on private property?

(FYI I don't condone either of the above that you have mentioned, however I find it very telling that those who are pro hunt go quiet whenever an innocent, by standing animal is killed by hounds)
		
Click to expand...

I can't find any comments about the "Barney" incident from the pro hunting folk, Palo, Yorks G and some others. I expect they are very busy and just hadn't had time to read about this unfortunate incident yet. I would have expected a couple of posts offering condolences, as indeed I offer mine, but I must have missed them. 

If any of them do have any time to spare it would be nice to understand why hunting folk believe it is OK to let dogs (hounds) run around the countryside totally out of control across other people's property. I am especially interested in this particular aspect of hunting as the same thing happened to me except it was my dog I very nearly lost not a horse. 

Would be nice to know as well why the hunts don't take the trouble to notify the people in the area where they are hunting so they can take steps to minimise the danger to their animals.


----------



## Miss_Millie (15 January 2022)

paddy555 said:



			I can't find any comments about the "Barney" incident from the pro hunting folk, Palo, Yorks G and some others. I expect they are very busy and just hadn't had time to read about this unfortunate incident yet. I would have expected a couple of posts offering condolences, as indeed I offer mine, but I must have missed them. 

If any of them do have any time to spare it would be nice to understand why hunting folk believe it is OK to let dogs (hounds) run around the countryside totally out of control across other people's property. I am especially interested in this particular aspect of hunting as* the same thing happened to me except it was my dog I very nearly lost *not a horse.

Would be nice to know as well why the hunts don't take the trouble to notify the people in the area where they are hunting so they can take steps to minimise the danger to their animals.
		
Click to expand...

Your poor dog, I hope he/she has made a full recovery.


----------



## GoldenWillow (15 January 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Another horse dies after an accident in his field after being panicked when the hunt made an unexpected visit. The owner would have got her horses in beforehand if she had known that the hunt was coming.

https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/19849997.horse-put-bolting-fox-hunt-hounds/


_A HUNT has “offered its condolences” after its hounds raced on to private land and scared a horse which subsequently had to be put down._

_Lisa Line’s horse, Barney, who lived in the Grove Estate, Wormingford, was panicked when about 40 dogs gained access to the land without permission._

_The animal, which Lisa had loved for 21 years since it was four-months-old, bolted and ran straight through a gate on the land, breaking its leg._

_The family had to make the heartbreaking decision to have Barney put down after he laid in agony on the floor for more than 40 minutes._

So there you go, to the poster who opined that horses don't bother when the hunt comes past, and thought that their neighbour who wanted to be told was being over protective and was making a fuss.

This is what happens, and this is why I always expect to be told when the hunt is coming so that I can get my horses in.
		
Click to expand...

That is absolutely heartbreaking and completely needless if hunts were actually trail hunting. I could so easily have been writing this, "fortunately" I just had a wrecked field and a horse in a dreadful state.


----------



## palo1 (15 January 2022)

paddy555 said:



			I can't find any comments about the "Barney" incident from the pro hunting folk, Palo, Yorks G and some others. I expect they are very busy and just hadn't had time to read about this unfortunate incident yet. I would have expected a couple of posts offering condolences, as indeed I offer mine, but I must have missed them. 

If any of them do have any time to spare it would be nice to understand why hunting folk believe it is OK to let dogs (hounds) run around the countryside totally out of control across other people's property. I am especially interested in this particular aspect of hunting as the same thing happened to me except it was my dog I very nearly lost not a horse.

Would be nice to know as well why the hunts don't take the trouble to notify the people in the area where they are hunting so they can take steps to minimise the danger to their animals.
		
Click to expand...

I was very sad to hear about the death of that much loved horse and it is horrifying that that incident happened.  I can honestly say that I have NEVER, whilst I have been trail hunting, seen any wildlife, livestock or pets upset or endangered. There isn't an excuse for it.  The country should be cleared adequately which absolutely includes letting people know that the hunt will be in the area and hounds should never be rioting on pets or wildlife.  I know that as soon as I post this, numerous anti-hunt posters will leap on this and tell me I am deluded, dissembling, probably lying... but I can only speak of my experience.  Many people I speak to involved in trail hunting would say the same as I but this incident has made the headlines.  I wish every incident of out of control dogs made the headlines tbh as pets, wildlife and livestock would all be safer but that doesn't happen.

I have had a few people tell me, when they are informed of trail hunt activities, that their horses will be upset (we don't get the same response from farmers at all as they either welcome us or don't and we know that we must act very carefully around any livestock in the fields).  Invariably, we pass by quietly at some point in the day and there is no problem. If there were a problem, we would try to deal with that in whatever way we could - moving away, going to inform a homeowner that their animals were razzing around, apologising for not being able to let them know we were passing - whatever was the best course of action.  I don't know anyone at all that would feel it acceptable to think or see a dangerously upset horse.  We are all horse owners and lovers too.  Some horses will get wound up - I get that but perhaps our country enables us to steer clear of that kind of environment.  My experience is so different to that represented by anti-hunters and sabs that I regularly question why that is the case. I am sick of hearing about these awful incidents tbh and obviously I wish that hunts would exert better control and discipline when they are in more residential places/around people's homes.  Nothing I have seen suggests that can't be done and I regularly see a great level of control and discipline in trail hunting in places where there are NOT problems.  That is just my experience; sorry if it doesn't fit other people's narratives.

I do wonder too how drag hunts and bloodhound hunts avoid these kinds of headlines as drag-hunting in particular is far more exciting and attracts quite large numbers of riders.  They often meet in villages and quite well populated areas and horses out in the fields really wouldn't know the difference between a drag or trail hunt.  The drag hunts I have attended have used bridlepaths etc and drag hounds can move off the direct line of the scent trail so there is opportunity for them to cause upset too.  Bloodhounds are huge great things and scent can move quite a bit so the same applies to them.  The drag hunt I have been out with has not always been able to inform everyone of their plans either so it isn't always possible for every horse owner to get the information they might want or need prior to hunting activities.


----------



## rextherobber (15 January 2022)

paddy555 said:



			I can't find any comments about the "Barney" incident from the pro hunting folk, Palo, Yorks G and some others. I expect they are very busy and just hadn't had time to read about this unfortunate incident yet. I would have expected a couple of posts offering condolences, as indeed I offer mine, but I must have missed them. 

If any of them do have any time to spare it would be nice to understand why hunting folk believe it is OK to let dogs (hounds) run around the countryside totally out of control across other people's property. I am especially interested in this particular aspect of hunting as the same thing happened to me except it was my dog I very nearly lost not a horse.

Would be nice to know as well why the hunts don't take the trouble to notify the people in the area where they are hunting so they can take steps to minimise the danger to their animals.
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely this


----------



## CanteringCarrot (15 January 2022)

YorksG said:



			Regarding "sabs" other than in hunting, we locally had two stand out events. One was the release of thousands of mink, with horrific consequences for both the mink and the local wildlife. The other was the arson at an intensive poultry farm, where all the hens were killed, along with three South Devon bulls, whose overnight housing was destroyed in the out of control fire.  How either of those events were based on animal welfare is beyond me! It is a form of terrorism, imo
		
Click to expand...

I think Sabs can be considered an extremist group in many cases, such as in the examples you posted. I do think Sabs range in their "extremism" too and not all take it to the same level. I'm not supporting Sabs, terrorism, or heinous acts, but I do support people being able to speak out against hunting, and peaceful (as well as legal) protests. However, when this BS (yes, it's BS) like the horrible situation just mentioned in this thread re the panicked horse that was put down keeps happening, and no one listens/virtually nothing is done about it, people get p'd off. If the hunts are acting ridiculous the sabs will act ridiculous and the cycle continues.

Now I know some hunts may not partake in ridiculousness and/or BS, and I know some Sabs are well over the top. I don't discount that for a second. Sabs are wrong and many hunts are in the wrong. The sport is going to have to do a lot, as in kick itself in the arse and put in effort to be proper and transparent. If people aren't willing to do that, then it's done and should be done. 

I know it just plain sucks to have to be a "good one" and suffer the consequences of the bad eggs, but it happens and you can't expect the general public to put up with this stuff because some hunts are good and some are bad. It just cannot work that way. 

I'm not against legal hunting, but I'm having a real hard time with the thought of hunting, as it is now, continuing.


----------



## CanteringCarrot (15 January 2022)

palo1 said:



			I was very sad to hear about the death of that much loved horse and it is horrifying that that incident happened.  I can honestly say that I have NEVER, whilst I have been trail hunting, seen any wildlife, livestock or pets upset or endangered. There isn't an excuse for it.  The country should be cleared adequately which absolutely includes letting people know that the hunt will be in the area and hounds should never be rioting on pets or wildlife.  I know that as soon as I post this, numerous anti-hunt posters will leap on this and tell me I am deluded, dissembling, probably lying... but I can only speak of my experience.  Many people I speak to involved in trail hunting would say the same as I but this incident has made the headlines.  I wish every incident of out of control dogs made the headlines tbh as pets, wildlife and livestock would all be safer but that doesn't happen.

I have had a few people tell me, when they are informed of trail hunt activities, that their horses will be upset (we don't get the same response from farmers at all as they either welcome us or don't and we know that we must act very carefully around any livestock in the fields).  Invariably, we pass by quietly at some point in the day and there is no problem. If there were a problem, we would try to deal with that in whatever way we could - moving away, going to inform a homeowner that their animals were razzing around, apologising for not being able to let them know we were passing - whatever was the best course of action.  I don't know anyone at all that would feel it acceptable to think or see a dangerously upset horse.  We are all horse owners and lovers too.  Some horses will get wound up - I get that but perhaps our country enables us to steer clear of that kind of environment.  My experience is so different to that represented by anti-hunters and sabs that I regularly question why that is the case. I am sick of hearing about these awful incidents tbh and obviously I wish that hunts would exert better control and discipline when they are in more residential places/around people's homes.  Nothing I have seen suggests that can't be done and I regularly see a great level of control and discipline in trail hunting in places where there are NOT problems.  That is just my experience; sorry if it doesn't fit other people's narratives.
		
Click to expand...

If that's truly your experience, I do feel bad that you have these other idiots ruining it.


----------



## GoldenWillow (15 January 2022)

palo1 said:



			I was very sad to hear about the death of that much loved horse and it is horrifying that that incident happened.  I can honestly say that I have NEVER, whilst I have been trail hunting, seen any wildlife, livestock or pets upset or endangered. There isn't an excuse for it.  The country should be cleared adequately which absolutely includes letting people know that the hunt will be in the area and hounds should never be rioting on pets or wildlife.  I know that as soon as I post this, numerous anti-hunt posters will leap on this and tell me I am deluded, dissembling, probably lying... but I can only speak of my experience.  Many people I speak to involved in trail hunting would say the same as I but this incident has made the headlines.  I wish every incident of out of control dogs made the headlines tbh as pets, wildlife and livestock would all be safer but that doesn't happen.

I have had a few people tell me, when they are informed of trail hunt activities, that their horses will be upset (we don't get the same response from farmers at all as they either welcome us or don't and we know that we must act very carefully around any livestock in the fields).  Invariably, we pass by quietly at some point in the day and there is no problem. If there were a problem, we would try to deal with that in whatever way we could - moving away, going to inform a homeowner that their animals were razzing around, apologising for not being able to let them know we were passing - whatever was the best course of action.  I don't know anyone at all that would feel it acceptable to think or see a dangerously upset horse.  We are all horse owners and lovers too.  Some horses will get wound up - I get that but perhaps our country enables us to steer clear of that kind of environment.  My experience is so different to that represented by anti-hunters and sabs that I regularly question why that is the case. I am sick of hearing about these awful incidents tbh and obviously I wish that hunts would exert better control and discipline when they are in more residential places/around people's homes.  Nothing I have seen suggests that can't be done and I regularly see a great level of control and discipline in trail hunting in places where there are NOT problems.  That is just my experience; sorry if it doesn't fit other people's narratives.
		
Click to expand...

I think we both have to accept that not all hunts behave the same way. If our hunt behaved anything like yours I would have no problem at all with hunts, after all my life not having a strong opinion either way about hunting my local hunts behaviour is the reason I now have such strong feelings.

We are in a very rural area, the hunt had over 1000 acres to go on yet went right through my field which is in a small pocket of 30 acres which the hunt had no permission to go. They went through and left a very distressed horse. I also was unfortunate enough to meet hunt followers when I was out hacking, horse was extremely upset as he could hear the hounds in the distance and the jeers, cat calls, downright offensive comments along with pushing past with their vehicles revving hard gets me as angry now as it did at the time. They were so bad two farmers who's farms I was passing came out to see what was happening and gave them short shrift. 

This is my experience and I do feel that's it's as valid as yours. 

There is no reason that I can see that all hunts cannot behave as yours does, other than they don't want to or see no reason why they should alter anything they do. Interestingly I was speaking to my neighbouring farmer today about foxes and they have neither less or more problems with them now the hunt doesn't come over.


----------



## Gallop_Away (15 January 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Another horse dies after an accident in his field after being panicked when the hunt made an unexpected visit. The owner would have got her horses in beforehand if she had known that the hunt was coming.

https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/19849997.horse-put-bolting-fox-hunt-hounds/


_A HUNT has “offered its condolences” after its hounds raced on to private land and scared a horse which subsequently had to be put down._

_Lisa Line’s horse, Barney, who lived in the Grove Estate, Wormingford, was panicked when about 40 dogs gained access to the land without permission._

_The animal, which Lisa had loved for 21 years since it was four-months-old, bolted and ran straight through a gate on the land, breaking its leg._

_The family had to make the heartbreaking decision to have Barney put down after he laid in agony on the floor for more than 40 minutes._

So there you go, to the poster who opined that horses don't bother when the hunt comes past, and thought that their neighbour who wanted to be told was being over protective and was making a fuss.

This is what happens, and this is why I always expect to be told when the hunt is coming so that I can get my horses in.
		
Click to expand...

Terribly sad and completely unacceptable. The hounds should never have been let loose on ground they were not permitted to be on. 
Like palo's hunt I can honestly say I've never experienced this with my own hunt. Our master and whips would have recalled and gathered the hounds the second it seemed they could potentially stray onto the wrong ground. 
Much of our ground is private land and we pride ourselves on having excellent relationships with our land owners. Part of this is keeping land owners and their neighbours happy by not trespassing where we are not welcome and communicating via our land owners and masters to neighbours and locals that we are in the area and on what day. 
I can honestly say our masters would be devastated if this had happened on their watch and rightly so. 
Condolences to that poor family who have lost their beautiful boy.


----------



## Chianti (15 January 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



_'A spokesperson for the Essex and Suffolk Hunt confirmed it was aware of the incident which took place while it hunted in Wormingford.'_

If the going rate for a cat killed by a hunt is a cheap bottle of whisky and a new kitten, what is the going rate for a much loved old coloured cob who has been in the family for over 20 years?

Barney pictured here with his owner's children before his tragic and completely unnecessary death. What a lovely sort he was.


View attachment 85901


View attachment 85902


Hounds out of control and where they shouldn't be AGAIN. Hunting and its governance is a joke.
		
Click to expand...

Look at his eyes in the first photo. He looks such a sweetheart. If that happened to my pony I would want to kill someone.


----------



## paddy555 (15 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			Terribly sad and completely unacceptable. The hounds should never have been let loose on ground they were not permitted to be on.
Like palo's hunt I can honestly say I've never experienced this with my own hunt. Our master and whips would have recalled and gathered the hounds the second it seemed they could potentially stray onto the wrong ground.
Much of our ground is private land and we pride ourselves on having excellent relationships with our land owners. Part of this is keeping land owners and their neighbours happy by not trespassing where we are not welcome and communicating via our land owners and masters to neighbours and locals that we are in the area and on what day.
I can honestly say our masters would be devastated if this had happened on their watch and rightly so.
Condolences to that poor family who have lost their beautiful boy.
		
Click to expand...

you and Palo seem to live in a lovely totally mystical world devoid of all reality to the real one that I, and I think some others do. Have neither of you  really and totally truly not seen hounds stray onto private land? 

Many out of control dogs make the headlines. 40 out of control dogs here. The onus is on the hunts to keep their dogs under control. If they were under control they would not be going across land without permission, they would not be frightening horses, killing cats or causing any other damage. A responsible hunt would have made sure Barney's owner was aware of the route of the hunt..After all if they were trail hunting they must surely have known.

One of my horses did have the right idea of how to deal with the problem. Hounds made the bad mistake of running, uninvited, across his field. Off he went, the hound he had set his heart on was very lucky that day. The horse pursued him at a gallop across my concrete yard (which was scary for the horse) cornered the hound on the back doorstep and started to kick seven bells out of it. I did stop him and got the hound out, after all it was not it's fault that the person supposedly looking after it and in charge of it's safety had failed it. 

the hunt have never in warned me my horses were galloping around as a result of their activities. In fact the master who got called out after their last episode didn't even know which my land was nor who owned the adjacent land that his dogs had trespassed over. I wasn't sure how long we had to own it before they recognised the fact. 40 years seemed reasonable but perhaps not. 

Neither you nor Palo can explain how 40 dogs could  be out of control on someone's field. How could this possibly happen. 
The only way I can think of is that the hunt couldn't care less or alternatively were incapable of controlling them. Neither should be happening and as far as I can see the only way of preventing this happening again is a total overall ban. 
Many people don't care if this is fox hunting, drag, trail or any other sort of hunting they just don't want it to happen and there seems no other way to prevent it. 

For those who are hunting and don't appear to have problems then look to the hunts that are letting you down not the antis. What action will be taken against the master and huntsman as a result of Barney's death?


----------



## I'm Dun (15 January 2022)

How can Palo or GA explain something they didnt see? It feels more like a personal attack when they are held responsible for the actions of a hunt whose actions they dont condone.


----------



## Gallop_Away (15 January 2022)

paddy555 said:



			you and Palo seem to live in a lovely totally mystical world devoid of all reality to the real one that I, and I think some others do. Have neither of you  really and totally truly not seen hounds stray onto private land?

Many out of control dogs make the headlines. 40 out of control dogs here. The onus is on the hunts to keep their dogs under control. If they were under control they would not be going across land without permission, they would not be frightening horses, killing cats or causing any other damage. A responsible hunt would have made sure Barney's owner was aware of the route of the hunt..After all if they were trail hunting they must surely have known.

One of my horses did have the right idea of how to deal with the problem. Hounds made the bad mistake of running, uninvited, across his field. Off he went, the hound he had set his heart on was very lucky that day. The horse pursued him at a gallop across my concrete yard (which was scary for the horse) cornered the hound on the back doorstep and started to kick seven bells out of it. I did stop him and got the hound out, after all it was not it's fault that the person supposedly looking after it and in charge of it's safety had failed it.

the hunt have never in warned me my horses were galloping around as a result of their activities. In fact the master who got called out after their last episode didn't even know which my land was nor who owned the adjacent land that his dogs had trespassed over. I wasn't sure how long we had to own it before they recognised the fact. 40 years seemed reasonable but perhaps not.

Neither you nor Palo can explain how 40 dogs could  be out of control on someone's field. How could this possibly happen.
The only way I can think of is that the hunt couldn't care less or alternatively were incapable of controlling them. Neither should be happening and as far as I can see the only way of preventing this happening again is a total overall ban.
Many people don't care if this is fox hunting, drag, trail or any other sort of hunting they just don't want it to happen and there seems no other way to prevent it.

For those who are hunting and don't appear to have problems then look to the hunts that are letting you down not the antis. What action will be taken against the master and huntsman as a result of Barney's death?
		
Click to expand...

Paddy myself and palo can only give our own experiences. Neither of us have condoned the actions of this hunt. Quite the opposite. Neither have we attempted to blame sabs for this sad affair so I'm unsure where your last comment has come from? Just because our experience is different to yours doesn't make ours any less valid! 
I can honestly say our hounds have not rioted onto livestock or pets in all the years I've hunted. Occasionally they will loose the trail but the second there is a risk they could stray onto land we are not welcome on, they are swiftly recalled by the master. I have huge respect for him and how he handles his hounds. Our whips are also excellent. 
Our hunt has not killed a fox in the 7 years I have hunted with them. We rely a great deal on our land owners and we would certainly not be welcomed onto their property if we were doing anything illegal or trespassing where we were not welcome. 
I've never denied that there are hunts hunting illegally and I think it is a terrible shame that they are dragging us down with them. 
I'm not sure what more you would like me to say on the matter?


----------



## minesadouble (15 January 2022)

Paddy 555 if your horse truly cornered a foxhound and 'kicked seven bells' out of it there is no way that hound would live to tell the tale.


----------



## Indy (15 January 2022)

Poor Barney and his family, he was loved


----------



## SEL (15 January 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			So there you go, to the poster who opined that horses don't bother when the hunt comes past, and thought that their neighbour who wanted to be told was being over protective and was making a fuss.

This is what happens, and this is why I always expect to be told when the hunt is coming so that I can get my horses in.
		
Click to expand...

That poor horse. I have two on my land that work themselves into a frenzy when the hunt come past. No warning last time the Kimblewick came down the road and, as I said further up the thread, I stood on my yard watching hounds in my top field. Hard for humans to access the thicket up there so I doubt a trail was laid.

I was on my yard with a bodyworker who had very kindly helped me turn two into my closest paddock as they were so wound up she couldn't have attempted to work on them. 

If members of other hunts have never seen hounds on private land nor horses worked up into a state then you are lucky and really should pull together to address the behaviour of hunts letting the side down.


----------



## YorksG (15 January 2022)

SEL said:



			If members of other hunts have never seen hounds on private land nor horses worked up into a state then you are lucky and really should pull together to address the behaviour of hunts letting the side down.
		
Click to expand...

That feels rather like saying that because, say Chelsea FC have a lot of hooligans in their crowd, that Bradford fc need to alter their behaviour.


----------



## saalsk (15 January 2022)

When we first moved here, the local hunt came and told us when and where they would be in our area. They could not have been more helpful and polite, and gave us plenty of notice, and a thank you after. No suggestion they did anything other than follow a trail. They didn't come on our land, but were aware there are dogs, chickens, sheep and horses here. Not seen them since lockdown, but twice (once last autumn, and then again today ) there have been hounds with men on foot (with guns and horns) hunting the area with no warning, and very little regard for where the hounds went. Last year, there were several hounds on my land, in the field with pregnant sheep (I stress they didn't look at or in anyway chase them) and another field with 2 horses (same - no chasing or any suggestion of it). However, the sheep were going crazy up and down the fenceline, as the hounds quartered the field, and they were in the area for well over an hour, then returned a little later with the same outcome. The horses were galloping around, and would have been inside if I had been told they would be in the area. Today - same thing - totally unaware and suddenly hearing horns and hounds, go outside to find them in my fields. Horses galloping around, and sheep very upset in one corner of a field. The men with guns can clearly see they are on land they do not have permission to use, and that there are sheep and horses around, but seemingly don't care, and failed to make any efforts to call them away. The fox crossed 4 of my fields, and my non-grazing grass sections, which are just metres from the house, and has the chicken coop on it, before heading away. I cannot believe the men didn't see it, as hounds were not far off the trail, and following it. They can hardly argue they were following any sort of proper trail. If they were not following a trail, what were they doing there in the first place ? Hearing the hounds, the gun shots ( there were several ) and the shouting, with no warning, and no idea who they were or what they were doing, and then being left with a flock of stressed sheep, and 2 horses lathered and heaving from running, is not acceptable. They are not helping themselves.


----------



## YorksG (15 January 2022)

saalsk said:



			When we first moved here, the local hunt came and told us when and where they would be in our area. They could not have been more helpful and polite, and gave us plenty of notice, and a thank you after. No suggestion they did anything other than follow a trail. They didn't come on our land, but were aware there are dogs, chickens, sheep and horses here. Not seen them since lockdown, but twice (once last autumn, and then again today ) there have been hounds with men on foot (with guns and horns) hunting the area with no warning, and very little regard for where the hounds went. Last year, there were several hounds on my land, in the field with pregnant sheep (I stress they didn't look at or in anyway chase them) and another field with 2 horses (same - no chasing or any suggestion of it). However, the sheep were going crazy up and down the fenceline, as the hounds quartered the field, and they were in the area for well over an hour, then returned a little later with the same outcome. The horses were galloping around, and would have been inside if I had been told they would be in the area. Today - same thing - totally unaware and suddenly hearing horns and hounds, go outside to find them in my fields. Horses galloping around, and sheep very upset in one corner of a field. The men with guns can clearly see they are on land they do not have permission to use, and that there are sheep and horses around, but seemingly don't care, and failed to make any efforts to call them away. The fox crossed 4 of my fields, and my non-grazing grass sections, which are just metres from the house, and has the chicken coop on it, before heading away. I cannot believe the men didn't see it, as hounds were not far off the trail, and following it. They can hardly argue they were following any sort of proper trail. If they were not following a trail, what were they doing there in the first place ? Hearing the hounds, the gun shots ( there were several ) and the shouting, with no warning, and no idea who they were or what they were doing, and then being left with a flock of stressed sheep, and 2 horses lathered and heaving from running, is not acceptable. They are not helping themselves.
		
Click to expand...

They are unlikely to be a registered pack, and there is nothing that any other pack can do about them. A call to the police at the time, from the landowner, about illegal use of firearms, would have been the appropriate response imo


----------



## saalsk (15 January 2022)

(sorry, no good at quoting)

Reply to YorksG

I am quite sure they are not a registered pack, and in no way linked to any proper hunt packs in my area.

The police response was "if you don't have video and audio evidence of the actual people firing guns, and that they don't have a licence and permission to do so on that particular property, then there is nothing we can do. As no people actually trespassed on your property, that you saw and had video evidence of, only the dogs, then that isn't a reason to do anything either. You don't know they were not calling the hounds away, and the hounds were simply not leaving as quickly as you would have liked"

An appropriate response ?!


----------



## YorksG (15 January 2022)

saalsk said:



			(sorry, no good at quoting)

Reply to YorksG

I am quite sure they are not a registered pack, and in no way linked to any proper hunt packs in my area.

The police response was "if you don't have video and audio evidence of the actual people firing guns, and that they don't have a licence and permission to do so on that particular property, then there is nothing we can do. As no people actually trespassed on your property, that you saw and had video evidence of, only the dogs, then that isn't a reason to do anything either. You don't know they were not calling the hounds away, and the hounds were simply not leaving as quickly as you would have liked"

An appropriate response ?!
		
Click to expand...

Good lord!!!! No, not at all appropriate. If that were me, then I would be emailing the local police and crime commissioner, asking their view of it that was an appropriate response


----------



## paddy555 (15 January 2022)

minesadouble said:



			Paddy 555 if your horse truly cornered a foxhound and 'kicked seven bells' out of it there is no way that hound would live to tell the tale.
		
Click to expand...



As you and the people  who liked your comments would have obviously have realised when you watched this incident you are questioning you would have seen  the indentation where the trough was that to some extent protected it during it's beating.


----------



## paddy555 (15 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			Paddy myself and palo can only give our own experiences. Neither of us have condoned the actions of this hunt. Quite the opposite. Neither have we attempted to blame sabs for this sad affair so I'm unsure where your last comment has come from?
		
Click to expand...

I'm sorry I was unclear. By antis I didn't mean sabs, they obviously don't come into this I was meaning ordinary people who are anti hunt and want it stopped such as me.


----------



## paddy555 (15 January 2022)

SEL said:



			If members of other hunts have never seen hounds on private land nor horses worked up into a state then you are lucky and really should pull together to address the behaviour of hunts letting the side down.
		
Click to expand...

I was beginning to think it was just me that saw this sort of behaviour.


----------



## paddy555 (15 January 2022)

which hunts are your hunts Gallop Away and Palo?


----------



## Gallop_Away (15 January 2022)

I will not openly name our hunt on an open forum due to the issues we are having with sabs. I'm sorry but after everything I have experienced I have a huge distrust for them and don't wish to attract more negative attention.  
I will say that it is one of the Welsh packs.


----------



## ycbm (15 January 2022)

Cats,  deer, calves, horses. This has to stop.  Hunting cannot survive this kind of PR. It has to accept that it has to share a busy countryside with 70 million people in this country now,  that its hounds must stay on the set trail like drag hounds manage to do and that people living in the area where those trails are set need notification of an event taking place so they can decide what to do about their animals.  Ditto fireworks, but that's another thread.


----------



## Indy (15 January 2022)

paddy555 said:



			I was beginning to think it was just me that saw this sort of behaviour. 

Click to expand...

Not just you


----------



## Miss_Millie (15 January 2022)

There have been two incidents in the past week of hounds running out of control - in the first instance chasing a fox through a village in front of cars, and now poor Barney losing his life when 40 hounds ran into his field.

Given the frequency of these events, I don't see how those who hunt can confidently say the masters are in control of their hounds. This seems to happen far too often. Will all of these hounds be shot as a result?


----------



## paddy555 (15 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			I will not openly name our hunt on an open forum due to the issues we are having with sabs. I'm sorry but after everything I have experienced I have a huge distrust for them and don't wish to attract more negative attention.
I will say that it is one of the Welsh packs.
		
Click to expand...

OK fine, I understand your reasoning. If your hunt has no problems at all why are you targeted. Just curious.


----------



## Chianti (15 January 2022)

Just wondering. Imagine if groups of people riding horses and hunting with dogs had never existed. Then ten years ago someone thought it up and it quickly spread across the country. Considering the number of incidents that have been reported in the last ten years of harm to land, cats, sheep, chickens and other horses, would it be allowed to continue?


----------



## GoldenWillow (15 January 2022)

ycbm said:



			Cats,  deer, calves, horses. This has to stop.  Hunting cannot survive this kind of PR. It has to accept that it has to share a busy countryside with 70 million people in this country now,  that its hounds must stay on the set trail like drag hounds manage to do and that people living in the area where those trails are set need notification of an event taking place so they can decide what to do about their animals.  Ditto fireworks, but that's another thread.
		
Click to expand...

We also have hound trails running in our area, in fact between 2 and 4 a year from our village. I've never known them as a group stray from the trail, occasionally there's an odd one doesn't come in with the others and has got lost. Is that because the trail is aniseed? Which again leads to the question can hunting not change to it?


----------



## Tiddlypom (15 January 2022)

YorksG said:



			That feels rather like saying that because, say Chelsea FC have a lot of hooligans in their crowd, that Bradford fc need to alter their behaviour.
		
Click to expand...

The football club analogy is quite a useful one .

If football as a sport was in danger of being banned completely because of the behaviour of the fans of certain clubs, premier league or not, and football's governing body was ignoring/denying the issue, then clubs in lower leagues with peaceful fans would do well to jump ship and set up another football association of their own.

Then the law abiding football clubs would have a much better chance of survival.


----------



## stangs (15 January 2022)

I think the fact that both Gallop_Away and palo hunt in Wales is quite telling. The Welsh countryside is has a much lower population density than England's, so surely Welsh packs aren't as 'forced' as English packs to go where they're not wanted and disturb livestock.



paddy555 said:



			OK fine, I understand your reasoning. If your hunt has no problems at all why are you targeted. Just curious.
		
Click to expand...

I took Gallop_Away's post to mean that trail hunting in general is having issues with sabs, not their specific hunt.


----------



## ycbm (15 January 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			If football as a sport was in danger of being banned completely because of the behaviour of the fans of certain clubs
		
Click to expand...


Back in the 70's and 80's this was definitely the case.  Violence was terrible at some clubs.  I've been there  I've seen it. Millwall (notorious for violence) vs Portsmouth 1977, bloody scary.   The whole of football acted together to change things. Family stands are now standard.   People are safe to go to games.  It took the whole sport  to change and change they did.  
.


----------



## SEL (15 January 2022)

YorksG said:



			That feels rather like saying that because, say Chelsea FC have a lot of hooligans in their crowd, that Bradford fc need to alter their behaviour.
		
Click to expand...

When English teams were banned from playing in Europe due to their fans behaviour EVERY football club worked hard to get hooliganism under control so they could rejoin the European leagues. 

If people who hunt want to continue the sport then they need to stop saying "well it wasn't us" and start dealing with hunts who trespass, commit criminal damage and cause harm. Otherwise it won't be around for anyone in a pretty short space of time.


----------



## Tiddlypom (16 January 2022)

^^^^ Excellent post, SEL 👏👏👏.


----------



## palo1 (16 January 2022)

SEL said:



			When English teams were banned from playing in Europe due to their fans behaviour EVERY football club worked hard to get hooliganism under control so they could rejoin the European leagues.

If people who hunt want to continue the sport then they need to stop saying "well it wasn't us" and start dealing with hunts who trespass, commit criminal damage and cause harm. Otherwise it won't be around for anyone in a pretty short space of time.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, you are right.  I think for most ordinary people who want to trail hunt (like myself) is that the structure of hunting is not really set up for that.  Every hunt has come out of a community tradition and each hunt is different; usually, but not always run by a local committee who have very different levels of engagement with the 'main/national' office (ie Hunting Office and MFHA).  Each of these hunting committees has a long, specifically local set of practices, traditionsl, prejudices and approaches (like different WI groups) - these are borne out of practice and the kinds of individuals involved.  Traditional structures and procedures mean that hunts like mine actually have very little to do with the national office - we don't particularly need them for our insurance and because we are not particularly posh or well connected we are very much a satellite or outpost.  The committee get information from the MFHA for example about Covid regs which were actually very clear and well organised so we were able to follow that but on other matters I am not sure how much of a 2 way commmunication process there is!!  I think it extremely unlikely/virtually impossible that our Masters for eg had anything to do with the famous webinars; they just couldn't spare the time or probably didn't believe there was much value to them in attending.  We already lay trails etc and don't have issues with sabs so there probably wasn't any incentive to spend hours at some webinar during a work day; all of our masters have jobs after all.  As long as the kennels are checked out regularly and we receive/attend and abide by certain briefings we are pretty much left to get on with it.  IF there were an incident of bad behaviour in our local hunt, someone could report that to the Hunting Office/MFHA but it is possible that they wouldn't particularly know the country, the individuals involved or have any way to 'investigate' in a meaningful way.   This is very bad news really though at the moment I think hunts like mine are delighted to be distanced from the MFHA...!

In recent years the Hunting Office has not been especially open to any suggestions or discussion from ordinary folk or probably from masters of small hunts and the arrogance etc of those running the hunting office has meant that many hunts have sort of done their own thing; some for the good, as in my and other hunts happily referenced here, but some have gone really badly off track and the HO seem either unable or unwilling to address that.  I would hope that Andrew Osborne is able to bring hunting communities back into a real discussion and then to apply proper governance and discipline.  If the HO listened to most grass roots hunters they would know that there is a huge dissatisfaction with the way things are now and the incidents of illegal hunting and poor behaviour.

As for setting up alternative Hunting groups that has been done; This is Hunting Uk is one that has tried unrelentingly to engage with the Hunting Office which in turn reports (as it were) to the Countryside Alliance and to other bodies but there has been a huge reluctance by the Hunting Office to listen and to meet with grass roots hunters.  I don't know why: This is Hunting UK has over 40,000 followers (national and international) and absolutely promotes safe and considerate hunting activities and 'manners'.    However, without real engagement by the MFHA it is difficult to apply any leverage and the MFHA are the ones that provide 'legitimacy' and thus, potentially governance and discipline to hunting.   I think that many hunts that are outliers would really rather just do their own thing; there is considerable distrust of the hunting authorities due to their lack of credibility.

I know some packs may be considering de-registering from the MFHA.  If they can arrange insurance elsewhere (as my and other hunts do) then there is very little benefit to the large fee hunts pay to the MFHA for this 'respectability/legitimacy' although for many huntsmen and masters the driving force will be the registration and maintenance of hound pedigrees as that is hugely important and ties in to all sorts of other things.   That would mean, of course that it would be difficult for hunts to be in any way accountable to anyone (not that it seems much point at the moment tbh).  The only way to stop pirate packs in that scenario would be the slaughter of pure bred hunting dogs -likely impossible due to people absolutely making every use of loopholes in the law (eg cross breeding) or making it illegal to exercise more than 2 dogs at a time without, for example a licence as a dog walker/breeder.  Again that would probably be useless/impossible to police/unworkable etc etc.

I think the *vast majority of people* really do want to see the end of these awful incidents of hunting hooliganism but it's not going to be immediate and in the same way that the vast majority of football fans are not hooligans or racists, most hunters don't in any way support the bad behaviour.   I hope Andrew Osborne can bring some more sense to things and get people to actually buy in to the Hunting Office/MFHA.  The badly behaved hunts seem (I don't know this as fact) to think the MFHA can't discipline them and the well behaved hunts associate poor behaviour and terrible headlines with the MFHA so steer well clear.

Sorry for the long explanation; it is not an excuse for any bad behaviour but not everyone will be aware of these things.  Hunting in the UK is definitely not one community with one set of values.


----------



## paddy555 (16 January 2022)

[


palo1 said:



			Yes, you are right.  I think for most ordinary people who want to trail hunt (like myself) is that the structure of hunting is not really set up for that.  Every hunt has come out of a community tradition and each hunt is different; usually, but not always run by a local committee who have very different levels of engagement with the 'main/national' office (ie Hunting Office and MFHA).  Each of these hunting committees has a long, specifically local set of practices, traditionsl, prejudices and approaches (like different WI groups) - these are borne out of practice and the kinds of individuals involved.  Traditional structures and procedures mean that hunts like mine actually have very little to do with the national office - we don't particularly need them for our insurance and because we are not particularly posh or well connected we are very much a satellite or outpost.  The committee get information from the MFHA for example about Covid regs which were actually very clear and well organised so we were able to follow that but on other matters I am not sure how much of a 2 way commmunication process there is!!  I think it extremely unlikely/virtually impossible that our Masters for eg had anything to do with the famous webinars; they just couldn't spare the time or probably didn't believe there was much value to them in attending.  We already lay trails etc and don't have issues with sabs so there probably wasn't any incentive to spend hours at some webinar during a work day; all of our masters have jobs after all.  As long as the kennels are checked out regularly and we receive/attend and abide by certain briefings we are pretty much left to get on with it.  I*F there were an incident of bad behaviour in our local hunt, someone could report that to the Hunting Office/MFHA but it is possible that they wouldn't particularly know the country, the individuals involved or have any way to 'investigate' in a meaningful way.   This is very bad news* really though at the moment I think hunts like mine are delighted to be distanced from the MFHA...!

In recent years the Hunting Office has not been especially open to any suggestions or discussion from ordinary folk or probably from masters of small hunts and the arrogance etc of those running the hunting office has meant that many hunts have sort of done their own thing; some for the good, as in my and other hunts happily referenced here,* but some have gone really badly off track and the HO seem either unable or unwilling to address that.  *I would hope that Andrew Osborne is able to bring hunting communities back into a real discussion and then to apply proper governance and discipline.  If the HO listened to most grass roots hunters they would know that there is a huge dissatisfaction with the way things are now and the incidents of illegal hunting and poor behaviour.

As for setting up alternative Hunting groups that has been done; This is Hunting Uk is one that has tried unrelentingly to engage with the Hunting Office which in turn reports (as it were) to the Countryside Alliance and to other bodies but there has been a huge reluctance by the Hunting Office to listen and to meet with grass roots hunters.  I don't know why: This is Hunting UK has over 40,000 followers (national and international) and absolutely promotes safe and considerate hunting activities and 'manners'.    However, without real engagement by the MFHA it is difficult to apply any leverage and the MFHA are the ones that provide 'legitimacy' and thus, potentially governance and discipline to hunting.   I think that many hunts that are outliers would really rather just do their own thing; there is considerable distrust of the hunting authorities due to their lack of credibility.

I know some packs may be considering de-registering from the MFHA.  If they can arrange insurance elsewhere (as my and other hunts do) then there is very little benefit to the large fee hunts pay to the MFHA for this 'respectability/legitimacy' although for many huntsmen and masters the driving force will be the registration and maintenance of hound pedigrees as that is hugely important and ties in to all sorts of other things.   That would mean, of course that it would be difficult for hunts to be in any way accountable to anyone (not that it seems much point at the moment tbh).  The only way to stop pirate packs in that scenario would be the slaughter of pure bred hunting dogs -likely impossible due to people absolutely making every use of loopholes in the law (eg cross breeding) or making it illegal to exercise more than 2 dogs at a time without, for example a licence as a dog walker/breeder.  Again that would probably be useless/impossible to police/unworkable etc etc.

I think the majority really do want to see the end of these awful incidents of hunting hooliganism but it's not going to be immediate and in the same way that the vast majority of football fans are not hooligans or racists, most hunters don't in any way support the bad behaviour.   I hope Andrew Osborne can bring some more sense to things and get people to actually buy in to the Hunting Office/MFHA.  *The badly behaved hunts seem (I don't know this as fact) to think the MFHA can't discipline them *and the well behaved hunts associate poor behaviour and terrible headlines with the MFHA so steer well clear.

Sorry for the long explanation; it is not an excuse for any bad behaviour but not everyone will be aware of these things.  Hunting in the UK is definitely not one community with one set of values.
		
Click to expand...

that is a very interesting explanation, so thank you. You describe the frustration of yourself and others hunting legally and behaving nicely towards some of the things going wrong. 
If you feel that frustration at least you have the pleasure of indulging in your sport. How do you think some of us feel when there appears to be absolutely no accountability whatsoever by hunts for their actions which range from trespassing, damage and the death of their pets or damage/distress to their livestock? They don't even get any pleasure from hunting. 

I have highlighted some points above. To myself as simply a member of the public there appears to be no recourse, no penalties. Basically they can do what they like and s*d everyone else especially the pesky, irritating public, landowners and most especially their even more irritating animals if they get in  the way.

No amount of compensation whatsoever is going to improve life for Barney's family. Nothing the hunt can do can ever compensate for the fact that they did not have the competence to control 40 dogs or didn't want to. 

There is no reason whatsover why hunt meets cannot be well advertised both in the local press, on a noticeboard, by flyers through animal keepers doors. If they are trail hunting they know where they are going.They don't need to notify the entire county. If the argument against that is sabs them perhaps if everyone behaved well they wouldn't be needed. Of some of the recent incidents they were publicised because of the sabs, the sabs didn't cause them.(I am not a sab nor ever have been) 

This is an activity with no effective body in charge, no disciplinary procedures and some of their members are effectively running riot. 
Without effective controls in place the only solution is to bring it to an end. As with everything the good suffer because of the bad but that is life. 
There is plenty of opportunity for hunting people to take control and correct matters. The don't so why do the public have to put  up with it any longer?


----------



## SEL (16 January 2022)

@palo1 thanks for your reply. I think law abiding hunts must feel extremely frustrated by the actions of those that bring the sport into disrepute. Given the National Trust's recent decision I can't help but think hunting's days will be numbered unless they can put in place some form of body to supervise and take action against those who don't abide by the law.


----------



## Clodagh (16 January 2022)

When I hunted all horse owners in the area were told when and where the meets were so they could keep their horses in if necessary. Now that there is a veil of secrecy over the whole thing this doesn’t happen.
That’s quite separate to hound or hunt trespass, it should just never happen and not should it ever have done. Hunting keeps acting as though it’s still the days of landed gentry and owned peasants on vast estates. Then it keeps saying it’s a sport open to all. In which case treat everyone with the same respect. 
My husband was reading an old book in which the MFH was hacking to the meet with his hounds. They rode through a village and hounds killed a cat. He held the body up and shouted ‘let this be a lesson to you all, not to let pets out on hunting days’. Nothing seems to have changed.


----------



## Tiddlypom (16 January 2022)

palo1, I also thank you for your considered and very informative post.

With regards to the 'new' (June 2021) chair of the MFHA, Andrew Osbourne, he hasn't made a promising start after posting the below in Dec '21, so I still doubt that true reform and a genuine commitment to rooting out illegal hunting/poor practice are likely to emanate from the MFHA .

https://thehuntingoffice.org.uk/news

'I wanted to take the opportunity to update all members of the MFHA, and the wider Hunting community about plans we have been working on recently.  As all supporters of hunting know, the infiltration and subsequent misrepresentation of a trail hunting webinar and the prosecution of a Director has been used to try and cause great harm to our way of life.'

This is Hunting UK does have a lot of followers, and fortunately seems to be continuing after the recent death of the founder. I do pop on regularly to see what's posted there. TiHUK does seem to be regarded with an unwarranted amount of suspicion by the hunting establishment.


----------



## paddy555 (16 January 2022)

Clodagh said:



			When I hunted all horse owners in the area were told when and where the meets were so they could keep their horses in if necessary. Now that there is a veil of secrecy over the whole thing this doesn’t happen.
That’s quite separate to hound or hunt trespass, it should just never happen and not should it ever have done. Hunting keeps acting as though it’s still the days of landed gentry and owned peasants on vast estates. Then it keeps saying it’s a sport open to all. In which case treat everyone with the same respect.
My husband was reading an old book in which the MFH was hacking to the meet with his hounds. They rode through a village and hounds killed a cat. He held the body up and shouted ‘let this be a lesson to you all, not to let pets out on hunting days’. Nothing seems to have changed.
		
Click to expand...

yeah, absolutely. Good final para that sums it up perfectly.


----------



## Miss_Millie (16 January 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			palo1, I also thank you for your considered and very informative post.

With regards to the 'new' (June 2021) chair of the MFHA, Andrew Osbourne, he hasn't made a promising start after posting the below in Dec '21, so I still doubt that true reform and a genuine commitment to rooting out illegal hunting/poor practice are likely to emanate from the MFHA .

https://thehuntingoffice.org.uk/news

'I wanted to take the opportunity to update all members of the MFHA, and the wider Hunting community about plans we have been working on recently.  As all supporters of hunting know, the infiltration and subsequent *misrepresentation of a trail hunting webinar* and the prosecution of a Director has been used to try and cause great harm to our way of life.'

This is Hunting UK does have a lot of followers, and fortunately seems to be continuing after the recent death of the founder. I do pop on regularly to see what's posted there. TiHUK does seem to be regarded with an unwarranted amount of suspicion by the hunting establishment.
		
Click to expand...

That is just delusional.


----------



## palo1 (16 January 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			palo1, I also thank you for your considered and very informative post.

With regards to the 'new' (June 2021) chair of the MFHA, Andrew Osbourne, he hasn't made a promising start after posting the below in Dec '21, so I still doubt that true reform and a genuine commitment to rooting out illegal hunting/poor practice are likely to emanate from the MFHA .

https://thehuntingoffice.org.uk/news

'I wanted to take the opportunity to update all members of the MFHA, and the wider Hunting community about plans we have been working on recently.  As all supporters of hunting know, the infiltration and subsequent misrepresentation of a trail hunting webinar and the prosecution of a Director has been used to try and cause great harm to our way of life.'

This is Hunting UK does have a lot of followers, and fortunately seems to be continuing after the recent death of the founder. I do pop on regularly to see what's posted there. TiHUK does seem to be regarded with an unwarranted amount of suspicion by the hunting establishment.
		
Click to expand...

I have no idea why This is Hunting Uk has been sidelined by the MFHA and repeatedly so tbh - James Barclay was from hunting royalty and he knew everyone involved in hunting from the ground up.  His opinion of some people, involved in poor hunting practices, were utterly scathing and he was regularly infuriated by bad behaviour.  TiHUK are really committed to safe, accessible, legal trail hunting and there are a number of hunts that are absolutely on side with them.   I feel confident that TiHUK at least will continue to promote positive behaviour, legal trail hunting and good manners.  There are some really good and also some very influential people involved and that organisation really does engage with the grass roots.  But they are not involved with, nor do they have, at this point, impact on 'policy' or sanction against the people that need disciplining.   I think Andrew Osborne's ego would struggle with such a humble group as TiHUK - he possibly wouldn't want the grubby grass roots dictating how things need to be but I have never met the man and know nothing of him so I can't say what he thinks or what he is planning tbh.  I would hope he is awake at night trying to work out how to improve matters though!  I also understand his statement above; he has to appeal to those hunting people who have been misrepresented (I feel misrepresented for example) and many, many hunting people DO feel that their way of life (not the illegal hunting, trespass and bad manners bit) is in danger.  That may not be popular or bring much sympathy but it is true. 

It feels, from the grass roots, similar to the problems with endurance; at the top end you have some really serious issues yet at the grass roots it is a decent sport.  I am not trying to deflect from the problems that have been highlighted (including the utterly needless death of that much loved horse Barney) but trying to provide my own sense of context.  As a add-on to that, I used to quite enjoy endurance until I started to see more of the 'top end' stuff; the level of abuse and bad behaviour as well as wide-spread questionable practice was enough to put me off totally.  My experience of hunting, within my local pack has never given me the same level of un-ease and anger. I know that will contradict people's views about both things but that is my experience.


----------



## palo1 (16 January 2022)

paddy555 said:



			[


that is a very interesting explanation, so thank you. You describe the frustration of yourself and others hunting legally and behaving nicely towards some of the things going wrong.
If you feel that frustration at least you have the pleasure of indulging in your sport. How do you think some of us feel when there appears to be absolutely no accountability whatsoever by hunts for their actions which range from trespassing, damage and the death of their pets or damage/distress to their livestock? They don't even get any pleasure from hunting.

I have highlighted some points above. To myself as simply a member of the public there appears to be no recourse, no penalties. Basically they can do what they like and s*d everyone else especially the pesky, irritating public, landowners and most especially their even more irritating animals if they get in  the way.

No amount of compensation whatsoever is going to improve life for Barney's family. Nothing the hunt can do can ever compensate for the fact that they did not have the competence to control 40 dogs or didn't want to.

There is no reason whatsover why hunt meets cannot be well advertised both in the local press, on a noticeboard, by flyers through animal keepers doors. If they are trail hunting they know where they are going.They don't need to notify the entire county. If the argument against that is sabs them perhaps if everyone behaved well they wouldn't be needed. Of some of the recent incidents they were publicised because of the sabs, the sabs didn't cause them.(I am not a sab nor ever have been)

This is an activity with no effective body in charge, no disciplinary procedures and some of their members are effectively running riot.
Without effective controls in place the only solution is to bring it to an end. As with everything the good suffer because of the bad but that is life.
There is plenty of opportunity for hunting people to take control and correct matters. The don't so why do the public have to put  up with it any longer?
		
Click to expand...

I get all of this.  It really didn't used to be like that - in that the MFHA would and could discipline any hunt that caused trouble.  At the moment hunts should be accountable to the Hunting Office who should discipline them for bad behaviour; if appropriate to sack individuals or close repeat offending hunts down and give their country to well behaved hunts or completely re-evaluate the country wrt it's suitability for hunting.  I have no idea why governance and clear disciplinary codes are not in place; they are in our own hunt and they should be at the top end of the hunting organisation too.   If people behave badly they are told they can't come to meets or they get the sack!  Letters of complaint (about anything) have to be read at committee meetings and they are discussed and responded to; that is all open.  I know that happens as I wrote a letter of complaint to my own hunt about a meet where a couple of visitors were drunk after the meet and kept cantering in and out of a pond that has some rare plants in!  The whole sorry episode was discussed in depth and those visitors have never returned.  We had a letter once from a landowner complaining about hounds being on property next to his (not a single hound on his property).  Our masters deemed it appropriate not to return to that location (well not the fields bordering that man's land). We have other places to go but there was much discussion about how 'fair' it was on both parties.  There are endless minutes and records for this sort of thing; hunting leaks has 'used' examples of bad stuff of course but never the good stuff.  But they wouldn't would they?! 

I have heard it said that part of the problem was the stranglehold that the much esteemed Capt Ronnie Wallace had on hunting discipline.  So firm was his grip and so completely did he 'manage' hunting that there was no one to 'inherit' the role once he retired.  Those that have come after him have been weak and desperate to 'please' rather than maintain that same level of discipline - which I am sure caused other issues too.  I have no idea if this is an idea given any credence in wider hunting circles but it is one explanation. In any case that doesn't help the current situation but hunting has got the structure that COULD make things work.


----------



## SilverLinings (16 January 2022)

It seems to me that the majority of people on here, and the people I meet IRL, would be happy for LEGAL trail hunting to continue and/or would like to hunt if their local pack was doing so legally. It is the unfortunate confusion by many in the general public of legal with illegal hunting, plus the continuing bad (illegal) behaviour by some hunts that is likely to seal the death warrant for all hunting with dogs/on horseback. So thinking about how to solve this I have two questions:

1. Have all of the LEGAL, well behaved trail hunts considered banding together and threatening to leave the MFHA/The Hunting Office _en masse_ for TiHUK, thereby leaving the MFHA/THO to only represent those that are behaving badly/illegally? The intention would be that this would force the MFHA to get a grip of the hunts hunting illegally or risk becoming an association for an illegal 'sport'.

2. Has there been any kind of organised mass petition sent to the MFHA/THO from all those who trail hunt legally (or wish to) demanding that the MFHA police all hunts better, and instigate protocols that would start to regain public trust (such as publishing meet cards again, and punishing bad behaviour)?

I think if *all *hunts behaved how Palo (and others) have said that theirs do - only hunting a trail, only on land with permission, alerting all locals when in the area, being polite to the general public, not allowing rioting of hounds, etc - then there would be very little objection to the continuation of trail hunting. 

The MFHA and illegal hunts seem to be behaving like small children at the moment, along the lines of 'if I can't have the toy I want then I'll break all the toys'. Their refusal to obey the law and exercise basic good manners is going to end up with all hunting (as we currently understand it, e.g. a pack with mounted riders) being banned.


----------



## palo1 (16 January 2022)

SilverLinings said:



			It seems to me that the majority of people on here, and the people I meet IRL, would be happy for LEGAL trail hunting to continue and/or would like to hunt if their local pack was doing so legally. It is the unfortunate confusion by many in the general public of legal with illegal hunting, plus the continuing bad (illegal) behaviour by some hunts that is likely to seal the death warrant for all hunting with dogs/on horseback. So thinking about how to solve this I have two questions:

1. Have all of the LEGAL, well behaved trail hunts considered banding together and threatening to leave the MFHA/The Hunting Office _en masse_ for TiHUK, thereby leaving the MFHA/THO to only represent those that are behaving badly/illegally? The intention would be that this would force the MFHA to get a grip of the hunts hunting illegally or risk becoming an association for an illegal 'sport'.

2. Has there been any kind of organised mass petition sent to the MFHA/THO from all those who trail hunt legally (or wish to) demanding that the MFHA police all hunts better, and instigate protocols that would start to regain public trust (such as publishing meet cards again, and punishing bad behaviour)?

I think if *all *hunts behaved how Palo (and others) have said that theirs do - only hunting a trail, only on land with permission, alerting all locals when in the area, being polite to the general public, not allowing rioting of hounds, etc - then there would be very little objection to the continuation of trail hunting.

The MFHA and illegal hunts seem to be behaving like small children at the moment, along the lines of 'if I can't have the toy I want then I'll break all the toys'. Their refusal to obey the law and exercise basic good manners is going to end up with all hunting (as we currently understand it, e.g. a pack with mounted riders) being banned.
		
Click to expand...

Hmm.  1: There isn't really a way of all hunts who want one thing communicating with each other except via the MFHA.  Hunts such as mine are literally a world apart from some of the big hunts and whilst individuals know each other the thought of 1 hunt committee directly working with another or many to leave the formal organisation of hunting is...difficult to imagine.  It's a bit like working with members of the EU!!

2. I think the MFHA regularly receive communications of concern about their policies, structure etc...I have NO idea why that hasn't had any traction.  I would like to know why too.  Mass petitions to destabilise the only formal organisation in hunting when hunting itself is at risk due to the issues is a game of double jeopardy that many people would not want to play; hunting communities are largely very conservative (in nature not necessarily politically). That might happen and certainly TiHUK could be well placed to co-ordinate something like that.  I think a lot of people hope that Andrew Osborne's new plan might have something worthwhile in it.  If it doesn't maybe that will be a more useful way forward. 

The way you talk about how hunting should be, it used to be like that far more widely.  Apart from the trail hunting bit, those things were the standard to which most hunts held themselves accountable.  They could be again but hunting needs much better leadership and probably not inconsiderable contraction in places where hunting can't realistically be managed with the goodwill of the locals (ie very populated places).


----------



## Chianti (16 January 2022)

I wonder if it needs a really drastic approach to make all hunts realise that they can't have regular 'incidents' and 'accidents'? Perhaps a 'three strikes and you're out'  system might help to focus some hunts' minds. If hunts cause damage to land they shouldn't be on, or animals are hurt, then after three such incidents they would be disbanded and hunting wouldn't be allowed in that area. If some hunts can operate without upsetting their neighbours then they all should be able to.


----------



## palo1 (16 January 2022)

I think a lot of people could see the sense in this though some hunts are luckier than others in relation to the country they have available. Unfortunately some of the oldest and most influential hunts are in highly populated areas which makes it more likely for them to come into conflict with their neighbours and they would resent any suggestion of contraction.  So be it.  It may be the only way for hunting to survive would be to ensure that it happens in less densely populated areas full stop.  The only issue I can see with the 3 strikes suggestion is that there would be a huge effort made by anti-hunters and sabs to make those 3 strikes happen.  I know it is not a popular viewpoint but I do know of several incidents local to me where sabs have drawn hounds onto ground they are not supposed to be on - that would be so easy to manufacture and it would not be fair.  I have known too, sabs to call hounds onto a military impact area.  The military police were called immediately of course - sabs vanished into the ether and there was a horrible period of waiting to retrieve hounds hoping that no awful incident would happen.  Having seen that I have no faith in the good intentions of some of those people and groups - that slightly brings us back to square 1 really; sabs v hunters   IF, IF there were a decent and credible, independent governing body for hunting it might, however be possible.  I would welcome that as I would love to think that hunting culture could be generally seen as respectable again.


----------



## SilverLinings (16 January 2022)

palo1 said:



			Hmm.  1: There isn't really a way of all hunts who want one thing communicating with each other except via the MFHA.  Hunts such as mine are literally a world apart from some of the big hunts and whilst individuals know each other the thought of 1 hunt committee directly working with another or many to leave the formal organisation of hunting is...difficult to imagine.  It's a bit like working with members of the EU!!

2. I think the MFHA regularly receive communications of concern about their policies, structure etc...I have NO idea why that hasn't had any traction.  I would like to know why too.  Mass petitions to destabilise the only formal organisation in hunting when hunting itself is at risk due to the issues is a game of double jeopardy that many people would not want to play; hunting communities are largely very conservative (in nature not necessarily politically). That might happen and certainly TiHUK could be well placed to co-ordinate something like that.  I think a lot of people hope that Andrew Osborne's new plan might have something worthwhile in it.  If it doesn't maybe that will be a more useful way forward.

The way you talk about how hunting should be, it used to be like that far more widely.  Apart from the trail hunting bit, those things were the standard to which most hunts held themselves accountable.  They could be again but hunting needs much better leadership and probably not inconsiderable contraction in places where hunting can't realistically be managed with the goodwill of the locals (ie very populated places).
		
Click to expand...

Re. 1: In these days of internet communication, mobile phones, whatsapp etc why can't hunts communicate without the MFHA? Surely through word-of-mouth they could track down the others who feel the same? I'm not being argumentative, mean those as purely as questions. I realise that a lot of hunts are pretty independent, but working together may be a more effective way of securing their future.

Re. 2: Surely a mass petition could be used to make the MFHA sit up and realise that they are causing themselves a lot of future trouble (an outright ban on hunting as the result of public opinion) if they don't listen to what people are saying? It shouldn't destabilise the world of legal hunting as *hopefully* it would show that the majority of people involved with hunting want to do so legally and are prepared to work together to secure it's future?

I do realise that the two ideas would be unlikely to fix the problem as some people are too wedded to continuing as they are, but it is frustrating that the middle ground doesn't appear to be taking much action, just the two parties on the extreme ends (illegal hunts and sabs).

I definitely agree with your final paragraph; I hunted (in different parts of the country) with several mounted packs and 2 foot packs in the 90's pre-ban, and they prided themselves on being part of the local communities, were keen to be liked and accepted, and were unfailingly polite. As I've moved about a bit I'm not sure whether I see the opposite now because I live in a different area, or because the behaviour of _some _hunts has changed post-ban.


----------



## palo1 (16 January 2022)

SilverLinings said:



			Re. 1: In these days of internet communication, mobile phones, whatsapp etc why can't hunts communicate without the MFHA? Surely through word-of-mouth they could track down the others who feel the same? I'm not being argumentative, mean those as purely as questions. I realise that a lot of hunts are pretty independent, but working together may be a more effective way of securing their future.

Re. 2: Surely a mass petition could be used to make the MFHA sit up and realise that they are causing themselves a lot of future trouble (an outright ban on hunting as the result of public opinion) if they don't listen to what people are saying? It shouldn't destabilise the world of legal hunting as *hopefully* it would show that the majority of people involved with hunting want to do so legally and are prepared to work together to secure it's future?

I do realise that the two ideas would be unlikely to fix the problem as some people are too wedded to continuing as they are, but it is frustrating that the middle ground doesn't appear to be taking much action, just the two parties on the extreme ends (illegal hunts and sabs).

I definitely agree with your final paragraph; I hunted (in different parts of the country) with several mounted packs and 2 foot packs in the 90's pre-ban, and they prided themselves on being part of the local communities, were keen to be liked and accepted, and were unfailingly polite. As I've moved about a bit I'm not sure whether I see the opposite now because I live in a different area, or because the behaviour of _some _hunts has changed post-ban.
		
Click to expand...

I hear what you are saying.  I would happily petition the MFHA tbh and I think the popularity of TiHUK is in no small part because they represent a better face for hunting BUT like anyone with their back against the wall it takes real guts and commitment to break out against an institution - I am not sure how easy it would be really for some people to start moving away from the MFHA, especially where insurance and stuff is organised through them.   The threat of hounds, very carefully bred with bloodlines centuries old and who are the centre of hunting culture, being outside the stud book really would be difficult for many people I think.  But a mass petition to the MFHA may be possible.  You would hope they would take notice...

I do know that attempts to really speak out against some of the bad incidents have been problematical because some of the stronger voices in hunting DON'T want sabs to see divisions...which of course, I hope, are obvious actually but there we go! 

As for hunts working together, they do, sort of but on a very ad hoc basis and I think it would take such negotiation and diplomacy to get enough hunts happy with any particular statement or position on the absolute wealth of things that matter to people it might take another century and I don't think there is enough time for that!!  I am not saying these aren't absolutely common sense ideas and really valid actually though.    I really hope there is a groundswell of anger and frustration in the hunting community that the MFHA are pulled into alignment with what grass roots hunting people want; demonstrably safe and acceptable hunting.  I know that it is possible but there has to be real determination and action now.


----------



## paddy555 (16 January 2022)

palo1 said:



			. Unfortunately some of the oldest and most influential hunts are in highly populated areas which makes it more likely for them to come into conflict with their neighbours and *they would resent any suggestion of contraction.*  .
		
Click to expand...

but everyone is in this position. Roads you used to ride on are now almost out of bounds from a safety POV, fields/tracks you used to ride on are housing estates or supermarkets. Many areas have been drastically altered and are almost no go for many riders. Even sloping along on a country lane with your dog wandering at your side is now risking death. 
Just about all horse riders have had to adapt. Many dare not ride out they have to have a yard with schools. 

Everyone has to adapt but the vast majority of riders don't trespass or cause damage, upset animals because they resent progress. They have to work with the confines now available in a rapidly changing world. Hunts in areas of rapidly increasing population are no different. Resentment is not an acceptable reason for anything.


----------



## palo1 (16 January 2022)

paddy555 said:



			but everyone is in this position. Roads you used to ride on are now almost out of bounds from a safety POV, fields/tracks you used to ride on are housing estates or supermarkets. Many areas have been drastically altered and are almost no go for many riders. Even sloping along on a country lane with your dog wandering at your side is now risking death.
Just about all horse riders have had to adapt. Many dare not ride out they have to have a yard with schools.

Everyone has to adapt but the vast majority of riders don't trespass or cause damage, upset animals because they resent progress. They have to work with the confines now available in a rapidly changing world. Hunts in areas of rapidly increasing population are no different. Resentment is not an acceptable reason for anything.
		
Click to expand...

You are not telling me anything I don't know!  I don't know why some people behave the way they do or hold the opinions they do; I wasn't in any way justifying that resentment - just stating it as a possible issue in the same way that many people will resent a new wind farm or restrictions on their diet/travel etc due to climate change.  People don't necessarily behave in a justifiable or reasonable way.  It doesn't seem to stop them from thinking their views are valid.  In fact in the age of individualism there is a positive epidemic of holding views and opinions that seem unreasonable in civil and environmental terms (at least to me) but that is the result of the highly individualist culture we are in...


----------



## Fellewell (16 January 2022)

Hunt behaviour has changed since the ban because they're engaged in a battle for survival. If we consider that this type of propaganda is a real 'result' for hunt saboteurs but an absolute PR disaster for hunting then who has the most to gain from it all? Suffolk/Essex sabs are quite proud of their ability to distract/disrupt hounds so where were they when this incident took place? Using the football analogy; how is a referee supposed to keep his eye on the ball and 22 players when he is constantly under threat of a pitch invasion?
I think hunts have adopted a never complain, never explain strategy for too long now, primarily because anything else would be seen as ill-mannered. Get rid of those who seek to disrupt and you'll get rid of the 'accidents'
We're all sleep walking into AR oblivion anyway. There's a sentience bill in the Commons based on human assumptions about what is good for animals. What's next...


----------



## paddy555 (16 January 2022)

Fellewell said:



			Hunt behaviour has changed since the ban because they're engaged in a battle for survival. If we consider that this type of propaganda is a real 'result' for hunt saboteurs but an absolute PR disaster for hunting then who has the most to gain from it all? Suffolk/Essex sabs are quite proud of their ability to distract/disrupt hounds so where were they when this incident took place? Using the football analogy; how is a referee supposed to keep his eye on the ball and 22 players when he is constantly under threat of a pitch invasion?
I think hunts have adopted a never complain, never explain strategy for too long now, primarily because anything else would be seen as ill-mannered. Get rid of those who seek to disrupt and you'll get rid of the 'accidents'
We're all sleep walking into AR oblivion anyway. There's a sentience bill in the Commons based on human assumptions about what is good for animals. What's next...
		
Click to expand...

. Are you saying this accident was actually caused entirely by the hunt sabs? 
the hunt could have warned animal keepers beforehand. 

If the hunt sabs were got rid of all these hunt "accidents" would disappear overnight and they would all be drag hunting and not causing any problems.


----------



## Fellewell (16 January 2022)

paddy555 said:



			. Are you saying this accident was actually caused entirely by the hunt sabs?
the hunt could have warned animal keepers beforehand.

If the hunt sabs were got rid of all these hunt "accidents" would disappear overnight and they would all be drag hunting and not causing any problems.
		
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be the first time.
Hunts were always very happy to inform all of their whereabouts. The sabs have stopped all that being possible because of their constant and dangerous interference. As to your last point there is only one way to find out. Many of the anti 'names' on these threads absolutely refuse to accept that any hunts are acting lawfully, it just doesn't fit their agenda. That is grossly unfair.


----------



## paddy555 (16 January 2022)

Fellewell said:



			It wouldn't be the first time.
Hunts were always very happy to inform all of their whereabouts. The sabs have stopped all that being possible because of their constant and dangerous interference. As to your last point there is only one way to find out. Many of the anti 'names' on these threads absolutely refuse to accept that any hunts are acting lawfully, it just doesn't fit their agenda. That is grossly unfair.
		
Click to expand...


sorry didn't get that. Are you saying that Barney's accident was caused by the sabs? I am specifically interested in this particular occasion. Is there evidence to support this? 

the sabs haven't stopped animal keepers being informed. If you don't put up public notices what is wrong with the telephone. 

are all hunts acting lawfully? not any but ALL?  
what about hounds out of control and going over private land? last time that happened to me there were no sabs just the hunt. Others are in the same position.


----------



## Fellewell (16 January 2022)

paddy555 said:



			sorry didn't get that. Are you saying that Barney's accident was caused by the sabs? I am specifically interested in this particular occasion. Is there evidence to support this?

the sabs haven't stopped animal keepers being informed. If you don't put up public notices what is wrong with the telephone.

are all hunts acting lawfully? not any but ALL? 
what about hounds out of control and going over private land? last time that happened to me there were no sabs just the hunt. Others are in the same position.
		
Click to expand...

Don't put words in my mouth, I asked where they were, I hoped you'd know
Read my post again for the second answer.
Yes of course, the hounds stray and sometimes it's because of hunt sabbing tactics. They don't always need to be there as has been shown over the years.


----------



## Sandstone1 (17 January 2022)

__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1394542594298714



Reading all this rubbish about how everything is sabs fault leads me to briefly break my new years resolution to stay away from this thread!
Warning.  There is bad language in this video.
I am not getting drawn back in to pointless arguments on this thread but had to point out that there are faults on both sides and this video is NOT edited.


----------



## Tiddlypom (17 January 2022)

Fellewell said:



			Suffolk/Essex sabs are quite proud of their ability to distract/disrupt hounds so where were they when this incident took place?
		
Click to expand...

There has been no mention of sabs being present at this incident.  Surely the hunt involved would have blamed sab interference by now if that had happened?

There is very little, if any, support for active sabbing on this thread. I am very much against sabbing for the reasons you mention - the loss of control of hounds for a start. I support passive monitoring.

In any case, if a hunt is being actively sabbed, that is all the more reason to inform local horse owners when they are coming. Barney's owner has said that she would have got her horses in if she'd known that the hunt was coming.The commotion of a hunt being sabbed is even greater than a normal hunt day, and even more frightening to horses. I've had a grandstand view of it all in action outside my own property frontage - sabs, monitors, illegal hunting, terrier men racing about on quad bikes, lots of police - it was noisy, horrible, and went on for a long time. Thank goodness that my horses were in, they'd have been frantic if left out.

That pack has since gone legit. Hunting days are much calmer now. Meet cards are given out again, plus you get a text before a meet local to you. As it should be. The antis are observing on occasion, but not interfering.

Too many hunts still seem to think that they are number one priority traffic as they rampage across the countryside, with all else to give way to them.



Fellewell said:



			Many of the anti 'names' on these threads absolutely refuse to accept that any hunts are acting lawfully, it just doesn't fit their agenda. That is grossly unfair.
		
Click to expand...

You must be reading a different thread to me. Almost all posters agree that 'some' hunts are trying to hunt legally, though many of us, including me, suspect that rather more hunts currently hunt illegally than legally. Credit has been given to those hunts who have reformed and now hunt trail, or who have hunted trail since the ban.


----------



## paddy555 (17 January 2022)

Fellewell said:



			Don't put words in my mouth, I asked where they were, I hoped you'd know
Read my post again for the second answer.
Yes of course, the hounds stray and sometimes it's because of hunt sabbing tactics. They don't always need to be there as has been shown over the years.
		
Click to expand...

and sometimes they stray when there are no sabs. Is that acceptable to you? 

your posts are doing nothing to promote the hunts in fact the opposite. Lots of might have beens, lots of excuses and lots of blame someone else if at all possible.


----------



## Tiddlypom (17 January 2022)

Sandstone1 said:






__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1394542594298714



Reading all this rubbish about how everything is sabs fault leads me to briefly break my new years resolution to stay away from this thread!
Warning.  There is bad language in this video.
I am not getting drawn back in to pointless arguments on this thread but had to point out that there are faults on both sides and this video is NOT edited.
		
Click to expand...

That unedited video does make grim viewing. A rider mows the sab down at speed in an open field. The sab could have been killed.

My take on it is that the first group of riders deliberately rode at the sab at speed (to intimidate him?), but then pulled away before colliding with him. The following rider may have been at least partially unsighted by the riders ahead of him, and realised too late that the sab was there. I may be being overly generous to the motives of the riders, though.

It was shockingly reckless behaviour, at best, by that group of riders.


----------



## palo1 (17 January 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			That unedited video does make grim viewing. A rider mows the sab down at speed in an open field. The sab could have been killed.

My take on it is that the first group of riders deliberately rode at the sab at speed (to intimidate him?), but then pulled away before colliding with him. The following rider may have been at least partially unsighted by the riders ahead of him, and realised too late that the sab was there. I may be being overly generous to the motives of the riders, though.

It was shockingly reckless behaviour, at best, by that group of riders.
		
Click to expand...

I think those riders were intimidating that sab for sure but the bloke who collided with him was unsighted by the other riders and he was trying to steer away but the horse was not really responding.  Reckless, stupid and dangerous behaviour on the riders' parts and unacceptable to be that close to a walker/pedestrian.  However, that sab had every opportunity to move out of the way of the field and as at least one ambulance driver commented 'what an idiot' - to deliberately put himself in that situation and risk such injury.  Ambulances called etc etc.  He will claim of course that he should not have to move out of the way and certainly those riders should absolutely get a boll***king for such appalling manners and dangerous conduct.  The sab was busy telling the camera that they were riding at him, he could see what was happening  - the other sabs with him did nothing to try to prevent that collision by waving off the riders nor did they tell the man injured to get out of the way.  In a less 'political' situation - such as meeting a group of speed cyclists for example who are either oblivious or aggressive toward horses (I have had that experience) you would get out of the way wouldn't you?   I have no idea why a group of people would wait for someone to get hurt...Utterly stupid and dangerous behaviour on everyone's part.   Equally, no one should ever be using their horse as a weapon.  Dire, stupid, provocative and pointless on all counts.

ETA - the pedestrian always has priority and all of those riders should be ashamed of themselves and fined in my view. At the very least...The sab is just an idiot, looking for ways to make things worse. Which he did.


----------



## ycbm (17 January 2022)

palo1 said:



			However, that sab had every opportunity to move out of the way o
		
Click to expand...


Not from what I'm seeing.  He's in the middle of a field and the riders spread out across that field.  In the time it took for them to reach him he could have moved a few yards and they could (would?) still have ridden straight at him,  so there was no point in moving.  
.


----------



## Fred66 (17 January 2022)

ycbm said:



			Not from what I'm seeing.  He's in the middle of a field and the riders spread out across that field.  In the time it took for them to reach him he could have moved a few yards and they could (would?) still have ridden straight at him,  so there was no point in moving.
.
		
Click to expand...

From their own post they admit to stalking and harassing that hunt for a considerable time, I would imagine largely whilst trespassing. Whilst I don’t condone deliberately knocking them down (if that’s what they did - as per Palo looks more as though the front riders rode close and the one that hit him was unsighted), everyone has a responsibility for their own safety too.
If protesters went onto the course at Cheltenham and then got hit by a racehorse, who should take the lions share of the blame?


----------



## Tiddlypom (17 January 2022)

ycbm said:



			Not from what I'm seeing.  He's in the middle of a field and the riders spread out across that field.  In the time it took for them to reach him he could have moved a few yards and they could (would?) still have ridden straight at him,  so there was no point in moving.
.
		
Click to expand...

I agree. The sab was in clear view of the first group of riders in an open field. He didn't have anywhere safe to run. He wasn't trying to block the oncoming riders. He may well have been trespassing, but that doesn't in any way excuse what the riders did as a group. 

As a horsey person, I'd likely have also stayed put if it had been me caught out in the middle of an open field facing oncoming riders, allowing the riders a clear view and room to fan out around me.


----------



## ycbm (17 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			From their own post they admit to stalking and harassing that hunt for a considerable time, I would imagine largely whilst trespassing. Whilst I don’t condone deliberately knocking them down (if that’s what they did - as per Palo looks more as though the front riders rode close and the one that hit him was unsighted), everyone has a responsibility for their own safety too.
If protesters went onto the course at Cheltenham and then got hit by a racehorse, who should take the lions share of the blame?
		
Click to expand...

There is a big difference between standing in the middle of a field and standing in the middle of a race track. 

My advice to anyone standing in the middle of a field with horses, ridden or otherwise,  running into that field would be to stand still and provide a stationary object for the horses to avoid. 
.


----------



## Fred66 (17 January 2022)

ycbm said:



			There is a big difference between standing in the middle of a field and standing in the middle of a race track.

My advice to anyone standing in the middle of a field with horses, ridden or otherwise,  running into that field would be to stand still and provide a stationary object for the horses to avoid.
.
		
Click to expand...

Not really (a difference yes but not big)if that field is being used by a large group of horse riders for an organised day out traveling the land at speed and the other group are there illegally with the stated intent of harassing and intimidating them and stopping their paid for day out then aga whilst not condoning if it was deliberate then I can understand.

I would agree with your latter point and if they had all been together and not splintered into smaller groups then it would have made avoiding them a lot easier.


----------



## ycbm (17 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Not really (a difference yes but not big)if that field is being used by a large group of horse riders for an organised day out traveling the land at speed and the other group are their illegally with the stated intent of harassing and intimidating them.

I would agree with your latter point and if they had all been together and not splintered into smaller groups then it would have made avoiding them a lot easier.
		
Click to expand...


Strangely,  when I was with a big  group of people out hunting  galoping through fields, or even a wood,   with trees in,  I never had any issues avoiding the trees.


----------



## paddy555 (17 January 2022)

ycbm said:



			Not from what I'm seeing.  He's in the middle of a field and the riders spread out across that field.  In the time it took for them to reach him he could have moved a few yards and they could (would?) still have ridden straight at him,  so there was no point in moving. 
.
		
Click to expand...

that's how I see it. Nowhere to go really.  It was deliberate act by the riders and there was little margin for error as a result of their actions. They deliberately took action cantering towards the sabs that was likely to hurt someone on foot, 

Nothing like Cheltenham. There you know that a group of horses are going to be deliberately galloping down a track, the direction they are going in and time they are going to do it. In this case the riders just turned and rode at the sabs. in a deliberate act. There was nowhere they could go and even if they had moved I suspect the riders would have kept coming. 

I couldn't find a date on this, (must have missed it somewhere) Is any action being taken against Webb by the police?


----------



## palo1 (17 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Not really (a difference yes but not big)if that field is being used by a large group of horse riders for an organised day out traveling the land at speed and the other group are there illegally with the stated intent of harassing and intimidating them and stopping their paid for day out then aga whilst not condoning if it was deliberate then I can understand.

I would agree with your latter point and if they had all been together and not splintered into smaller groups then it would have made avoiding them a lot easier.
		
Click to expand...

Yes.  You would think, for safety reasons that the sabs, on seeing a group of horses approaching at speed would have gathered together rather than providing multiple things for the horses to avoid.  It does not excuse deliberate riding down but I don't think it was quite that. It was intimidation I think not attempt to injure.   The responsibility to keep each other safe seems to have been somewhat neglected by the group of sabs but I understand why those sabs would rather risk injury than have a 'no story'.  The whole thing is infuriating and I wish those riders just hadn't risen to the provocation.  The sabs were on and off the footpath judging from the video though - it's not immaterial in fact and you can't see in the film whether the riders were in some way avoiding other sabs in the direction that they rode.  They clearly and deliberately ride around the sab except for the man that collided with him.  I hope the bloke is ok. 

The whole thing is stupid and does not demonstrate in any way any illegal hunting; it is just conflict in the countryside.


----------



## Fred66 (17 January 2022)

ycbm said:



			Strangely,  when I was with a big  group of people out hunting  galoping through fields, or even a wood,   with trees in,  I never had any issues avoiding the trees.
		
Click to expand...

Big difference between a tree that towers above horses and doesn’t move and people that move who can get hidden by the horse in front


----------



## Koweyka (17 January 2022)

He was on a footpath, both groups of riders had ample opportunity to take the horses wide away from the footpath with the Sabs traversing on it. You can see the first group of horses are further over nearer the hedge, the second group of riders also had a clear view of people on the path when entering the field but took no evasive action at all and rode directly at them. Would they have done the same if it had been a family walking a dog, of course they wouldn’t.

It’s disgusting, but not an unusual occurrence we often have horses used against us whether we are stood on pavements or footpaths, it’s all about intimidating us, a huge half ton horse with a rider on top is quite scary when it’s deliberately being backed into you.

It’s not showing illegal hunting, nobody has claimed it was, it’s shows yet more disgusting behaviour from hunts. The police in my area have cautioned riders for doing this to us, I hope the police take action in this case.


----------



## Tiddlypom (17 January 2022)

This happened two days ago. The hunt is the N.Shropshire.

Their patch is not too far from me, albeit I do not know anyone who hunts with them, or have any inside gossip on them.

Interestingly though, the same groups of antis who stopped sabbing my local pack when it went legit are some of the ones still after the N.Shrops, who they believe to be illegally hunting.

Attitudes do seem to have hardened here. Another neighbouring pack is carrying on blatantly fox hunting despite much anti attention, and seems to have no intention of switching to trail hunting like my local pack did. I have been anticipating a human fatality for a while now, the situation is pretty ugly.


----------



## palo1 (17 January 2022)

Koweyka said:



			He was on a footpath, both groups of riders had ample opportunity to take the horses wide away from the footpath with the Sabs traversing on it. You can see the first group of horses are further over nearer the hedge, the second group of riders also had a clear view of people on the path when entering the field but took no evasive action at all and rode directly at them. Would they have done the same if it had been a family walking a dog, of course they wouldn’t.

It’s disgusting, but not an unusual occurrence we often have horses used against us whether we are stood on pavements or footpaths, it’s all about intimidating us, a huge half ton horse with a rider on top is quite scary when it’s deliberately being backed into you.

It’s not showing illegal hunting, nobody has claimed it was, it’s shows yet more disgusting behaviour from hunts. The police in my area have cautioned riders for doing this to us, I hope the police take action in this case.
		
Click to expand...

I think he must have been on and off the footpath as he moves round the field a bit and comments that the hunt/field/ are crossing a footpath that he is nowhere near or he is somewhere near a footpath that is not on the map.  I don't disagree that there was intimidation.  Also, very likely aggravated trespass and provocation.  There is still no need for dangerous riding at all and I hope those riders are at least cautioned.  But no-one comes out of this looking particularly clever.

ETA - if this is not related to illegal hunting then 1: What were those people doing there as they don't appear on the footpath and are demonstrably trying to disrupt something that is not illegal? 2: The film is just additional aggro isn't it?  How does that help animal welfare?

I get that the agenda is, if you can't prove illegal hunting, prove any other form of bad behaviour possible to discredit hunting people.  Provoke, enrage, disrupt till you get something.  The riders were stupid to rise to this but it's not behaviour to be proud of or to further the cause of the anti hunt movement either.  I think a lot of people watching that would think the sabs are idiots.  But I hope the bloke injured is ok.


----------



## MurphysMinder (17 January 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			This happened two days ago. The hunt is the N.Shropshire.

Their patch is not too far from me, albeit I do not know anyone who hunts with them, or have any inside gossip on them.

Interestingly though, the same groups of antis who stopped sabbing my local pack when it went legit are some of the ones still after the N.Shrops, who they believe to be illegally hunting.

Attitudes do seem to have hardened here. Another neighbouring pack is carrying on blatantly fox hunting despite much anti attention, and seems to have no intention of switching to trail hunting like my local pack did. I have been anticipating a human fatality for a while now, the situation is pretty ugly.
		
Click to expand...



Was this on Friday or  Saturday?  A friend and I were walking there on Friday afternoon and we commented on the strong smell of fox and wondered if hounds were out.   The ground was awful so I'm quite surprised farmers welcomed them on their land.


----------



## Fred66 (17 January 2022)

Koweyka said:



			He was on a footpath, both groups of riders had ample opportunity to take the horses wide away from the footpath with the Sabs traversing on it. You can see the first group of horses are further over nearer the hedge, the second group of riders also had a clear view of people on the path when entering the field but took no evasive action at all and rode directly at them. Would they have done the same if it had been a family walking a dog, of course they wouldn’t.

It’s disgusting, but not an unusual occurrence we often have horses used against us whether we are stood on pavements or footpaths, it’s all about intimidating us, a huge half ton horse with a rider on top is quite scary when it’s deliberately being backed into you.

It’s not showing illegal hunting, nobody has claimed it was, it’s shows yet more disgusting behaviour from hunts. The police in my area have cautioned riders for doing this to us, I hope the police take action in this case.
		
Click to expand...

a) were you there, if not how do you know they were on a footpath?
b) intimidation is a two way thing, going out dressed in black, masked, armed with whips and chemical spray doesn’t smack of a family walk 

If the person was deliberately knocked down then it was wrong and I assume the police/cps will deal, otherwise then I’m afraid play stupid games ......


----------



## Sandstone1 (17 January 2022)

Some of the posts here are reminding me to stay away from this thread.  I will just say before I go that they were on a FOOTPATH and if those riders can not control their horses well enough to avoid hitting a walker in a field they should not be out hunting.


----------



## Fred66 (17 January 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Some of the posts here are reminding me to stay away from this thread.  I will just say before I go that they were on a FOOTPATH and if those riders can not control their horses well enough to avoid hitting a walker in a field they should not be out hunting.
		
Click to expand...

Again have you got the gps coordinates? If not how do you know they were on a footpath?

(Again slightly irrelevant IF he was deliberately hit as obviously this is wrong whether he was trespassing or not)


----------



## Tiddlypom (17 January 2022)

MurphysMinder said:



			Was this on Friday or  Saturday?  A friend and I were walking there on Friday afternoon and we commented on the strong smell of fox and wondered if hounds were out.   The ground was awful so I'm quite surprised farmers welcomed them on their land.
		
Click to expand...

The meet could have been Fri, though I was presuming Sat. The sabs group FB page has been up for 1 day and refers to the incident as happening 'yesterday'. 

The ground is very wet, isnt it. Farmers must be very long suffering to put up with all the damage to their land.


----------



## Fred66 (17 January 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			The ground is very wet, isnt it. Farmers must be very long suffering to put up with all the damage to their land.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry in what way are they long suffering? That would imply putting up with it reluctantly, unless they are tenants and forced into it then the farmers generally welcome the hunts that they allow on their land.

Many thanks to all the farmers who continue to allow the hunts across their land.


----------



## Tiddlypom (17 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Sorry in what way are they long suffering? That would imply putting up with it reluctantly, unless they are tenants and forced into it then the farmers generally welcome the hunts that they allow on their land.
		
Click to expand...

I can't speak for the N.Shrops, but in this not-far-away area the farmers are indeed mainly tenant farmers who are forced to allow the hunt on their land whether they like it or not - it's a condition of the tenancy.

When it's so very wet, you'd hope that a hunt with a conscience would keep off the low lying and wet areas.


----------



## MurphysMinder (17 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Sorry in what way are they long suffering? That would imply putting up with it reluctantly, unless they are tenants and forced into it then the farmers generally welcome the hunts that they allow on their land.

Many thanks to all the farmers who continue to allow the hunts across their land.
		
Click to expand...

A lot of the farms in that area are tenanted,  although I have no idea if they welcome the hunt or just have to put up with it


----------



## Sandstone1 (17 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Again have you got the gps coordinates? If not how do you know they were on a footpath?

(Again slightly irrelevant IF he was deliberately hit as obviously this is wrong whether he was trespassing or not)
		
Click to expand...

Well if you watch the video there is a map showing its a footpath.. You probably will not believe it though.  Even if they were not on a footpath it does not give the riders the right to deliberately to run someone down and yes it does look deliberate to me.


----------



## Fred66 (17 January 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Well if you watch the video there is a map showing its a footpath.. You probably will not believe it though.  Even if they were not on a footpath it does not give the riders the right to deliberately to run someone down and yes it does look deliberate to me.
		
Click to expand...

There is a video of a map which does have a footpath on it but the map was put in afterwards and there was no indication of a trodden path in the video


----------



## Tiddlypom (17 January 2022)

Some stills from the video, including a map giving the location - which assuming the sab commentary from before the incident was correct, was indeed on a footpath crossing the field.

Those early riders are clearly and deliberately riding to intimidate.


----------



## Tiddlypom (17 January 2022)

And this is the rider who actually ended up knocking the sab down.


----------



## Miss_Millie (17 January 2022)

Looked rather deliberate going by the footage. No amount of intimidation warrants trying to run someone down with your horse. The man on the ground was assaulted and the rider put their horse in danger, I wonder if the horse is bruised/injured at all from the impact of hitting him.

Maybe he should not have been stood in the field, maybe he was on a public footpath and had every right to be, either way that group of riders knew exactly what they were doing and they were lucky that they didn't kill him tbh.

There really does seem to be a mob mentality when it comes to hunting - I have never witnessed any such behaviour from people who are regularly hacking on public land. I've been on many-a-ride through public fields where there are people walking, out with their dogs etc, children running about, and have never had any issues. It is because we are keenly aware that we are on shared space, and that taking out large animals like horses is a huge responsibility. We always err on the side of caution if anyone else is about, because it is everyone's right to be there and being on horseback does not make us in any way superior.


----------



## Fred66 (17 January 2022)

The map is added to the video, he could have put a map of anywhere in the country in and none of us would be any the wiser 😀


----------



## Fred66 (17 January 2022)

Miss_Millie said:



			Looked rather deliberate going by the footage. No amount of intimidation warrants trying to run someone down with your horse. The man on the ground was assaulted and the rider put their horse in danger, I wonder if the horse is bruised/injured at all from the impact of hitting him.

Maybe he should not have been stood in the field, maybe he was on a public footpath and had every right to be, either way that group of riders knew exactly what they were doing and they were lucky that they didn't kill him tbh.

There really does seem to be a mob mentality when it comes to hunting - I have never witnessed any such behaviour from people who are regularly hacking on public land. I've been on many-a-ride through public fields where there are people walking, out with their dogs etc, children running about, and have never had any issues. It is because we are keenly aware that we are on shared space, and that taking out large animals like horses is a huge responsibility. We always err on the side of caution if anyone else is about, because it is everyone's right to be there and being on horseback does not make us in any way superior.
		
Click to expand...

If you are in public land then you have no expectations regarding private use, so you would need to ride accordingly.
If however every time you did this you were stalked, harassed, intimidated by threats and the most offensive language with your own or other children getting the same then see whether you still feel the same in respect of mob mentality.
Those that hunt are generally a friendly bunch who have no objection to monitors but sabs are something else.


----------



## Miss_Millie (17 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			There is a video of a map which does have a footpath on it but the map was put in afterwards and there was no indication of a trodden path in the video
		
Click to expand...

I recently walked a 10 mile footpath, most of which was across fields, and the majority of the time there was no indication of a trodden path in the grass. It was a case of looking at the map and following the yellow signs on the stiles.


----------



## Miss_Millie (17 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			If you are in public land then you have no expectations regarding private use, so you would need to ride accordingly.
If however every time you did this you were stalked, harassed, intimidated by threats and the most offensive language with your own or other children getting the same then see whether you still feel the same.
		
Click to expand...

I can only speak for myself I suppose, but I still wouldn't try to run someone down. I would respect my horse far too much for that apart from anything else. I don't condone any violence or aggression on either side, and slamming into someone with a horse at speed, is violent.


----------



## Tiddlypom (17 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			The map is added to the video, he could have put a map of anywhere in the country in and none of us would be any the wiser 😀
		
Click to expand...

Indeed he could, but the map location seems to tally with the running commentary on his location that he is giving before he got knocked down.



Fred66 said:



			There is a video of a map which does have a footpath on it but the map was put in afterwards and there was no indication of a trodden path in the video
		
Click to expand...


ETA I wouldn't necessarily expect to see a well trodden path on a footpath across a field hereabouts - this is out in the sticks, not in the Home Counties!

ETA2 Though on looking again, there is what could well be a trodden path just to the sab's right and running along in the direction that the footpath should be heading.


----------



## Fred66 (17 January 2022)

Miss_Millie said:



			I can only speak for myself I suppose, but I still wouldn't try to run someone down. I would respect my horse far too much for that apart from anything else. I don't condone any violence or aggression on either side, and slamming into someone with a horse at speed, is violent.
		
Click to expand...

If you note in my posts I have not condoned this either.


----------



## Fred66 (17 January 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Indeed he could, but the map location seems to tally with the running commentary on his location that he is giving before he got knocked down.




ETA I wouldn't necessarily expect to see a well trodden path on a footpath across a field hereabouts - this is out in the sticks, not in the Home Counties!

ETA2 Though on looking again, there is what could well be a trodden path just to the sab's right and running along in the direction that the footpath should be heading.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe not but if we assume their map is correct then the right of way indicated is a restricted byway not a footpath which leads me back to where is it ? A footpath if not well used might be hard to see but a restricted is generally pretty visible and there is no sign of them being anywhere near one.


----------



## Koweyka (17 January 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Some of the posts here are reminding me to stay away from this thread.  I will just say before I go that they were on a FOOTPATH and if those riders can not control their horses well enough to avoid hitting a walker in a field they should not be out hunting.
		
Click to expand...

The comments on this thread re the video are mirroring those on the FB page really unsavoury and victim blaming… he was on a footpath and he was ridden down, it doesn’t matter if he was wearing black green or a yellow and purple dress. He was ridden down and he was lucky not to be killed.

And Palo, how are you supposed to gather evidence of illegal hunting if you aren’t there ? You can’t obtain it from an armchair. They were walking on a footpath where is your evidence the sabs had done anything wrong, just trotting out your narrative again, sab blaming all the time.

Fred666 I am pleased you actually admitted the sab was being intimidated, there is hope for you yet


----------



## palo1 (17 January 2022)

The map is confusing - the sab is talking about the hunt crossing the footpath and he is nowhere near the hunt at that point so I assumed he was either on a different, unmarked footpath or just in the middle of the field!  It doesn't in any way justify intimidation tactics from the riders but again the question of truth and legitimacy are brought into question by the sabs.  I also think that this behaviour from those riders just plays into the sabs hands - it is clearly exactly what they want.  The full picture is not actually available either - we can't see where the other sabs are or what they are doing; we only get one view of the incident though I cannot see a reasonable excuse for riding directly at a pedestrian.  I hope the bloke injured is ok and I have seen an image of graze/scrape on his head but he certainly sounded fine at the time.


----------



## palo1 (17 January 2022)

Koweyka said:



			The comments on this thread re the video are mirroring those on the FB page really unsavoury and victim blaming… he was on a footpath and he was ridden down, it doesn’t matter if he was wearing black green or a yellow and purple dress. He was ridden down and he was lucky not to be killed.

And Palo, how are you supposed to gather evidence of illegal hunting if you aren’t there ? You can’t obtain it from an armchair. They were walking on a footpath where is your evidence the sabs had done anything wrong, just trotting out your narrative again, sab blaming all the time.

Fred666 I am pleased you actually admitted the sab was being intimidated, there is hope for you yet
		
Click to expand...

You clearly have not read my posts on this incident.


----------



## Koweyka (17 January 2022)

I clearly have.


----------



## Fred66 (17 January 2022)

Koweyka said:



			And Palo, how are you supposed to gather evidence of illegal hunting if you aren’t there ? You can’t obtain it from an armchair. They were walking on a footpath where is your evidence the sabs had done anything wrong, just trotting out your narrative again, sab blaming all the time.
		
Click to expand...

Where is your evidence that they were on a footpath? There has been none provided so far.

They were dressed and equipped and style themselves as saboteurs so there is little doubt that they were out there with every intent of breaking the law.

If whilst monitoring from public land you gather evidence of a crime then please present it, BUT it is not your/their role to gather evidence that is what we have police for. There is nothing to indicate that this hunt were breaking the law when the sabs set out to illegally stalk, harass and intimidate them.
Such a shame that there is no hope for you as the chances of you admitting that the sabs are creating the situation that results in this type of reaction are about as likely as me seeing a pig flying past my window.


----------



## palo1 (17 January 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			And this is the rider who actually ended up knocking the sab down.

View attachment 86001

Click to expand...

You can see 2 sabs filming in the middle ground and the rider in the foreground is trying to avoid the sab holding the camera.  The horse, for whatever reason is not taking that instruction.  There was no reason for that rider to be that close other than he didn't have clear sight of the man because of the riders in front but it was absolutely wrong of this group to get so close.  The shouting in the clip is the sab's commentary - he isn't making much effort to get out of the way - he could step right though that would need quick thinking.   He shouldn't need to have to take evasive action but I have no idea what has gone before or what is happening behind this sab or to the left; is someone preventing the horse from getting out of the way?  It is REALLY unusual for a horse to run a person down tbh; they usually do whatever they can, regardless of rider instruction not to hit stationery objects!


----------



## Koweyka (17 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Where is your evidence that they were on a footpath? There has been none provided so far.

They were dressed and equipped and style themselves as saboteurs so there is little doubt that they were out there with every intent of breaking the law.

If whilst monitoring from public land you gather evidence of a crime then please present it, BUT it is not your/their role to gather evidence that is what we have police for. There is nothing to indicate that this hunt were breaking the law when the sabs set out to illegally stalk, harass and intimidate them.
Such a shame that there is no hope for you as the chances of you admitting that the sabs are creating the situation that results in this type of reaction are about as likely as me seeing a pig flying past my window.
		
Click to expand...

OMG the comedy post award goes too …

You are so blinkered that you actually think people head out and try and get trampled by a horse for what “sensationalism” are you completely bonkers? A genuine question, you truly believe that ?

This lad (who I know) was on a PUBLIC FOOTPATH to obtain evidence of illegal hunting, you can’t have it all ways but as a fox hunter you clearly believe you can.

Sabs creating this situation purlease, we aren’t going out with an uncontrollable pack of dogs, killing foxes and hares and cats, mauling sheep and killing peoples horses and sooner you and all you other fox killers accept that and move with the times and find a hobby that doesn’t involve killing then the world will be a better place, but I suspect my wait for a flying pig will be infinitely longer than yours.


----------



## Miss_Millie (17 January 2022)

It seems like every time a hunt misbehaves, the pro hunt peeps on here try to justify the behaviour or skew the facts to make it seem less bad than it is.

It is clear that the person deliberately cantered at the man and that they knocked him over. He has a concussion and will probably have to rest up for a couple of weeks. It doesn't matter if he should have been in the field or not, there was plenty of room for the rider to pass him and he chose to ride into him. 

Can we stop making excuses for the ass that did this, it doesn't matter what 'side' you're on, he could have easily killed that man. What he did was beyond reckless.


----------



## Tiddlypom (17 January 2022)

It is wrong to blame the sab for not sidestepping to avoid the horses. 

He may or may not have been on a public right of way, but he was in plain sight of the advance group of riders.

He  'should' have been much safer standing where he was, thus allowing the riders plenty of time to see and to avoid him - it's what I would have done in that situation. 

The girl who seemed to be aiming directly for the sab but who did pull away at the last second probably unsighted the guy behind her who did knock the sab down.


----------



## palo1 (17 January 2022)

Miss_Millie said:



			It seems like every time a hunt misbehaves, the pro hunt peeps on here try to justify the behaviour or skew the facts to make it seem less bad than it is.

It is clear that the person deliberately cantered at the man and that they knocked him over. He has a concussion and will probably have to rest up for a couple of weeks. It doesn't matter if he should have been in the field or not, there was plenty of room for the rider to pass him and he chose to ride into him.

Can we stop making excuses for the ass that did this, it doesn't matter what 'side' you're on, he could have easily killed that man. What he did was beyond reckless.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think the bloke deliberately cantered at the sab to hit him; he was behind a few other riders who were, it would seem, intending to intimidate that sab.  I think the sab being there in that exact spot was a shock to the horse and the rider who is trying to take last minute evasive action.  There is no excuse for intimidation or riding at pedestrians, no matter how irritating or off track they are.


----------



## Fred66 (17 January 2022)

Miss_Millie said:



			It seems like every time a hunt misbehaves, the pro hunt peeps on here try to justify the behaviour or skew the facts to make it seem less bad than it is.

It is clear that the person deliberately cantered at the man and that they knocked him over. He has a concussion and will probably have to rest up for a couple of weeks. It doesn't matter if he should have been in the field or not, there was plenty of room for the rider to pass him and he chose to ride into him.

Can we stop making excuses for the ass that did this, it doesn't matter what 'side' you're on, he could have easily killed that man. What he did was beyond reckless.
		
Click to expand...

The man who did this appears totally unsighted and does appear to try and miss him as soon as he gets sight, unfortunately he didn’t manage to.
The riders in front of him do appear to be trying to scare the sab but as they had full view they peeled off so as to not actually hit him. Not the most sensible of things to do and does appear to be fraught with risk but I think it unlikely that they intended to do more than scare.


----------



## palo1 (17 January 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			It is wrong to blame the sab for not sidestepping to avoid the horses.

He may or may not have been on a public right of way, but he was in plain sight of the advance group of riders.

He  'should' have been much safer standing where he was, thus allowing the riders plenty of time to see and to avoid him - it's what I would have done in that situation.

The girl who seemed to be aiming directly for the sab but who did pull away at the last second probably unsighted the guy behind her who did knock the sab down.
		
Click to expand...

I wasn't blaming the sab actually.  I think the horse and the rider were shocked to see him there but the sab sees the riders coming towards him, comments on that several times, has room to move but doesn't and then is hit.  It must have been pretty grim for him but he was more focussed on commenting on what was happening (possibly egging them on even so he could do exactly what has been done  ) than trying to stop what was going on and what he told the camera was going to happen.  I have no idea why you would put yourself in that situation, particularly where there was not an immediate animal welfare issue which sabs say is their priority.  Pedestrians have the right of way so those riders should have been nowhere near him.   Neither party looks remotely sensible to me.


----------



## Koweyka (17 January 2022)

And you wonder why Sabs and Monitors are in the fields.

I hope all you pro hunt have the guts to watch this fox dying, I bet you don’t, how are you going to blame the Sabs for this, trail hunting designed to replicate fox hunting, what a crock. It’s so you can carry on killing wildlife in the worst way possible, trail hunting must be banned. Anyone associated it, hang your heads in shame …. Though I will be waiting for another flying pig before that happens deflect deflect deflect. Disgusting. 

https://fb.watch/aBgRD6MJ8T/


----------



## Indy (17 January 2022)

Is there a reason why the group of riders weren't following the chap with the hounds, he seemed to go one way and the group of riders go the opposite.

One thing I know for sure is he isn't going to be out yomping round the countryside for a while. I got knocked over by a lad on a bicycle once and it felt like I'd been run over by a tank for a week so he's probably 10 times worse.


----------



## palo1 (17 January 2022)

Indy said:



			Is there a reason why the group of riders weren't following the chap with the hounds, he seemed to go one way and the group of riders go the opposite.

One thing I know for sure is he isn't going to be out yomping round the countryside for a while. I got knocked over by a lad on a bicycle once and it felt like I'd been run over by a tank for a week so he's probably 10 times worse.
		
Click to expand...

No idea.  I agree though that the 'field', unless they were going to a gateway or something on that line  or going around because the huntsman and hounds were going somewhere the field were not permitted to be, appear to be not with the huntsman and hounds (who are up together nicely).  It's not clear why they were heading where they were but the bloke that got hit should certainly rest until there is no risk of any issues.


----------



## palo1 (17 January 2022)

Koweyka said:



			And you wonder why Sabs and Monitors are in the fields.

I hope all you pro hunt have the guts to watch this fox dying, I bet you don’t, how are you going to blame the Sabs for this, trail hunting designed to replicate fox hunting, what a crock. It’s so you can carry on killing wildlife in the worst way possible, trail hunting must be banned. Anyone associated it, hang your heads in shame …. Though I will be waiting for another flying pig before that happens deflect deflect deflect. Disgusting.

https://fb.watch/aBgRD6MJ8T/

Click to expand...

I have had the 'guts' to watch this.  There are a few things I want to say but I can't get past the sabs pulling that fox around and repeatedly shouting repeatedly 'The fuc***g thing's still alive' without once trying to either dispatch the fox or trying to see if the fox can be treated in any way.  They are far more interested in getting the camera over and calling the police.  Fair enough to call the police but only one person suggests giving the fox some space because 'it's dying'.  As I say, there are other things I want to say but there is not much point.


----------



## Fred66 (17 January 2022)

Koweyka said:



			OMG the comedy post award goes too …

You are so blinkered that you actually think people head out and try and get trampled by a horse for what “sensationalism” are you completely bonkers? A genuine question, you truly believe that ?

This lad (who I know) was on a PUBLIC FOOTPATH to obtain evidence of illegal hunting, you can’t have it all ways but as a fox hunter you clearly believe you can.

Sabs creating this situation purlease, we aren’t going out with an uncontrollable pack of dogs, killing foxes and hares and cats, mauling sheep and killing peoples horses and sooner you and all you other fox killers accept that and move with the times and find a hobby that doesn’t involve killing then the world will be a better place, but I suspect my wait for a flying pig will be infinitely longer than yours.
		
Click to expand...

Can you answer me some questions about you and your sab colleagues, do you (or do you know of ones who do)
a) go onto private land without permission
b) if asked to leave do you
c) do you go out dressed all in black with masks
d) do you go out carrying whips and chemical spray bottles
e) do carry gizmos/horns to call hounds

All of the above are actions I have witnessed either personally or loaded on sab web pages, along with abuse that’s offered both verbally and physically (and they don’t care if children are about or not) these people are self styled as saboteurs and don’t care who gets hurt in the process.

No one has the right to scare someone else into complying with their point of view. If you believe all hunts are breaking the law then lobby your mp, lobby the police commissioner, monitor legally and safely however if you step outside the law then you are no better than those you believe are breaking it.

I assume that if you follow the hunts regularly you are aware that it involves potentially large groups of horses traveling across the countryside at speed and that this will have an element of risk both to the horse, the rider and people who take themselves into the vicinity with the intent of getting in the way.

Your whataboutery regarding sabs not creating the situation is a joke. The hunt don’t seek out sabs to try and wreck their day, was it not enough that the law was changed? Most hunts are aware that in this day and age they cannot deliberately flout the law. Some may have been slow to change as many hoped that the law would eventually be overturned as it didn’t have welfare at its heart, but most realised that this won’t happen and that hunting had to adapt. Are there some diehards, yes but these are a dying breed. Most hunts operate within the law, will there be accidents yes, whether you agree or not a proportion of them are caused by sabs. Points d) and e) above are things that impact on the control of hounds, if the sabs do this then the probability of incidents occurring increases.

Also if it’s your stated aim to stop hunts illegally hunting and you believe they are why are you trying to disrupt the hunt ? Surely you should just gather the evidence and hand it in and get them convicted not basically get rid of any “evidence“ by your actions.


----------



## Gallop_Away (17 January 2022)

palo1 said:



			I have had the 'guts' to watch this.  There are a few things I want to say but I can't get past the sabs pulling that fox around and repeatedly shouting repeatedly 'The fuc***g thing's still alive' without once trying to either dispatch the fox or trying to see if the fox can be treated in any way.  They are far more interested in getting the camera over and calling the police.  Fair enough to call the police but only one person suggests giving the fox some space because 'it's dying'.  As I say, there are other things I want to say but there is not much point.
		
Click to expand...

Quite. Horribly upsetting video all-round.


----------



## I'm Dun (17 January 2022)

palo1 said:



			I have had the 'guts' to watch this.  There are a few things I want to say but I can't get past the sabs pulling that fox around and repeatedly shouting repeatedly 'The fuc***g thing's still alive' without once trying to either dispatch the fox or trying to see if the fox can be treated in any way.  They are far more interested in getting the camera over and calling the police.  Fair enough to call the police but only one person suggests giving the fox some space because 'it's dying'.  As I say, there are other things I want to say but there is not much point.
		
Click to expand...

I watched it. I am absolutely not pro illegal hunting in any shape or form, but watching that, how the hell is the hunt supposed to control the hounds? People shouting and screaming commands from all over the place. The hounds just look confused tbh. 

Why did no one dispatch the fox? They pulled it about a bit for the camera then walked off and left it. If they didnt want to or didnt know how to, then they should have called the hunt over to dispatch it.


----------



## palo1 (17 January 2022)

I'm Dun said:



			I watched it. I am absolutely not pro illegal hunting in any shape or form, but watching that, how the hell is the hunt supposed to control the hounds? People shouting and screaming commands from all over the place. The hounds just look confused tbh.

Why did no one dispatch the fox? They pulled it about a bit for the camera then walked off and left it. If they didnt want to or didnt know how to, then they should have called the hunt over to dispatch it.
		
Click to expand...

Yes. Quite. There are other things too...


----------



## Fred66 (17 January 2022)

I'm Dun said:



			I watched it. I am absolutely not pro illegal hunting in any shape or form, but watching that, how the hell is the hunt supposed to control the hounds? People shouting and screaming commands from all over the place. The hounds just look confused tbh.

Why did no one dispatch the fox? They pulled it about a bit for the camera then walked off and left it. If they didnt want to or didnt know how to, then they should have called the hunt over to dispatch it.
		
Click to expand...

This is what makes me sick about the animal rights brigade. I am all about animal welfare and ensuring that they don’t suffer unnecessarily but animal rights is something else altogether. I’ve seen a hound hit by a car and rather than help lift it into a vehicle to get it to a vet, they stood filming it. They have a very warped view of caring for animals.


----------



## Fred66 (17 January 2022)

palo1 said:



			No idea.  I agree though that the 'field', unless they were going to a gateway or something on that line  or going around because the huntsman and hounds were going somewhere the field were not permitted to be, appear to be not with the huntsman and hounds (who are up together nicely).  It's not clear why they were heading where they were but the bloke that got hit should certainly rest until there is no risk of any issues.
		
Click to expand...

Don’t know but as another poster said the ground on Friday was quite wet in that area and it might well be that where the hounds were going the huntsman was allowed but not the field.


----------



## Chianti (17 January 2022)

I was told that if horses were coming towards you fast, eg when you were in a field trying to catch something in, that you should stand still as horses would not try to run you down.  I appreciate that there are the odd exceptions to this! I do think that if I were driving down a lane and saw someone standing in the road, I wouldn't think ' Well they shouldn't be in the road', I would do my best to miss them! I find the defense of some hunting incidents increasingly hard to take. As I've posted before I know of a hunt which was quite happy to try to hunt a fox when asked to do so by a land owner. They were obviously quite happy to act illegally and I'm sure there would be others.


----------



## Millionwords (17 January 2022)

I'm Dun said:



			Why did no one dispatch the fox? They pulled it about a bit for the camera then walked off and left it. If they didnt want to or didnt know how to, then they should have called the hunt over to dispatch it.
		
Click to expand...

I'm quite literally a forum reader, on several forums...I never comment on anything....but how would you expect them to put that fox out of its misery? With what? Its not their fault it was caught by hounds illegally, what would you suggest they do to it?


----------



## I'm Dun (17 January 2022)

Millionwords said:



			I'm quite literally a forum reader, on several forums...I never comment on anything....but how would you expect them to put that fox out of its misery? With what? Its not their fault it was caught by hounds illegally, what would you suggest they do to it?
		
Click to expand...

My post literally says, call the hunt over to dispatch it, not pull it about for a video then walk off.


----------



## Koweyka (17 January 2022)

Millionwords said:



			I'm quite literally a forum reader, on several forums...I never comment on anything....but how would you expect them to put that fox out of its misery? With what? Its not their fault it was caught by hounds illegally, what would you suggest they do to it?
		
Click to expand...

Exactly, what the hell were the Sabs supposed to do, putting hounds through scrub like that where they are bound to pick up a fox, the hounds had it before they even knew there was a kill. They thought but was dead. We don’t carry guns contrary to the outlandish claims of us being armed terrorists. At the end of the day if that hunt wasn’t there that fox would still be alive that’s all on the hunt not the Sabs.
It’s amazing the pro hunt “lets kill foxes brigade” whinge when they film incidents and whinge when they don’t.
Trail hunting should be banned.


----------



## Millionwords (17 January 2022)

I'm Dun said:



			My post literally says, call the hunt over to dispatch it, not pull it about for a video then walk off.
		
Click to expand...

Aplogies, I don't know if you edited your reply, but I didn't see that part the first time I read it, by the time I'd decided to post I didn't go back. 

They didn't pull it about, but they did intially think it was dead. They shouldn't have needed to call the hunt over to kill it, it shouldn't have been half killed by the hounds in the first place. Irrespective of my views on hunting pre-ban...its now illegal and these "accidents" are too common not to be the hunts intentions.


----------



## Crazy_cat_lady (17 January 2022)

Miss_Millie said:



			Looked rather deliberate going by the footage. No amount of intimidation warrants trying to run someone down with your horse. The man on the ground was assaulted and the rider put their horse in danger, I wonder if the horse is bruised/injured at all from the impact of hitting him.

Maybe he should not have been stood in the field, maybe he was on a public footpath and had every right to be, either way that group of riders knew exactly what they were doing and they were lucky that they didn't kill him tbh.

There really does seem to be a mob mentality when it comes to hunting - I have never witnessed any such behaviour from people who are regularly hacking on public land. I've been on many-a-ride through public fields where there are people walking, out with their dogs etc, children running about, and have never had any issues. It is because we are keenly aware that we are on shared space, and that taking out large animals like horses is a huge responsibility. We always err on the side of caution if anyone else is about, because it is everyone's right to be there and being on horseback does not make us in any way superior.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly. Funnily enough when I'm going for a burn up across the fields when hacking,  and there are people walking, I make sure I avoid them. Because that's what should happen. I am aware of my surroundings and it is my job to keep them safe. Its not like this guy suddenly steps into their path....

How would people react if that was a car deliberately driven at someone?

If I rode deliberately at anyone I'd expect to get the police knocking on my door. Isn't that intent to injure, at best.... I'd also be hoping I had very high levels of public liability insurance. Although if deliberate would insurance even pay out....

I see the same page has yet another fox kill posted after the above clip.

When will this end?


----------



## ycbm (17 January 2022)

Crazy_cat_lady said:



			I see the same page has yet another fox kill posted after the above clip.

When will this end?
		
Click to expand...

When hunting is banned altogether. 

I'm sorry,  and I know some sabs behave badly, and some illegally, but I'm tired of hearing people who hunt a trail laid using fox piss complaining about being mistaken for hunting fox hunting when they aren't. 
.


----------



## Miss_Millie (17 January 2022)

ycbm said:



			When hunting is banned altogether.

I'm sorry,  and I know some sabs behave badly, and some illegally, but *I'm tired of hearing people who hunt a trail laid using fox piss complaining about being mistaken for hunting fox hunting when they aren't.*
.
		
Click to expand...

I can't see any justification for this either, especially when there are other scents that could be used which are just as potent. I have never seen anyone give a good reason/explanation to this. Because there isn't one.


----------



## Tiddlypom (18 January 2022)

Unsurprisingly, the N.Shrops incident is being reported in the main stream media. This is from the Daily Mail.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...orse-left-neck-injuries-Shropshire-video.html

*Terrifying moment hunt saboteur is mown down by horse and left with neck and back injuries as riders charge towards him*

Has there been any counter statement on this incident by either the N.Shrops hunt itself or the MFHA? The governing body should have stepped in asap to take control of what sanctions/actions should follow on from this.

Whether any individual will face criminal charges after this remains to be seen, but the hunting fraternity need to deal with it pronto and make it clear that this sort of behaviour - riding at antis to intimidate them - will never be tolerated.

The antis have a phrase for this - 'using horses as weapons'.

Some riders, who will be clearly identifiable on the video, should be served a ban by the hunt as a warning to others for bringing hunting into ill repute.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (18 January 2022)

Was there ever any condemnation of the hunt staff member who was filmed stabbing the fox with a garden fork?


----------



## Tiddlypom (18 January 2022)

CrunchieBoi said:



			Was there ever any condemnation of the hunt staff member who was filmed stabbing the fox with a garden fork?
		
Click to expand...

He's not been charged yet. The hunt and MFHA will be keeping their head down until the charges are made public, and then working out how they can distance themselves from his actions.

It's very much in their interests that he is portrayed as a lone sicko, and not one who has close associations with a registered pack.


----------



## Fellewell (18 January 2022)

Sabs have done this before and they've been hurt before. This isn't Tiananmen Square, this is basic horsemanship and on page one of how not to get killed by a horse is don't stand directly in front a horse, for one thing they can't see you.


----------



## Koweyka (18 January 2022)

He was on the footpath way before the two groups of riders came along, if you are such an incompetent rider that you can’t see a human stood in front of you for a fairly long period of time, you have no business rising out in public.

This notion the pro fox killers have that we deliberately set out to be injured is utterly deranged.


----------



## Tiddlypom (18 January 2022)

Fellewell said:



			Sabs have done this before and they've been hurt before. This isn't Tiananmen Square, this is basic horsemanship and on page one of how not to get killed by a horse is don't stand directly in front a horse, for one thing they can't see you.
		
Click to expand...

Ahem. Suggest that Fellewell rewatches the video.

The sab did not position himself directly in front of a horse. He was in clear and distant view in an open field,  and a group of riders then deliberately rode at him at speed, despite having plenty of room to go round him.

He, completely correctly, had stood still so that they could see and avoid him.


----------



## Clodagh (18 January 2022)

Watching the fox die… thoughts are that it was chopped, not hunted, so that is something that could happen when anyone walks a dog. 
It may well have run from cover and been safe if sabs hadn’t been surrounding it.
I don’t know why none of them thought to turn it the right way up or cover it, or even just leave it to die although I appreciate they were upset. 
If hounds hadn’t been chased off it they would have killed it a lot quicker.
I can’t see that particular episode was anything but an accident. Horrible to see though.

As for the field riding down the sab, what bloody idiots. You really do think hunting can’t wait to finish itself off.


----------



## Koweyka (18 January 2022)

The huntsman could have done far more than he did to pull the hounds immediately out of that scrub rather than ride off, the whip could also have moved them away. They did practically nothing to stop them. The hounds had hold of the fox before the Sabs fully reacted, they were on the road not even in the field, until the hound dragged the fox out of the cover they weren’t aware of a kill, but still the huntsman didn’t come back. They thought the fox was dead, I can imagine the shock to see such a badly injured animal start writhing like that, it was horrendous, until you are actually in that situation you don’t know how you will react. For all the pro fox killers saying they should have put it out of its misery …. How and what with ? Strangle it ? Ask the terrier man if they can borrow his spade to bash it on the head ?  All the foxes I have dealt with that the hounds kill have already been dead when I get to them.

Absolutely horrific and totally avoidable, this is why there has to be a reckless clause, allowing hounds to search in areas where wildlife lives is reckless and this is why foxes to die. 

This won’t be classed as illegal hunting, but anyone trying to blame the Sabs for this is completely wrong.

All trail hunting should be banned, I did have some sympathy for the trail  hunts I know are trailing and not taking risks to wildlife, but when I read comments from certain people on here that are supposedly representing these “well behaved” trail hunts it tells me that you don’t deserve any sympathy and it should all be banned, you are doing a sterling job of helping bang the nails in the coffin.


----------



## Nasicus (18 January 2022)

I can’t see that particular episode was anything but an accident.
		
Click to expand...

Until hounds are no longer being trained to follow the scent of a fox, even for trail purposes, it will never be an 'accident'.

Plenty of scents in the world they could be following, that fact that coming up 20 years since the ban and they're still being trained on a scent that cannot be controlled and just happens to lead to quarry when the wires get crossed is downright daft.


----------



## Gallop_Away (18 January 2022)

Koweyka can you please stop referring to everyone who disagrees with you as a "pro-fox killer". It's very insulting to those of us who trail hunt legally and have taken time to explain our views. It also weakens your points and comes across as petty.


----------



## Clodagh (18 January 2022)

Nasicus said:



			Until hounds are no longer being trained to follow the scent of a fox, even for trail purposes, it will never be an 'accident'.

Plenty of scents in the world they could be following, that fact that coming up 20 years since the ban and they're still being trained on a scent that cannot be controlled and just happens to lead to quarry when the wires get crossed is downright daft.
		
Click to expand...

My dogs would pounce on a rabbit if they found one. And leverets. They chase foxes. They are not as big as foxhounds so can’t do them any harm but they certainly belt off after them if they see or smell any.


----------



## Clodagh (18 January 2022)

Nasicus said:



			Until hounds are no longer being trained to follow the scent of a fox, even for trail purposes, it will never be an 'accident'.

Plenty of scents in the world they could be following, that fact that coming up 20 years since the ban and they're still being trained on a scent that cannot be controlled and just happens to lead to quarry when the wires get crossed is downright daft.
		
Click to expand...

I agree about the different scents.


----------



## Koweyka (18 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			Koweyka can you please stop referring to everyone who disagrees with you as a "pro-fox killer". It's very insulting to those of us who trail hunt legally and have taken time to explain our views. It also weakens your points and comes across as petty.
		
Click to expand...

There have been a lot of comments recently that have insulted me and the people who are trying to stop wildlife being killed, many of these have come from the people that are supposedly trailing. Continually blaming the Sabs and monitors for all the hunts bad behaviour, some of the names/descriptions/blaming of the lad who was mown down are disgusting, I know him personally.

Then blaming the Sabs for that fox that was killed and then for not putting it out of its misery and these are coming from the people that claim to be trailing, they certainly aren’t acting that way. If they tone the rhetoric and insults down so will I, I usualy refer to them as pro hunt, but certainly there are several that do “trail hunting” no favours at all and are just encouraging even harder views against trail hunting as a whole.


----------



## Upthecreek (18 January 2022)

Clodagh said:



			I agree about the different scents.
		
Click to expand...

Me too. Bearing in mind dogs can be trained to detect the scent of drugs, money, cancer, live people, dead bodies & ignore other smells I see no reason why hounds can’t be trained to pick up and follow a scent that has absolutely nothing to do with fox.


----------



## Gallop_Away (18 January 2022)

Koweyka said:



			There have been a lot of comments recently that have insulted me and the people who are trying to stop wildlife being killed, many of these have come from the people that are supposedly trailing. Continually blaming the Sabs and monitors for all the hunts bad behaviour, some of the names/descriptions/blaming of the lad who was mown down are disgusting, I know him personally.

Then blaming the Sabs for that fox that was killed and then for not putting it out of its misery and these are coming from the people that claim to be trailing, they certainly aren’t acting that way. If they tone the rhetoric and insults down so will I, I usualy refer to them as pro hunt, but certainly there are several that do “trail hunting” no favours at all and are just encouraging even harder views against trail hunting as a whole.
		
Click to expand...

Just because someone challenges your views and questions you on situations doesn't mean they are "pro-fox killing". Have I referred to everyone who has disagreed with me as a "pro-countryside terrorist"? You can question and disagree sabs without being in favour of fox hunting, just as you may question trail hunting but that does not mean you don a balaclava on weekends and scream at children mounted on horseback.
I understand you are passionate but you are doing yourself no favours by continually coming across in an unnecessarily aggressive manner.


----------



## Nasicus (18 January 2022)

Clodagh said:



			My dogs would pounce on a rabbit if they found one. And leverets. They chase foxes. They are not as big as foxhounds so can’t do them any harm but they certainly belt off after them if they see or smell any.
		
Click to expand...

That would be an accident though, unless you specifically trained or encouraged them to chase rabbits. The hounds are trained to chase fox scent and then let out in area where there are plentiful foxes leaving their own fox scent everywhere. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that there's a good chance they're going to get drawn off the laid trail. Like scribbling squiggly lines on a piece of paper in red pen, and then telling you to follow one specific red line through all the other red lines. How are the hounds supposed to differentiate from allowed fox scent and forbidden fox scent? Not impossible, but certainly tricky under controlled circumstances. Add in noise, speed, all the other scents and general chaos of a large group of dogs, horses and riders, well you can't help but wonder how the hunts can reasonably and truthfully believe that the hounds can follow that one red line without error. When you stack it all up, it seems very hard to believe these are genuine accidents.

At least if they were following the scent of something distinctive and non-native to the area, they'd be able to more easily and consistently follow that blue line through the tangled mess of red lines.


----------



## Koweyka (18 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			Just because someone challenges your views and questions you on situations doesn't mean they are "pro-fox killing". Have I referred to everyone who has disagreed with me as a "pro-countryside terrorist"? You can question and disagree sabs without being in favour of fox hunting, just as you may question trail hunting but that does not mean you don a balaclava on weekends and scream at children mounted on horseback.
I understand you are passionate but you are doing yourself no favours by continually coming across in an unnecessarily aggressive manner.
		
Click to expand...

There you go again…. With the “donning a balaclava and shouting at children rhetoric” about Sabs. 

My god this weekend I was called a “f ugly slag who will get a hiding” by a female rider in her early twenties who was supposedly on a trail hunt, while I was stood on a path wearing jeans and a pink jumper and not a balaclava in sight. This was just after this hunt trashed a badger sett searching for a fox where the “trail” had been laid and chased it. This is a hunt that claims it’s laying trails. 

So forgive me if I have just about had a belly full of this trail hunt nonsense, I am on the front end of this, I challenge any of you “pro trail hunt” to go out with your local Sabs and see it from their side, then maybe some of this misguided ridiculous nonsensical rubbish spouted about them may stop and there can be a proper debate.
I can see from your reaction you do not like certain phrases but what makes you believe we have to tolerate the vileness said about us ?


----------



## Gallop_Away (18 January 2022)

Koweyka said:



			There you go again…. With the “donning a balaclava and shouting at children rhetoric” about Sabs.

My god this weekend I was called a “f ugly slag who will get a hiding” by a female rider in her early twenties who was supposedly on a trail hunt, while I was stood on a path wearing jeans and a pink jumper and not a balaclava in sight. This was just after this hunt trashed a badger sett searching for a fox where the “trail” had been laid and chased it. This is a hunt that claims it’s laying trails.

So forgive me if I have just about had a belly full of this trail hunt nonsense, I am on the front end of this, I challenge any of you “pro trail hunt” to go out with your local Sabs and see it from their side, then maybe some of this misguided ridiculous nonsensical rubbish spouted about them may stop and there can be a proper debate.
I can see from your reaction you do not like certain phrases but what makes you believe we have to tolerate the vileness said about us ?
		
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you have missed my point. I deliberately drew on a negative stereotype for sabs. Apologies if that was not clear. 
The point I am trying to make is that just because people disagree and challenge your views, doesn't make them a "fox killer", just as not everyone who challenges my views on trail hunting is a stereotypical masked terrorist. it is possible to disagree with you on some points and disagree with fox hunting, just as it is possible to challenge trail hunting but that doesn't automatically make you in favour of VIOLENT sabs.  
I and many others on this thread have clearly stated we do not condone illegal hunting. To continue to call us such names is coming across as ignorant and rude. It is possible to engage in a civil discussion without resulting to petty insults.


----------



## Fred66 (18 January 2022)

Koweyka said:



			There you go again…. With the “donning a balaclava and shouting at children rhetoric” about Sabs.

My god this weekend I was called a “f ugly slag who will get a hiding” by a female rider in her early twenties who was supposedly on a trail hunt, while I was stood on a path wearing jeans and a pink jumper and not a balaclava in sight. This was just after this hunt trashed a badger sett searching for a fox where the “trail” had been laid and chased it. This is a hunt that claims it’s laying trails.

So forgive me if I have just about had a belly full of this trail hunt nonsense, I am on the front end of this, I challenge any of you “pro trail hunt” to go out with your local Sabs and see it from their side, then maybe some of this misguided ridiculous nonsensical rubbish spouted about them may stop and there can be a proper debate.
I can see from your reaction you do not like certain phrases but what makes you believe we have to tolerate the vileness said about us ?
		
Click to expand...

Gallop away didn’t accuse you of anything she/he actually said that people from either side are entitled to have differing views without calling each other names.

Both sides have members who don’t behave as well as they could, I have tried to distinguish in my posts by referring to people as hunt monitors or hunt sabs both of which have the same intended end game of ensuring that illegal fox hunting is stopped. The former generally don’t get abusive the latter generally go out of their way to be as offensive and obnoxious as possible, but even this is changing. You don’t do the same, you lump everyone in together and generally play whataboutery and avoid questions whenever someone challenges you.
Apparently one group of monitors has now started posting a “hunt hag” of the week on Twitter (they are banned from doing it on Facebook) where they take a picture of a female follower or rider and post it for people to mock. Maybe if the misogyny bill gets through parliament these groups will be prosecuted for hate crimes?

Any chance of a response to my post 2554?


----------



## Koweyka (18 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			I'm afraid you have missed my point. I deliberately drew on a negative stereotype for sabs. Apologies if that was not clear.
The point I am trying to make is that just because people disagree and challenge your views, doesn't make them a "fox killer", just as not everyone who challenges my views on trail hunting is a stereotypical masked terrorist. it is possible to disagree with you on some points and disagree with fox hunting, just as it is possible to challenge trail hunting but that doesn't automatically make you in favour of VIOLENT sabs. 
I and many others on this thread have clearly stated we do not condone illegal hunting. To continue to call us such names is coming across as ignorant and rude. It is possible to engage in a civil discussion without resulting to petty insults.
		
Click to expand...

Sigh I did not start the petty insults, they have been flung at me from the start. I have been quite restrained in all honesty, but the recent comments from some members have just been disgusting. So if they have a “cap fits” attitude why can’t I or is that because I am an anti we are all tarred with the same brush….there is the irony. 

I will not be drawn into an argument about name calling, because you and I and the lovely people that trial hunt but somehow still manage to kill foxes will never agree.


----------



## Koweyka (18 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Gallop away didn’t accuse you of anything she/he actually said that people from either side are entitled to have differing views without calling each other names.

Both sides have members who don’t behave as well as they could, I have tried to distinguish in my posts by referring to people as hunt monitors or hunt sabs both of which have the same intended end game of ensuring that illegal fox hunting is stopped. The former generally don’t get abusive the latter generally go out of their way to be as offensive and obnoxious as possible, but even this is changing. You don’t do the same, you lump everyone in together and generally play whataboutery and avoid questions whenever someone challenges you.
Apparently one group of monitors has now started posting a “hunt hag” of the week on Twitter (they are banned from doing it on Facebook) where they take a picture of a female follower or rider and post it for people to mock. Maybe if the misogyny bill gets through parliament these groups will be prosecuted for hate crimes?

Any chance of a response to my post 2554?
		
Click to expand...

I looked at the post and your list of questions and thought it so ridiculous that you knew the answers already however I don’t know anyone who takes chemical weapons into the countryside.

As for the hunt hag, I don’t agree with  that, that’s not what we are supposedly about, but you must be aware unless you are living under a rock that hunts are doing exactly the same to the antis and I know because I featured on one such “calendar” !


----------



## Gallop_Away (18 January 2022)

I can see I am wasting my time. Nevermind


----------



## Koweyka (18 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			I can see I am wasting my time. Nevermind 

Click to expand...

Touché 🙄


----------



## Fred66 (18 January 2022)

Koweyka said:



			I looked at the post and your list of questions and thought it so ridiculous that you knew the answers already however I don’t know anyone who takes chemical weapons into the countryside.

As for the hunt hag, I don’t agree with  that, that’s not what we are supposedly about, but you must be aware unless you are living under a rock that hunts are doing exactly the same to the antis and I know because I featured on one such “calendar” !
		
Click to expand...

Did I say chemical weapons ? I said chemical spray bottles, I believe sabs say they take bottles of citronella with them ?

You’re  right I do, so I will take this as your confirmation that sabs are out breaking the law every single time they follow the hunt.

I wasn’t aware of any hunt posting sabs images on line in this way, again don’t agree with it, unless it is for identification purposes of people known to be violent or aggressive when following.


----------



## Koweyka (18 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Did I say chemical weapons ? I said chemical spray bottles, I believe sabs say they take bottles of citronella with them ?

You’re  right I do, so I will take this as your confirmation that sabs are out breaking the law every single time they follow the hunt.

I wasn’t aware of any hunt posting sabs images on line in this way, again don’t agree with it, unless it is for identification purposes of people known to be violent or aggressive when following.
		
Click to expand...

I don’t believe some of the people that go trail hunting are actually fully aware of what goes on. Yes we take photographs for ID purposes should we get a case to court. This is taken from police training on evidence gathering.

So ok, if you are taking that completely out of context, how is this  …. Your hunt is being sabbed every single week because your hunt is either killing or attempting to kill foxes. You enjoy seeing animals killed and running for their lives  …. It goes both ways if you want to make assumptions.


----------



## Fred66 (18 January 2022)

Koweyka said:



			So ok, if you are taking that completely out of context, how is this  …. Your hunt is being sabbed every single week because your hunt is either killing or attempting to kill foxes. You enjoy seeing animals killed and running for their lives  …. It goes both ways if you want to make assumptions.
		
Click to expand...

I wasn’t making assumptions, I asked the question you replied with “thought it so ridiculous that you knew the answers already”. At this point yes I assumed but you led me there, I took nothing out of context

Not sure where the leap is to just because sabs are there we must be hunting illegally. Nor that I enjoy seeing animals being killed, as I don’t (even when we were hunting fox).  As at every point I have indicated that I follow a legal trail hunt.

I had a conversation the other week with another follower and we both agreed that we preferred it when the fox got away (we were talking regariding pre-ban), generally this meant hounds would have been following a healthy fox. That we didn’t agree with digging out or blocking holes.

I would have welcomed a middle way, as I do believe that control of fox numbers is necessary and that use of hounds to do this is actually better for the fox species (please note fox species not individual fox) than other methods as it does largely weed out healthy and fit from not, but the law is the law


----------



## palo1 (18 January 2022)

Koweyka said:



			I don’t believe some of the people that go trail hunting are actually fully aware of what goes on. Yes we take photographs for ID purposes should we get a case to court. This is taken from police training on evidence gathering.

So ok, if you are taking that completely out of context, how is this  …. Your hunt is being sabbed every single week because your hunt is either killing or attempting to kill foxes. You enjoy seeing animals killed and running for their lives  …. It goes both ways if you want to make assumptions.
		
Click to expand...

But you have asserted in the past that if a trail hunt *isn't* being sabbed it's not because they are actually trail hunting but because there aren't enough sabs to go around.  That makes no sense whatsoever.  Also, how do you explain my experience  (not my hunt) in relation to that,  of 12-16 sabs turning up to a tiny hamlet, all masked, be-camera'd and swaggering down this tiny lane because (by their admission) they had had no 'luck' sabbing another hunt in the area - either they couldn't find them or the hunt was not, in fact, hunting foxes. There were certainly enough sabs that day to serve several hunts as peaceful monitors.  In fact they outnumbered the inhabitants of the hamlet...  The 2nd hunt they sabbed on that occasion  (the one I was witness to) was utterly bemused and sabs gave up after a few hours of seriously cheesing off the local people, because there was nothing for those sabs to see and nothing to 'sab'.  They wrote it up explaining that the huntsman was so useless that there was no need to sab him...Sooooo, 'useless' or 'not actually hunting illegally'  - either way, what is that all about?  I also regularly read reports from sab groups explaining how they saw no foxes at all in spite of lots of sabs around and yet they have at the same time 'saved' foxes.

Those experiences lead me to believe, with respect, that there absolutely are sabs and sab groups that are harrassing trail hunts for reasons entirely other to those related to the legality of what those hunts are doing.   You won't recognise that so it makes it incredibly difficult to treat with respect some of the other things you say.


----------



## Koweyka (18 January 2022)

palo1 said:



			But you have asserted in the past that if a trail hunt *isn't* being sabbed it's not because they are actually trail hunting but because there aren't enough sabs to go around.  That makes no sense whatsoever.  Also, how do you explain my experience  (not my hunt) in relation to that,  of 12-16 sabs turning up to a tiny hamlet, all masked, be-camera'd and swaggering down this tiny lane because (by their admission) they had had no 'luck' sabbing another hunt in the area - either they couldn't find them or the hunt was not, in fact, hunting foxes. There were certainly enough sabs that day to serve several hunts as peaceful monitors.  In fact they outnumbered the inhabitants of the hamlet...  The 2nd hunt they sabbed on that occasion  (the one I was witness to) was utterly bemused and sabs gave up after a few hours of seriously cheesing off the local people, because there was nothing for those sabs to see and nothing to 'sab'.  They wrote it up explaining that the huntsman was so useless that there was no need to sab him...Sooooo, 'useless' or 'not actually hunting illegally'  - either way, what is that all about?  I also regularly read reports from sab groups explaining how they saw no foxes at all in spite of lots of sabs around and yet they have at the same time 'saved' foxes.

Those experiences lead me to believe, with respect, that there absolutely are sabs and sab groups that are harrassing trail hunts for reasons entirely other to those related to the legality of what those hunts are doing.   You won't recognise that so it makes it incredibly difficult to treat with respect some of the other things you say.
		
Click to expand...

There are well over a hundred hunts possibly 200 just how many Sabs do you think there are ? Believe me I want to see every hunt watched, but the ones that are continually watched are the ones that are not hunting with in the spirit or the law. 

How are people supposed to know if a hunt is behaving or not if you don’t go and watch them. I really don’t understand the points you are trying to make.  It’s amazing though, just how many hunts pack up and can’t cope when monitors or Sabs arrive, clearly haven’t perfected the smokescreen. They could liaise and explain but choosing to pack up screams guilt. 

I have seen hunts Facebook pages saying they have had a glorious days hunting, when they have killed a fox. It’s naive if you believe it’s all the Sabs “ fake “ narrative on reports.

Also do you care about the villages that are invaded by the hunt that don’t want them there but have no choice, that have their pets killed, horses killed I have seen livestock mauled, they get away with that because hounds are wrongly classed as working dogs. What’s your opinion on that. 

The fact is, Sabs monitors whatever you want to call us do not set out knowing that what they do could potentially kill an animal under the guise of a hobby. Every time a pack of dogs trained to kill and follow an animal based scent they risk wildlife and that is completely unacceptable and why trail hunting will finish. What will you all do then.

In my opinion respect only counts when you actually want respect from the other person. So as neither of us cares anything for the other neither of us should be concerned.

For every insinuation you make about antis I can give you a hundred back about the hunts. 

Your “sport” is dying, I see AXA will no longer insure the hunts for legal fee’s hopefully when hunters have to pay out of pocket they may take more care not to kill as many foxes.

Fred666 I had post mortems done on several foxes killed by a hunt and all were young and healthy, one had a stomach full of dog food, rather odd in the middle of the countryside, but it was close to an artificial earth, however this narrative it’s only the sick and old that get caught isn’t true. Hunting has no effect on population control, unless you are breeding cubs to feed to the hounds but I guess that’s a different story.


----------



## Fred66 (18 January 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Fred666 I had post mortems done on several foxes killed by a hunt and all were young and healthy, one had a stomach full of dog food, rather odd in the middle of the countryside, but it was close to an artificial earth, however this narrative it’s only the sick and old that get caught isn’t true. Hunting has no effect on population control, unless you are breeding cubs to feed to the hounds but I guess that’s a different story.
		
Click to expand...

My post said largely not all. I know someone local to me who actively encourages foxes into their garden by feeding them. If it has no effect on population control then why are you so concerned ? Artificial earths and keeping/bagging are another of the things that I would have seen banned on the middle way route.

What you fail to recognize is that many that followed fox-hunting when it was legal didn’t do it through blood lust or psychopathic tendencies (comments found on every sab Facebook page) we did it because we recognised that culling of foxes was a requirement of maintaining balance in the country side and that hunting with hounds was actually a more natural way of performing that task. Watching the hounds draw for the scent, picking it up in challenging conditions, follow the trail, lose it cast again, and pick up that scent again or another’s was what you went to watch. The actual kill was not the thrill, anymore than when you watch a pride of lions on a nature programme stalk and kill their prey.You are just as pleased if not more so when the fox gets away.

Culling in any form results in a dead animal, as long as the dispatch is swift then the method is largely irrelevant.


----------



## ycbm (18 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			we did it because we recognised that culling of foxes was a requirement of maintaining balance in the country side and that hunting with hounds was actually a more natural way of performing that task.
		
Click to expand...


I believe only a minoriity did it for those reasons,  the rest did it for the social aspects and most for a damned good ride across country. I've know a lot of hunters and none of them did it to watch the hounds work or because they thought it was the most effective way of culling foxes.  

And the link of that majority having fun as a direct result of the discomfort of an animal is what the majority, I believe,  of the British public no longer finds acceptable.  

But it's illegal now anyway,  and if hunts were looking out for their own future they would stop doing anything that can too easily be mistaken for hunting fox. 
.


----------



## Fred66 (18 January 2022)

ycbm said:



			I believe only a minoriity did it for those reasons,  the rest did it for the social aspects and most for a damned good ride across country. I've know a lot of hunters and none of them did it to watch the hounds work or because they thought it was the most effective way of culling foxes.

And the link of that majority having fun as a direct result of the discomfort of an animal is what the majority, I believe,  of the British public no longer finds acceptable.

But it's illegal now anyway,  and if hunts were looking out for their own future they would stop doing anything that can too easily be mistaken for hunting fox.
.
		
Click to expand...

Agree it’s illegal hence trail hunting tries to replicate the challenge as the skill of the hounds is what is important.

I am sure some go just for the riding across land that they wouldn’t otherwise get access to and the social aspects. Most huntsman probably view them as a necessary evil in that they pay for the upkeep.


----------



## palo1 (18 January 2022)

@Koweyka ''_How are people supposed to know if a hunt is behaving or not if you don’t go and watch them. I really don’t understand the points you are trying to make. It’s amazing though, just how many hunts pack up and can’t cope when monitors or Sabs arrive, clearly haven’t perfected the smokescreen. They could liaise and explain but choosing to pack up screams guilt.'' _

It is not your job to act as rural vigilantes - the law is there for that.  It is not the fault of the hunting community that the Hunting Act makes a nonsense of every point of view; hunters, sabs, police and the law itself. Your assumption of guilt is purely, speculatively that, because of your viewpoint.  It is not objective in any way.   Who appointed you the arbiter of this law?  Where and what is your legitimacy to take the law and interpretation of it into your hands?  What are your qualifications and expertise that give you authority to state your unequivocal 'facts'?

'_'Also do you care about the villages that are invaded by the hunt that don’t want them there but have no choice, that have their pets killed, horses killed I have seen livestock mauled, they get away with that because hounds are wrongly classed as working dogs. What’s your opinion on that.''_

This is just 'whataboutery'.  Of course I care about the villages I visit with my local hunt' they are my neighbours, friends, friends of friends, places I want to enjoy and support local businesses.  I have no interest whatsoever in upsetting those people or communities.  I am a part of them too and I have to live with the people there; people who know I am part of a hunting community.  There is no reason whatsoever for me to want to upset my own community or that of friends.  Sabs visiting from miles away,  treating local people with suspicion and disdain because they 'might' support hunting is not exactly community minded.  Filming children who have nothing to do with hunting is not acceptable.  Recording vehicles because they 'might' have something to do with hunting is not acceptable either.  Trespass, obstruction and abuse are not acceptable and have been recorded from both sides often enough for you to know, without doubt that this is a sab problem as much as it is a hunting problem.

'_'The fact is, Sabs monitors whatever you want to call us do not set out knowing that what they do could potentially kill an animal under the guise of a hobby. Every time a pack of dogs trained to kill and follow an animal based scent they risk wildlife and that is completely unacceptable and why trail hunting will finish. What will you all do then._

The fact is that every time someone with any dog heads out into the countryside, they should know that their dog absolutely has what it takes to chase, maim and kill another animal.  Sadly even domestic dogs kill children on tragic occasions.  Most dogs need no instruction whatsoever to act out their predatory instincts. I see many more pet dogs out of control than working dogs, including trail hounds.   That means that pets and domestic livestock are, as you say 'mauled' and people get away with that because these are accidents, or untraceable tragedies or they are 'tolerated' because dog owners have 'accidents' or poor control.  People deliberately let their dogs off lead where there are sheep or in villages where there may well be pet rabbits, chickens or small or large livestock.  Dogs attack horses on bridlepaths and chase horses on beaches.  Every time anyone who owns a dog sets out to walk that dog, there is probably more potential for damage and injury to others than when a pack of hounds are taken to hunt a trail.

You want to attack the hunting community.  I get that.  Please just don't pretend that you have the authority or credibility to do that in any other way than personally.  You know the facts about trail hunting and sabbing as well as I do and you need to start accepting that the sab story is not always accurate or honest.


----------



## Miss_Millie (18 January 2022)

I really hate the 'fox hunters are conservationists' angle, I find is so disingenuous. The majority of people who hunt (pre or post ban) do it because it is fun to gallop about the countryside. Not because they're the Jane Goodall's of British wildlife. 

Those who genuinely care about conservation would spend their weekends planting trees and volunteering at wildlife shelters, not tearing up turf on their horses and then driving off in their gas guzzlers to have a nice drink at the pub.

The fact that fox urine is used as the scent shows how little those who hunt, actually care about wildlife. The foxes that are farmed live a life of unimaginable misery!


----------



## palo1 (18 January 2022)

Miss_Millie said:



			I really hate the 'fox hunters are conservationists' angle, I find is so disingenuous. The majority of people who hunt (pre or post ban) do it because it is fun to gallop about the countryside. Not because they're the Jane Goodall's of British wildlife.

Those who genuinely care about conservation would spend their weekends planting trees and volunteering at wildlife shelters, not tearing up turf on their horses and then driving off in their gas guzzlers to have a nice drink at the pub.

The fact that fox urine is used as the scent shows how little those who hunt, actually care about wildlife. The foxes that are farmed live a life of unimaginable misery!
		
Click to expand...

I am sorry @Miss_Millie - you are entitled to your views but the idea that hunters and hunting can be very well allied to conservation is really well explored and understood.  It is contentious in the UK but virtually nowhere else (unless you are talking about 'canned' hunting which is another thing entirely).  There has been a huge amount of research around this - from many completely objective sources including London Zoo and UNESCO.  Knepp Wilding project has recently supported trail hunting by hosting the local hunt.  They are one of the most daring, progressive and successful conservation experiments we have in the UK and so much has been learnt from their example.  They are not some unwitting bumpkins who just like to see people 'tearing up turf on their horses'....

The fact that fox scent is used is entirely about trying to preserve and conserve the unique abilities of a hunting dog that is the envy of hunting people the world over.  That may not matter to you at all - I respect that but there is a bit more to the whole hunting scenario than you think.  Farmed foxes have beggar all to do with trail hunting in the UK - particularly because even those trail hunts that use fox scent are using, in fact, dead shot foxes in the main to provide that scent.


----------



## Gallop_Away (18 January 2022)

Koweyka said:



			There are well over a hundred hunts possibly 200 just how many Sabs do you think there are ? Believe me I want to see every hunt watched, but the ones that are continually watched are the ones that are not hunting with in the spirit or the law.

How are people supposed to know if a hunt is behaving or not if you don’t go and watch them. I really don’t understand the points you are trying to make.  It’s amazing though, just how many hunts pack up and can’t cope when monitors or Sabs arrive, clearly haven’t perfected the smokescreen. They could liaise and explain but choosing to pack up screams guilt.
		
Click to expand...

But that's the point, some sabs don't just "watch". They harass/intimidate/tresspass/shout abuse/scare horses etc etc. So let's not pretend all sabs do is watch.
I also completely disagree that all hunts that are continually sabbed are hunting illegally. I shall say it again. Our hunt has not killed in the 7 years I have hunted with them, yet we endure harassment from sabs. 
Our hunt has tried to engage with them, inviting them to come and watch/monitor but it seems there is no fun in that. 
The writes up that are put up on their Facebook page are complete fantasies I'm afraid. It's quite funny to see them pat each other on the back for there being no kills, when in fact our hunt wasn't doing anything wrong in the first place.
If all sabs did was "watch" there would be no issue. I can certainly speak for our hunt when I say we would take no issues with peaceful monitors joining us in the field.


----------



## Tiddlypom (18 January 2022)

palo1 said:



			Every time anyone who owns a dog sets out to walk that dog, there is probably more potential for damage and injury to others than when a pack of hounds are taken to hunt a trail.
		
Click to expand...

Oof, Palo, while I do agree with a fair bit that you have written in your more recent posts, I most certainly do not agree with that statement.

The potential for a trail hunt to cause accidents is rather more than from your average dog walker. Hounds loose and unattended on roads, looking forlorn and lost even when there is no anti presence or activity, is far too common. I've been the muggins trying to flag traffic down when this is near me.

Or I've texted in to report about 6 couple of hounds wandering around in the road in the dark a couple of miles away, forcing son to brake sharply as he spotted them in his headlights, to be told "Oh, don't worry, we know where they are, we're in the field just on the other side of the hedge'.


----------



## meleeka (18 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			What you fail to recognize is that many that followed fox-hunting when it was legal didn’t do it through blood lust or psychopathic tendencies (comments found on every sab Facebook page) we did it because we recognised that culling of foxes was a requirement of maintaining balance in the country side and that hunting with hounds was actually a more natural way of performing that task. Watching the hounds draw for the scent, picking it up in challenging conditions, follow the trail, lose it cast again, and pick up that scent again or another’s was what you went to watch. The actual kill was not the thrill, anymore than when you watch a pride of lions on a nature programme stalk and kill their prey.You are just as pleased if not more so when the fox gets away.

Culling in any form results in a dead animal, as long as the dispatch is swift then the method is largely irrelevant.
		
Click to expand...

How is chasing a fox with a pack of hounds and a large group of horses natural?!    Neither is it a swift end for the fox.


----------



## Miss_Millie (18 January 2022)

palo1 said:



			I am sorry @Miss_Millie - you are entitled to your views but the idea that  *1.* hunters and hunting can be very well allied to conservation is really well explored and understood.  It is contentious in the UK but virtually nowhere else (unless you are talking about 'canned' hunting which is another thing entirely).  There has been a huge amount of research around this - from many completely objective sources including London Zoo and UNESCO.  *2.* Knepp Wilding project has recently supported trail hunting by hosting the local hunt.  They are one of the most daring, progressive and successful conservation experiments we have in the UK and so much has been learnt from their example.  They are not some unwitting bumpkins who just like to see people 'tearing up turf on their horses'....

*3.* The fact that fox scent is used is entirely about trying to preserve and conserve the unique abilities of a hunting dog that is the envy of hunting people the world over.  That may not matter to you at all - I respect that but there is a bit more to the whole hunting scenario than you think.  *4.* Farmed foxes have beggar all to do with trail hunting in the UK - particularly because even those trail hunts that use fox scent are using, in fact, dead shot foxes in the main to provide that scent.
		
Click to expand...

*1. *I never said that hunting in general can not assist with wildlife conservation, in some countries and cultures, in certain situations it might be necessary. I certainly do not have any qualms with people hunting to feed themselves and thus, survive. However the British countryside is on the edge of ecological collapse - the lack of biodiversity due to intensive farming, industry, and the overall spread of the human population is slowly but surely destroying it. The insect population is declining at an alarming rate, species of mammals, plants etc going extinct left right and centre. To suggest that hunting fox would in any way restore balance to an already drastically altered ecosystem is a fantasy. Bring back apex predators, plant hundreds of native trees, restore barren fields into wildlife meadows and we might have a small shot of preserving what very little biodiversity we have left.

I truly cannot see how dozens of people turning up in their diesel land rovers with horse boxes attached, quad bikes, loads of people on foot, roaming all over an already barren landscape, to kill one wee fox, is going to restore balance to the countryside. It is in no way energy efficient or practical, and even if you deem it to have conservational benefits, the reality is that 99% of the people there, are there to have a good time. They aren't on a mission to save the British countryside. So this narrative really frustrates me.

*2. *I know all about Knepp and I don't see what them allowing the hunt on their land has to do with conservation, given that they will be legally trail hunting, and thus not in any way impacting the fox population. If they want to support trail hunting then fine, it has nothing to do with controlling the fox population though. They have made it clear that they are against illegal fox hunting and would never allow it on their land.

*3. *Hounds could be trained to follow any scent, you don't give them enough credit. Foxes that are farmed for fur/urine live a life of misery, you seem to think that the tradition of using fox urine is more important than the endless cycle of suffering these farmed foxes have to endure. It also massively increases the risk of hounds 'accidentally' hunting a fox. I believe this is the real reason why it is the favoured scent.

*4. *This is not true, many hunts use farmed fox urine shipped from Europe or the US.


----------



## Fred66 (18 January 2022)

meleeka said:



			How is chasing a fox with a pack of hounds and a large group of horses natural?!    Neither is it a swift end for the fox.
		
Click to expand...

The fox would not be an apex predator in the uk but for mans intervention.
Therefore the use of another animal is more natural than the use of guns, traps or poison.
The kill at the end of the chase with hounds has a high likelihood of death within seconds or failing that a couple of minutes, even with shooting the outcome if not immediate can be drawn out for days.

Please note I am talking in the abstract as fox hunting with more than two hounds is illegal


----------



## stangs (18 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			The fox would not be an apex predator in the uk but for mans intervention.
		
Click to expand...

Well, there's no way about it then. We need to reintroduce lynx.


----------



## meleeka (18 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			The fox would not be an apex predator in the uk but for mans intervention.
Therefore the use of another animal is more natural than the use of guns, traps or poison.
The kill at the end of the chase with hounds has a high likelihood of death within seconds or failing that a couple of minutes, even with shooting the outcome if not immediate can be drawn out for days.

Please note I am talking in the abstract as fox hunting with more than two hounds is illegal
		
Click to expand...

So you aren’t counting the time which the fox is literally running for it’s life, just the actual death?   Just because the act of killing it doesn’t take long, it doesn’t excuse the terror before it.


----------



## Fellewell (18 January 2022)

paddy555 said:



			and sometimes they stray when there are no sabs. Is that acceptable to you?

your posts are doing nothing to promote the hunts in fact the opposite. Lots of might have beens, lots of excuses and lots of blame someone else if at all possible.[/

Yes, I should have explained. No it's not acceptable of course but that's the problem with hunts advertising their whereabouts. For me a trail hunt is about watching hounds work. It's a marathon rather than a sprint unlike a drag hunt so beloved of the thrusters, where the scent is artificial but the hunt is shorter and for hounds it's more eyes than nose. Trail hunts are more nose to the ground but hounds know they're not following a live scent so when sabs turn up hours beforehand and put down scent dullers and false trails they're doing more harm than good and quite possibly facilitating a kill. The hunt trail layers know where they can go, the huntsman and whippers-in know where they should be but the hounds obviously don't. Fox scent is long lasting and very pungent and quarry based scent is always preferable to the hounds but like any other scent it is very susceptible to environmental conditions so my argument is give them all a fighting chance to stay legal and don't disrupt the hounds.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## paddy555 (18 January 2022)

Yes, I should have explained. No it's not acceptable of course but that's the problem with hunts advertising their whereabouts. For me a trail hunt is about watching hounds work. It's a marathon rather than a sprint unlike a drag hunt so beloved of the thrusters, where the scent is artificial but the hunt is shorter and for hounds it's more eyes than nose. Trail hunts are more nose to the ground but hounds know they're not following a live scent so when sabs turn up hours beforehand and put down scent dullers and false trails they're doing more harm than good and quite possibly facilitating a kill. The hunt trail layers know where they can go, the huntsman and whippers-in know where they should be but the hounds obviously don't. Fox scent is long lasting and very pungent and quarry based scent is always preferable to the hounds but like any other scent it is very susceptible to environmental conditions so my argument is give them all a fighting chance to stay legal and don't disrupt the hounds.[/QUOTE]

sorry FW that quote hasn't worked well. 
there are 2 sides to it. Firstly whilst it is your right to legally trail hunt it is also the right of animal owners to keep their animals in their fields. It is up to the hunt to make sure they are not disrupting these animal owners with their activities so those animals eg Barney can graze in peace or be stabled to protect them. The hunt trail layers know where they are laying the trail. They know (or most certainly should know) where the animal owners and their animals are. There is no reason why the hunt cannot contact them either by phone or text to advise of the forthcoming activity. If the hunt are unwilling to do this then it says to those animal keepers that the hunt's day out is far more important than our animals are. That is wrong. 

Secondly whilst I appreciate that hounds don't know the trail route that doesn't mean they should stray onto private land. Somehow or other the huntsman has a responsibility to prevent that from happening. I appreciate that if he is trying to hunt with sabs disrupting things then it may not be easy but it is no excuse. The argument is between the sabs and the hunt. The private landowner does not come into it. Just because the sabs are disrupting the hunt doesn't mean the hunt should then allow their hounds onto someone's fields.


----------



## Sandstone1 (19 January 2022)

I have some questions which maybe pro hunters can answer please.  IF genuine trail hunting is going on the hunt will obviously know the route the hunt will take.   So why can landowners/livestock owners not be warned in advance?

This would obviously be a set trail, so why does my local hunt for example frequently hunt along side main roads, in villages, in working quarries, in industrial site etc etc.?

Why the secrecy about meets?  If they are not hunting fox and doing nothing wrong what have they got to hide?

Why are there so many accidents ie kills if the huntsman is in control of his hounds?
I honestly do wonder if some of the most pro hunting folk on here are just blind to what goes on or if they actually do hunt at all as the reality of what goes on is so far from what actually happens at least with the hunts near me.

Yes I fully expect sabs to get the blame here but do you just think you should be allowed to happily carry on with a illegal activity just because you think you are above the law?
I can tell you now that is not going to happen!


----------



## Clodagh (19 January 2022)

Sandstone I’ll ignore the later rheotorical questions in that post and will point out that I no longer hunt but as for the why they can’t lay the trail sensibly… I have absolutely no idea. I also do t know why they can’t tell local people where they are.
I also don’t know if sabs try to disrupt hounds hunting a properly laid trail, if yes maybe that is why the secrecy.


----------



## ycbm (19 January 2022)

palo1 said:



			Every time anyone who owns a dog sets out to walk that dog, there is probably more potential for damage and injury to others than when a pack of hounds are taken to hunt a trail.
		
Click to expand...

It beats me that you don't see what damage you do your cause by comments like this.  
.


----------



## Fred66 (19 January 2022)

ycbm said:



			It beats me that you don't see what damage you do your cause by comments like this.
.
		
Click to expand...

Palo was stating facts by way of rebutting a point made regarding the hounds and livestock. I know in this day and age facts are viewed as inconvenient and reports should be about “your truth” (your in general not aimed at ycbm) because the real truth doesn’t fit your narrative.
Apparently in 2016 the number of sheep killed by dogs was 15,000 and since then the numbers have increased. Hounds rarely attack livestock (farmers wouldn’t have them on their land if they did).


----------



## CanteringCarrot (19 January 2022)

Upon reflection: never mind. Could use a better example/perhaps not clear enough.


----------



## CanteringCarrot (19 January 2022)

Edit: not worth it.


----------



## ycbm (19 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Palo was stating facts by way of rebutting a point made regarding the hounds and livestock. I know in this day and age facts are viewed as inconvenient and reports should be about “your truth” (your in general not aimed at ycbm) because the real truth doesn’t fit your narrative.
Apparently in 2016 the number of sheep killed by dogs was 15,000 and since then the numbers have increased. Hounds rarely attack livestock (farmers wouldn’t have them on their land if they did).
		
Click to expand...

It beats me that you don't realise,  however truthful it is,  the damage that you are doing to your cause by comparing a pack of hounds followed by  riders with people's  pet dogs. 

Your sport is sorely in need of some professional PR input.  
.


----------



## Clodagh (19 January 2022)

ycbm said:



			It beats me that you don't see what damage you do your cause by comments like this. 
.
		
Click to expand...

I think it’s a fair point, even if you include foxes I expect far more domestic/farm and wild animals are killed by dog walkers per year than by hounds.


----------



## CanteringCarrot (19 January 2022)

Clodagh said:



			I think it’s a fair point, even if you include foxes I expect far more domestic/farm and wild animals are killed by dog walkers per year than by hounds.
		
Click to expand...

Ok, I wasn't going to get back involved with this, but here I am. Fair point, but what does it have to do with anything? 

That isn't banned so this shouldn't be either? They're doing worse over there so I am still allowed to continue over here? 

It's a problem/issue yes, but an issue in itself. Two wrongs don't make a right or allow a wrong to continue. 

Accepting your wrong (as a sport), dealing with it, and fixing it looks far better than being concerned about or comparing to others wrongs.


----------



## Clodagh (19 January 2022)

CanteringCarrot said:



			Accepting your wrong (as a sport), dealing with it, and fixing it looks far better than being concerned about or comparing to others wrongs.
		
Click to expand...

I don’t hunt any more, so it’s not my wrong. As a stand alone statement I felt it was true, is all.


----------



## Tiddlypom (19 January 2022)

I do agree (and the numbers are out there to prove it) that a lot more livestock is injured or killed by pets than by hunts.

The sentence that is being disputed does not refer specifically to livestock, though, it refers to 'others', not livestock. Hounds milling about on busy main roads and on railway lines, as has happened in this area very recently, definitely has potential to cause injury and damage to 'others'. Never mind all the atrocious driving and parking of the car followers.

_Every time anyone who owns a dog sets out to walk that dog, there is probably more potential for damage and injury to others than when a pack of hounds are taken to hunt a trail._

The hunts round here have to hunt near to and criss cross major A roads and also railway lines. It is frankly pretty hazardous, and hound control should be spot on at all times, but all too often it isn't.


----------



## Fred66 (19 January 2022)

Obviously hounds unaccompanied on roads or straying onto railways is not ideal and is obviously unplanned. These are relatively rare events considering the number of days hunting that occur across the country. There are many contributory factors some within the hunts control and some not. 
No one on here has disputed this, however trail hunting is legal and no one should be entitled to try and scare us into not following. 
If you do believe that someone has this right then is this because you disagree with hunting or because you believe that we all have the right to be vigilantes?
If the police don’t start taking a more active role in stopping these people from aggravated trespass then someone else will end up dead. I certainly don’t want this do you.


----------



## Miss_Millie (19 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Obviously hounds unaccompanied on roads or straying onto railways is not ideal and is obviously unplanned. These are relatively rare events considering the number of days hunting that occur across the country. There are many contributory factors some within the hunts control and some not.
No one on here has disputed this, however trail hunting is legal and no one should be entitled to try and scare us into not following.
If you do believe that someone has this right then is this because you disagree with hunting or because you believe that we all have the right to be vigilantes?
*If the police don’t start taking a more active role in stopping these people from aggravated trespass* then someone else will end up dead. I certainly don’t want this do you.
		
Click to expand...

I'm assuming you are referring to sabs here?

Until hunts stop trespassing on people's land, killing their horses, cats and livestock, they do not have a leg to stand on re-saboteur trespass. It is the pot calling the kettle black, and imo hunt trespass is a *much* more serious offence, given that it often results in destruction of property and the death of a by-standing animal.

I don't doubt at all that dog attacks by loose dogs in general are a major problem - I myself was attacked by two dogs last year. One on a public footpath in the countryside, one in the suburbs that had escaped from a garden. Both instances were terrifying. I can't even imagine 40 such dogs in a pack, out of control. It is a horrifying thought.

Hunting is an organised sport and the safety of others in the surrounding area should be a top priority. A horse was recently killed in its own field, this is not one isolated incident, we hear these stories every year. If hunts get their dogs under control and stop trespassing on land they shouldn't be on then maybe there is a chance that the sport might survive.


----------



## Gallop_Away (19 January 2022)

I think we can all agree that ILLEGAL hunting needs to stop, as does the carnage that has been caused by some hunts that floute the law and act in a completely irresponsible manner towards land owners/members of the public. 
However, and I think I have said this already, I do worry about the precedent allowing sabs to continue in intimidation, tresspass and violence will set. 
If trail hunting falls where will they turn their attention to next I wonder? Shooting? Fishing? Farming? Racing? 
No one should be allowed to make their point through intimidation and violence. I think people have the absolute right to make their views known via peaceful means, but that does not mean taking the law into your own hands. 
I think the way things are heading it really is only a matter of time before someone is killed.


----------



## Tiddlypom (19 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			If trail hunting falls where will they turn their attention to next I wonder? Shooting? Fishing? Farming? Racing?
		
Click to expand...

Sabs have already started turning their attention to shoots. As of yet, it seems to be a case of going out to sab a hunt, but if they can't find it, sabbing a shoot instead.

Though I personally hate shooting, it is still a legal pastime.


----------



## Gallop_Away (19 January 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Sabs have already started turning their attention to shoots. As of yet, it seems to be a case of going out to sab a hunt, but if they can't find it, sabbing a shoot instead.

Though I personally hate shooting, it is still a legal pastime.
		
Click to expand...

Yes I have seen the odd post relating to sabbing shoots on facebook. Athough for now hunts seem to be taking the lion's share of their attention, it does make you wonder where they will turn their attention to next?


----------



## Fred66 (19 January 2022)

…


----------



## Clodagh (19 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			Yes I have seen the odd post relating to sabbing shoots on facebook. Athough for now hunts seem to be taking the lion's share of their attention, it does make you wonder where they will turn their attention to next?
		
Click to expand...

shooting, as has been said. As someone who works my dogs on shoots hunting is providing a buffer at the moment.


----------



## YorksG (19 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			Yes I have seen the odd post relating to sabbing shoots on facebook. Athough for now hunts seem to be taking the lion's share of their attention, it does make you wonder where they will turn their attention to next?
		
Click to expand...

I have wondered why they don't take issue with fishing, a horribly cruel "sport" imo. I have my own theories as to why that may be...


----------



## Clodagh (19 January 2022)

YorksG said:



			I have wondered why they don't take issue with fishing, a horribly cruel "sport" imo. I have my own theories as to why that may be...
		
Click to expand...

Because it’s not a posh sport? Well at least the accessible fishermen tend not to be. 
I think though fishing does get sabbed sometimes. At the end of the day hunting gives all other sports breathing room.


----------



## palo1 (19 January 2022)

ycbm said:



			It beats me that you don't see what damage you do your cause by comments like this. 
.
		
Click to expand...

I genuinely don't understand your ire on this; I am both a dog owner and trail hunter, as well as livestock owner. Pet dogs cause far more problems than trail hounds so if you have an issue with hounds killing pets or wildlife (which would be absolutely reasonable) why on earth would you dismiss the larger issue of pet dogs? Pet dog owners have accidents, poor control , issues with aggression etc etc far more often and with far greater damage to far more people and property.  Why tolerate that more than the lesser issues caused by trail hounds? I am not dismissing those issues btw but trying to give a sense of proportion.  Is it because you just want to make more of trail hunting issues?


----------



## ycbm (19 January 2022)

I don't have any ire, just puzzlement and sadness. 

My sadness is that you can't see damage you do to your cause by the statements you make. In pure PR terms,  correct or not,  they are disastrous.  
.


----------



## ycbm (19 January 2022)

YorksG said:



			I have wondered why they don't take issue with fishing, a horribly cruel "sport" imo. I have my own theories as to why that may be...
		
Click to expand...

Because for now they have more obvious fish to fry.  Hunting will go.  Shooting will be next.  Then they'll start on fishing or possibly racing. 
.


----------



## meleeka (19 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Obviously hounds unaccompanied on roads or straying onto railways is not ideal and is obviously unplanned.
		
Click to expand...

“Not ideal” is an odd phrase to use and sounds like you are trivialising it.  It’s a lot worse then “not ideal”.  It’s dangerous and putting peoples lives at risk.


----------



## Gallop_Away (19 January 2022)

ycbm said:



			Because for now they have more obvious fish to fry.  Hunting will go.  Shooting will be next.  Then they'll start on fishing or possibly racing.
.
		
Click to expand...

Completely agree shooting and fishing will be next as the more obvious choices, but I definitely think racing and possibly dairy/meat farming will also need to watch their backs.


----------



## palo1 (19 January 2022)

ycbm said:



			I don't have any ire, just puzzlement and sadness.

My sadness is that you can't see damage you do to your cause by the statements you make. In pure PR terms,  correct or not,  they are disastrous. 
.
		
Click to expand...

That just confirms what many hunting people have known for years; the facts don't trouble anti hunters and sabs! The anti hunt movement was premised on cruelty and lack of necessity; neither of which could be evidenced in any enquiry. So without having the weight of evidence for their raison d'etre the mission had to creep. There is no place for vigilantism in a democracy; that leads to a dangerous mob culture, every time. Stick to the facts or we all risk discrimination, attack, loss of freedom and the diminution of the democracy we value. That won't just affect field sports and farming.


----------



## ycbm (19 January 2022)

palo1 said:



			That just confirms what many hunting people have known for years; the facts don't trouble anti hunters and sabs! The anti hunt movement was premised on cruelty and lack of necessity; neither of which could be evidenced in any enquiry. So without having the weight of evidence for their raison d'etre the mission had to creep. There is no place for vigilantism in a democracy; that leads to a dangerous mob culture, every time. Stick to the facts or we all risk discrimination, attack, loss of freedom and the diminution of the democracy we value. That won't just affect field sports and farming.
		
Click to expand...

You are walking blindly into completely losing the sport you love. 
.


----------



## Chianti (19 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			Completely agree shooting and fishing will be next as the more obvious choices, but I definitely think racing and possibly dairy/meat farming will also need to watch their backs.
		
Click to expand...

I imagine in the fairly near future our relationship with many animals will be completely different. Just as we're now appalled by bear baiting I think the idea of breeding birds, keeping them in captivity, and then forcibly moving them towards a line of people with shotguns will be equally unacceptable. We're increasingly aware of the emotional awareness of animals towards each other, and us, and we have to start to acknowledge that in our relationships with them.


----------



## palo1 (19 January 2022)

ycbm said:



			You are walking blindly into completely losing the sport you love.
.
		
Click to expand...

No, I am not - I am doing everything I can to support legal trail hunting.  I don't know why you would suggest otherwise but hey ho...


----------



## ycbm (19 January 2022)

palo1 said:



			. I don't know why you would suggest otherwise but hey ho...
		
Click to expand...

That's kind of the point.  For months and months on various threads I and others have advised what you need to do to save your sport and you have not listened to,  or it seems tried to understand,  one word of it.  
.


----------



## ycbm (19 January 2022)

Chianti said:



			I imagine in the fairly near future our relationship with many animals will be completely different. Just as we're now appalled by bear baiting I think the idea of breeding birds, keeping them in captivity, and then forcibly moving them towards a line of people with shotguns will be equally unacceptable. We're increasingly aware of the emotional awareness of animals towards each other, and us, and we have to start to acknowledge that in our relationships with them.
		
Click to expand...

This this this. 

It was reported recently that goldfish have been trained to drive a fish tank through an obstacle course to obtain a reward.  There is video if anyone wants to look for it. 

Animals are way more aware than we have given them credit for. We are learning that fast now and need to adapt to the new knowledge.  

Any yes,  I am prepared to give up riding if it proves to be more detrimental than beneficial to the horse.  
.


----------



## Gallop_Away (19 January 2022)

Chianti said:



			I imagine in the fairly near future our relationship with many animals will be completely different. Just as we're now appalled by bear baiting I think the idea of breeding birds, keeping them in captivity, and then forcibly moving them towards a line of people with shotguns will be equally unacceptable. We're increasingly aware of the emotional awareness of animals towards each other, and us, and we have to start to acknowledge that in our relationships with them.
		
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong there are many things involving how we treat animals that could change for the better. 
I don't disagree with that view. I respect that people may hold whatever views they wish and while I may not agree with their opinion, it is their opinion which they are entitled to hold. 
What I disagree with is when people try to force their opinions on others via violence and harassment in the way sabs have targeted hunting. There is a difference between voicing your opinions and campaigning for change peacefully, and acting as vigilantes taking the law into your own hands.


----------



## The Fuzzy Furry (19 January 2022)

ycbm said:



			That's kind of the point.  For months and months on various threads I and others have advised what you need to do to save your sport and you have not listened to,  or it seems tried to understand,  one word of it.  
.
		
Click to expand...

Just read that back as another poster, you make it sound as if palo1 is completely responsible for hunting of all types, illegal and illegal. 
Surely you can understand someone defending a legal activity they take part in? You really make it appear that you are holding palo1 utterly responsible for the lot.
Those who go legally trail hunting are in the main very much against illegal activities, please can you just step back and look again at some of your posts ycbm as you really do appear to have the knife in to her.
Thank you  🙂


----------



## Miss_Millie (19 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			Don't get me wrong there are many things involving how we treat animals that could change for the better.
I don't disagree with that view. I respect that people may hold whatever views they wish and while I may not agree with their opinion, it is their opinion which they are entitled to hold.
*What I disagree with is when people try to force their opinions on others via violence and harassment in the way sabs have targeted hunting.* There is a difference between voicing your opinions and campaigning for change peacefully, and acting as vigilantes taking the law into your own hands.
		
Click to expand...

Whilst I appreciate what you are saying and I never agree with violence, I think that many people who have become saboteurs have taken this direct action because they are quite frankly fed up with hunts breaking the law every. single. damn. year. And somehow continuing to get away with it, with little to no punishment.

I feel sick every time I read the news of another fox killed, another cat killed, a calf chased to exhaustion, fences cut and land trespassed across destroying farmer's crops. The entitlement and the lack of consideration for others absolutely astounds me. The man exercising the hounds, who then killed a cat sat on someone's driveway, which he then proceeded to throw over the garden fence (thankfully all captured on someone's door cam opposite) - that sums it up for me.

If every hunt behaved impeccably then people would not feel so fed up as to revert to direct action. And yes, I know that many sabs are badly behaved. I am not a sab, but I can see why people would feel driven to taking direct action because fox hunting is meant to be illegal and yet it is still happening, all of the time.

I would feel hugely relieved to see hunting banned because unless there is some kind of huge crackdown on illegal hunting from within the governing bodies themselves, I don't see that things will ever change.


----------



## Chianti (19 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			Don't get me wrong there are many things involving how we treat animals that could change for the better.
I don't disagree with that view. I respect that people may hold whatever views they wish and while I may not agree with their opinion, it is their opinion which they are entitled to hold.
What I disagree with is when people try to force their opinions on others via violence and harassment in the way sabs have targeted hunting. There is a difference between voicing your opinions and campaigning for change peacefully, and acting as vigilantes taking the law into your own hands.
		
Click to expand...

I completely agree with that. Given the numerous examples of poor hunt behaviour I don't think it's unreasonable that they are monitored but this needs to be done peacefully.


----------



## YorksG (19 January 2022)

Miss_Millie said:



			Whilst I appreciate what you are saying and I never agree with violence, I think that many people who have become saboteurs have taken this direct action because they are quite frankly fed up with hunts breaking the law every. single. damn. year. And somehow continuing to get away with it, with little to no punishment.

I feel sick every time I read the news of another fox killed, another cat killed, a calf chased to exhaustion, fences cut and land trespassed across destroying farmer's crops. The entitlement and the lack of consideration for others absolutely astounds me. The man exercising the hounds, who then killed a cat sat on someone's driveway, which he then proceeded to throw over the garden fence (thankfully all captured on someone's door cam opposite) - that sums it up for me.

If every hunt behaved impeccably then people would not feel so fed up as to revert to direct action. And yes, I know that many sabs are badly behaved. I am not a sab, but I can see why people would feel driven to taking direct action because fox hunting is meant to be illegal and yet it is still happening, all of the time.

I would feel hugely relieved to see hunting banned because unless there is some kind of huge crackdown on illegal hunting from within the governing bodies themselves, I don't see that things will ever change.
		
Click to expand...

But sabbing was very much in vogue prior to the hunting act. With a great deal of violence and attempted intimidation.So your argument doesn't stand up, I'm afraid


----------



## palo1 (19 January 2022)

ycbm said:



			That's kind of the point.  For months and months on various threads I and others have advised what you need to do to save your sport and you have not listened to,  or it seems tried to understand,  one word of it. 
.
		
Click to expand...

That is one of the funniest things I have heard in days!!  Thanks for raising a smile@ycbm.  I understand what you are getting at and I am prepared, along with other trail hunters, to listen to opposing views and advice but that has to come from a place of knowledge and willingness to listen, discuss and negotiate.


----------



## Clodagh (19 January 2022)

These seems to be a good idea. I’ve no idea what it’s chances are. As for the deer tracking I would have thought that it would be easy enough to put an exemption in place?
The tracking of a wounded deer with a dog is a clear welfare need.


----------



## palo1 (19 January 2022)

Miss_Millie said:



			Whilst I appreciate what you are saying and I never agree with violence, I think that many people who have become saboteurs have taken this direct action because they are quite frankly fed up with hunts breaking the law every. single. damn. year. And somehow continuing to get away with it, with little to no punishment.

I feel sick every time I read the news of another fox killed, another cat killed, a calf chased to exhaustion, fences cut and land trespassed across destroying farmer's crops. The entitlement and the lack of consideration for others absolutely astounds me. The man exercising the hounds, who then killed a cat sat on someone's driveway, which he then proceeded to throw over the garden fence (thankfully all captured on someone's door cam opposite) - that sums it up for me.

If every hunt behaved impeccably then people would not feel so fed up as to revert to direct action. And yes, I know that many sabs are badly behaved. I am not a sab, but I can see why people would feel driven to taking direct action because fox hunting is meant to be illegal and yet it is still happening, all of the time.

I would feel hugely relieved to see hunting banned because unless there is some kind of huge crackdown on illegal hunting from within the governing bodies themselves, I don't see that things will ever change.
		
Click to expand...

But in this post you do seem to be justifying violence and intimidation 'because they are quite frankly fed up...'   

I am seriously, quite frankly fed up with pet dogs harassing our sheep and hill ponies, chasing me on my horse and crapping where children play but I don't don a balaclava and start threatening other dog owners and finding any reason to cause trouble (I mean I could check everyone's tax disc and film them shouting at, smacking and yanking on their dogs leads after all...).  After lots of dogs misbehave so perhaps all dog owners should be forced to stay on their property in case they do something wrong.  Perhaps I will shout at their children too to make sure they know how I feel about the whole thing...


----------



## palo1 (19 January 2022)

Clodagh said:



			These seems to be a good idea. I’ve no idea what it’s chances are. As for the deer tracking I would have thought that it would be easy enough to put an exemption in place?
The tracking of a wounded deer with a dog is a clear welfare need.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think there should be an issue with changing the scent used tbh though many would disagree with me.  I am sure there is some kind of scent which could be either diluted or found good enough to replicate the challenges of the natural one.   There are issues with tracking wounded deer though I think that exemption will/would be hugely unpopular and likely misunderstood.


----------



## Tiddlypom (19 January 2022)

To be clear, I'm hoping that we all agree that peaceful and non trespassing hunt monitors are not classified as 'vigilantes'?

Vigilantes are sabs?


----------



## CanteringCarrot (19 January 2022)

palo1 said:



			But in this post you do seem to be justifying violence and intimidation 'because they are quite frankly fed up...'  

I am seriously, quite frankly fed up with pet dogs harassing our sheep and hill ponies, chasing me on my horse and crapping where children play but I don't don a balaclava and start threatening other dog owners and finding any reason to cause trouble (I mean I could check everyone's tax disc and film them shouting at, smacking and yanking on their dogs leads after all...).  After lots of dogs misbehave so perhaps all dog owners should be forced to stay on their property in case they do something wrong.  Perhaps I will shout at their children too to make sure they know how I feel about the whole thing...
		
Click to expand...

No one is justifying violence, or speaking of the reason behind it. Just as you previously spoke about the reason(s) behind illegal hunting/why people may do it. So, were you justifying illegal hunting then? 🙄 

Are you trying to justify illegal activity and/or unruly behavior by hunts/hound by saying "so what, dogs and their owners do xyz."

I mean, if we want to spin things and grasp at straws...


----------



## Miss_Millie (19 January 2022)

palo1 said:



			But in this post you do seem to be justifying violence and intimidation 'because they are quite frankly fed up...'  

I am seriously, quite frankly fed up with pet dogs harassing our sheep and hill ponies, chasing me on my horse and crapping where children play but I don't don a balaclava and start threatening other dog owners and finding any reason to cause trouble (I mean I could check everyone's tax disc and film them shouting at, smacking and yanking on their dogs leads after all...).  After lots of dogs misbehave so perhaps all dog owners should be forced to stay on their property in case they do something wrong.  Perhaps I will shout at their children too to make sure they know how I feel about the whole thing...
		
Click to expand...

I literally said in my first sentence that I never agree with violence 

If you read one of my posts from earlier today, I said that I got attacked by two dogs last year. One was a farmer's border collie that went from me when I was walking along a marked footpath, it was sat on the drive of the farmhouse, I was a good 30 metres away and yet it decided it wanted to attack me. The other was a mastiff type dog that was loose in the suburbs, I crossed the road to avoid it and it chased me across the road into oncoming traffic. I would be very very happy for there to be tighter laws on dog ownership, dogs on leads at all times would stop many needless attacks on both humans and animals.

The above does not change the fact that hunting hounds are killing people's cats, horses and livestock every single year. This thread is about hunting so that is the focus of the discussion. Hunting is an organised sport and as far as I can see, it is the only organised sport that frequently results in trespass and the killing of other's animals. If you want to make another thread about people's pet dogs causing issues then feel free, I have plenty of tales to tell.


----------



## palo1 (19 January 2022)

CanteringCarrot said:



			No one is justifying violence, or speaking of the reason behind it. Just as you previously spoke about the reason(s) behind illegal hunting/why people may do it. So, were you justifying illegal hunting then? 🙄

Are you trying to justify illegal activity and/or unruly behavior by hunts/hound by saying "so what, dogs and their owners do xyz."

I mean, if we want to spin things and grasp at straws...
		
Click to expand...

No, I didn't intend to suggest that. @Miss_Millie 's post did feel like a kind of justification for sab behaviour but I accept that she has repeatedly said she wouldn't support violence and there are reasons why people behave the way they do so I get the explanation. I was trying to convey the sense in which sabbing or monitoring is so extraordinary and so extreme in a civil society where we are generally bound by the rule of law, which is enforced by the police force and in virtually any other potentially 'criminal' situation (for  example drink driving, drug dealing) it is not acceptable for sabs/vigilantes to take matters into their own hands.   I am regularly just gobsmacked by how people tolerate this kind of behaviour over trail hunting (which is clearly divisive) when there is a law in place to deal with it.  I am well aware of the awfulness of that law too but masked, camera'ed groups of people 'monitoring' a legal activity??? When, truly did that become reasonable?


----------



## ycbm (19 January 2022)

The Fuzzy Furry said:



			You really make it appear that you are holding palo1 utterly responsible for the lot.
		
Click to expand...

Of course I'm not.  But she is the voice on this forum which echos all the other voices out there who speak and write in the same way,  and she is the only one I have available to answer.  

"You" is almost always meant to mean "those who are in a position to make changes that will allow hunting to survive".

Nobody seems to be listening and the sport will die if they don't. 
.


----------



## Gallop_Away (19 January 2022)

Miss_Millie said:



			I literally said in my first sentence that I never agree with violence 

If you read one of my posts from earlier today, I said that I got attacked by two dogs last year. One was a farmer's border collie that went from me when I was walking along a marked footpath, it was sat on the drive of the farmhouse, I was a good 30 metres away and yet it decided it wanted to attack me. The other was a mastiff type dog that was loose in the suburbs, I crossed the road to avoid it and it chased me across the road into oncoming traffic. I would be very very happy for there to be tighter laws on dog ownership, dogs on leads at all times would stop many needless attacks on both humans and animals.

The above does not change the fact that hunting hounds are killing people's cats, horses and livestock every single year. This thread is about hunting so that is the focus of the discussion. Hunting is an organised sport and as far as I can see, it is the only organised sport that frequently results in trespass and the killing of other's animals. If you want to make another thread about people's pet dogs causing issues then feel free, I have plenty of tales to tell.
		
Click to expand...

But we are not just talking about illegal hunts being sabbed. Legal ones are also being harassed by sabs.
Ok I could take your point that they take issue with illegal hunting, but as someone else has pointed out, sabs existed before the ban. Whether you agree with hunting or not, at that time it was legal.
My argument is therefore if we allow people to continue to take the law into their own hands because they are "fed up" where can we draw the line? The fact is sabs would sab hunts regardless of whether it was illegal or not.
Now there are many controversial activities that include animals that they could also take offence at. Racing is an example. Many horses are killed in the racing industry either directly through racing or once they have finished racing and sent to slaughter. But racing is not illegal. Would it be OK for a group of sabs to rock up at the local point to point and intimidate/hurl abuse at spectators and jockeys/owners?
My point is that it is not the place of members of the public to uphold the law. Nor is it acceptable to force your opinion on someone else through intimidation. My worry is if hunting is finished, sabs then turn their attention to other areas that are not illegal and the argument that they are "fed up of the law being flouted" then goes clean out of the window. It's just people who have a moral objection forcing their views onto others through violence.


----------



## ycbm (19 January 2022)

Is there anyone who regularly hunts legally on this forum who accepts that their hunt needs to move away from using fox scent for the trails? 

I don't think I have heard a single person say so.  
.


----------



## Sandstone1 (19 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			But we are not just talking about illegal hunts being sabbed. Legal ones are also being harassed by sabs.
Ok I could take your point that they take issue with illegal hunting, but as someone else has pointed out, sabs existed before the ban. Whether you agree with hunting or not, at that time it was legal.
My argument is therefore if we allow people to continue to take the law into their own hands because they are "fed up" where can we draw the line? The fact is sabs would sab hunts regardless of whether it was illegal or not.
Now there are many controversial activities that include animals that they could also take offence at. Racing is an example. Many horses are killed in the racing industry either directly through racing or once they have finished racing and sent to slaughter. But racing is not illegal. Would it be OK for a group of sabs to rock up at the local point to point and intimidate/hurl abuse at spectators and jockeys/owners?
My point is that it is not the place of members of the public to uphold the law. Nor is it acceptable to force your opinion on someone else through intimidation. My worry is if hunting is finished, sabs then turn their attention to other areas that are not illegal and the argument that they are "fed up of the law being flouted" then goes clean out of the window. It's just people who have a moral objection forcing their views onto others through violence.
		
Click to expand...

Going by what you think then,  Nothing would ever change.  At one time it was legal to send small children up chimneys and dog fighting was a sport.  Just because something is legal does not make it right and people have a right to protest about things they do not agree with.


----------



## palo1 (19 January 2022)

ycbm said:



			Is there anyone who regularly hunts legally on this forum who accepts that their hunt needs to move away from using fox scent for the trails?

I don't think I have heard a single person say so. 
.
		
Click to expand...

I literally just replied to @Clodagh that I couldn't see a problem with that at all!  Most people I know would accept that though it would be better if that wasn't forced on them.   The scent of dead fox is not the same as that of a live fox and anyone working with a scent hound would know that.  The scent is not so important as the quality of the work produced by hounds but as I have said before, because of the nature of the Hunting Act and it's process, hanging on to the scent of fox became a sacred cow.  That isn't my fault actually.


----------



## YorksG (19 January 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Going by what you think then,  Nothing would ever change.  At one time it was legal to send small children up chimneys and dog fighting was a sport.  Just because something is legal does not make it right and people have a right to protest about things they do not agree with.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed, but I'm not aware of anyone gathering in large groups to use violence against people who were employing children. I am aware of people who campaigned and worked to have the laws around child labour changed, such as Richard Oastler.
The argument between the suffragettes and the suffragists was one of whether violence should be used, or not.


----------



## Sandstone1 (19 January 2022)

YorksG said:



			Indeed, but I'm not aware of anyone gathering in large groups to use violence against people who were employing children. I am aware of people who campaigned and worked to have the laws around child labour changed, such as Richard Oastler.
The argument between the suffragettes and the suffragists was one of whether violence should be used, or not.
		
Click to expand...

People did campaign against hunting for years until it was made illegal but still it goes on...


----------



## Gallop_Away (19 January 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Going by what you think then,  Nothing would ever change.  At one time it was legal to send small children up chimneys and dog fighting was a sport.  Just because something is legal does not make it right and people have a right to protest about things they do not agree with.
		
Click to expand...

Did you even bother to read a word that I have said?  Of course being legal doesn't make something right, and people absolutely have every right to protest against something they feel is wrong....but PEACEFULLY! Not protest through violence and intimidation to force their views onto others.

My previous post below: 



Gallop_Away said:



			No one should be allowed to make their point through intimidation and violence. I think people have the absolute right to make their views known via peaceful means, but that does not mean taking the law into your own hands
		
Click to expand...


----------



## ycbm (19 January 2022)

palo1 said:



			Most people I know would accept that though it would be better if that wasn't forced on them.
		
Click to expand...

But they don't seem able to accept it until it is. 

So that's a no, in my book.


----------



## palo1 (19 January 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			People did campaign against hunting for years until it was made illegal but still it goes on...
		
Click to expand...

The campaigning never resulted in consensus though did it? The Act was not possible through a full democratic process and we live in a democracy.  There are many imperfect things but a law was created and that should be, like other laws, subject to the normal processes and not at the whim of extremists, who ironically wanted the law that they now say is inadequate.


----------



## palo1 (19 January 2022)

ycbm said:



			But they don't seem able to accept it untill it is.

So that's a no, in my book.
		
Click to expand...

You really are being awkward.  I said quite clearly I have no problem with a proposed change of scent.


----------



## palo1 (19 January 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			People did campaign against hunting for years until it was made illegal but still it goes on...
		
Click to expand...

So does drink driving, modern slavery, drug dealing - but no-one will countenance the use of vigilantes to deal with those very serious crimes.


----------



## Tiddlypom (19 January 2022)

People shop drink drivers in all the time...

Ditto drug dealers.


----------



## Gallop_Away (19 January 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			People shop drink drivers in all the time...

Ditto drug dealers.
		
Click to expand...

By reporting them to the police....not by standing outside the local pub wearing a mask and threatening people as they leave.....


----------



## Sandstone1 (19 January 2022)

palo1 said:



			So does drink driving, modern slavery, drug dealing - but no-one will countenance the use of vigilantes to deal with those very serious crimes.
		
Click to expand...

I am not getting in to yet another pointless round of arguing as we will never agree on this matter but I will just say that a group of sabs had their tyres slashed today.  Wonder who did that?  Also there is still the case of the sab ran down on a public footpath by a group of riders.  Not to mention the case of the terrier man stabbing a fox with a pitchfork and the woman filmed hitting her horse round the head.  I could go on but I wont bother as you are so blind as to what goes on that there is simply no point...


----------



## The Fuzzy Furry (19 January 2022)

ycbm said:



			Of course I'm not.  But she is the voice on this forum which echos all the other voices out there who speak and write in the same way,  and she is the only one I have available to answer.
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps then think about the way you are haranguing?  I find it is getting quite offensive, way way more than your usual nit picking.




ycbm said:



			Nobody seems to be listening and the sport will die if they don't. 
.
		
Click to expand...

This forum has very little traffic regarding this subject (apart from less than a dozen posters),  can I suggest you point your energies towards those who are in the organisations? 🙂


----------



## Gallop_Away (19 January 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			I am not getting in to yet another pointless round of arguing as we will never agree on this matter but I will just say that a group of sabs had their tyres slashed today.  Wonder who did that?  Also there is still the case of the sab ran down on a public footpath by a group of riders.  Not to mention the case of the terrier man stabbing a fox with a pitchfork and the woman filmed hitting her horse round the head.  I could go on but I wont bother as you are so blind as to what goes on that there is simply no point...
		
Click to expand...

Which I do not condone at all and is equally appalling....however it's not really relevant to what we are currently discussing


----------



## Koweyka (19 January 2022)

Well the Lamerton Hunt have killed a fox today and so have the South Shropshire Hunt, they  have killed a fox and attacked a dog out being walked.

Thats your “trail hunting” that’s the lie and while you are out murdering wildlife so you can pursue your pathetic illegal hobby you will be sabbed and monitored until the trail hunt smokescreen is consigned to history. We will never ever stop.


----------



## Koweyka (19 January 2022)

Trail Hunting 2022


----------



## Gallop_Away (19 January 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Well the Lamerton Hunt have killed a fox today and so have the South Shropshire Hunt, they  have killed a fox and attacked a dog out being walked.

Thats your “trail hunting” that’s the lie and while you are out murdering wildlife so you can pursue your pathetic illegal hobby you will be sabbed and monitored until the trail hunt smokescreen is consigned to history. We will never ever stop.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry perhaps I've missed something but who exactly is the "you" you are referring to here?


----------



## The Fuzzy Furry (19 January 2022)

Koweyka said:



			<snip>
so you can pursue your pathetic illegal hobby you will be sabbed and monitored until the trail hunt smokescreen is consigned to history. We will never ever stop.
		
Click to expand...

Monitoring is fine,  to saboteur is not.  'Sabs' cost me a lot of money a good number of years ago, the legal punishment didn't meet the crime.

Saboteur is a noun that is fairly new to the English language; it was first used in the early 1900s, and it refers to a person who deliberately destroys or obstructs something.


----------



## Koweyka (19 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			Sorry perhaps I've missed something but who exactly is the "you" you are referring to here?
		
Click to expand...

Anyone whose head the cap fits.


----------



## palo1 (19 January 2022)

The Fuzzy Furry said:



			Perhaps then think about the way you are haranguing?  I find it is getting quite offensive, way way more than your usual nit picking.



This forum has very little traffic regarding this subject (apart from less than a dozen posters),  can I suggest you point your energies towards those who are in the organisations? 🙂
		
Click to expand...

There are clearly a few posters on this forum that get a particular kick out of haranguing others whilst failing utterly to engage in any of the discussion; I don't  know why tbh as most people who are clearly supporting legal trail hunting on this thread really try to explain and discuss their viewpoint rather than just batter away with one idea and one narrative without trying to explore other experiences and ideas.  It is massively frustrating and occasionally offensive! I have felt a bit targeted at times so I do appreciate other people giving their input too; I know there are other people who support trail hunting but can't face the 'tone' of some posters here on the forum.  That is a shame but not unexpected and I really don't blame them one bit!!  If this was a pub or other RL discussion I would have been out the door several years ago lol!!


----------



## paddy555 (19 January 2022)

well Saturday afternoon is going to be great for my chaps. We are in the middle of a "pincer" attack. Shoot will be coming in on direction only a field away and the hunt coming from the other direction. 

I know some people get lots of pleasure from all this killing but I am just fed up having to live  with it.


----------



## AFishOutOfWater (19 January 2022)

paddy555 said:



			well Saturday afternoon is going to be great for my chaps. We are in the middle of a "pincer" attack. Shoot will be coming in on direction only a field away and the hunt coming from the other direction.

I know some people get lots of pleasure from all this killing but I am just fed up having to live  with it.
		
Click to expand...

really hope your animals will be ok paddy. we get it too in that way and it costs an awful lot in sedative for the horses and the dogs.


----------



## Miss_Millie (19 January 2022)

paddy555 said:



			well Saturday afternoon is going to be great for my chaps. We are in the middle of a "pincer" attack. Shoot will be coming in on direction only a field away and the hunt coming from the other direction.

I know some people get lots of pleasure from all this killing but I am just fed up having to live  with it.
		
Click to expand...

That sounds very stressful Paddy, I hope that your animals will be okay


----------



## paddy555 (19 January 2022)

Miss_Millie said:



			That sounds very stressful Paddy, I hope that your animals will be okay 

Click to expand...

thanks. Only good news is there is only one  more Saturday after this for the shoot.


----------



## Tiddlypom (19 January 2022)

It would be especially stressful if you have the double whammy of a shoot and a hunt nearby on the same day, and animals to care for during it all.

Don't shoots and hunts usually try and avoid each other?

Luckily we don't have any game bird shoots near enough to us to cause us bother.


----------



## AFishOutOfWater (19 January 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			It would be especially stressful if you have the double whammy of a shoot and a hunt nearby on the same day, and animals to care for during it all.

Don't shoots and hunts usually try and avoid each other?

Luckily we don't have any game bird shoots near enough to us to cause us bother.
		
Click to expand...

In my experience there is usually no coordination between the two. It may be different elsewhere but here they are run totally separately, although our 'local' hunt isn't actually very local and doesn't often come this far over - maybe only 2 or 3 times in a year.


----------



## YorksG (19 January 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			It would be especially stressful if you have the double whammy of a shoot and a hunt nearby on the same day, and animals to care for during it all.

Don't shoots and hunts usually try and avoid each other?

Luckily we don't have any game bird shoots near enough to us to cause us bother.
		
Click to expand...

In much the same way as local cycle clubs don't Co ordinate with local riding clubs, given that the two pastimes have very few points of contact


----------



## Fred66 (19 January 2022)

Snail said:



			In my experience there is usually no coordination between the two. It may be different elsewhere but here they are run totally separately, although our 'local' hunt isn't actually very local and doesn't often come this far over - maybe only 2 or 3 times in a year.
		
Click to expand...

Whilst round us the hunt is always made aware of shoot locations and timings to ensure trails are not laid into the line of fire and that the shoots are not disrupted. The last thing you want is a landowner withdrawing permission for disrupting their business.


----------



## paddy555 (19 January 2022)

ours don't usually clash just seems to be this one. The hunt I can work out their route but the shoot doesn't seem to have any logic and we have no idea what time of the day they could appear or sometimes they appear twice or we wait all day and they then the firing starts near us when it is almost dark. Still at least this year they have stopped firing with the shot landing on our roofs or on me which is an improvement. 
Only 2 more Saturdays of bird killing, can't wait for it to be over.


----------



## stangs (20 January 2022)

paddy555 said:



			Only 2 more Saturdays of bird killing, can't wait for it to be over.
		
Click to expand...

Neither can the birds


----------



## Tiddlypom (20 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Whilst round us the hunt is always made aware of shoot locations and timings to ensure trails are not laid into the line of fire and that the shoots are not disrupted. The last thing you want is a landowner withdrawing permission for disrupting their business.
		
Click to expand...

That sounds sensible - the two pastimes ought to liaise with each other or it could get messy.

Shooting is the sport that brings in the revenue so I imagine that it gets first dib of the dates.


----------



## Fellewell (20 January 2022)

paddy555 said:



			Yes, I should have explained. No it's not acceptable of course but that's the problem with hunts advertising their whereabouts. For me a trail hunt is about watching hounds work. It's a marathon rather than a sprint unlike a drag hunt so beloved of the thrusters, where the scent is artificial but the hunt is shorter and for hounds it's more eyes than nose. Trail hunts are more nose to the ground but hounds know they're not following a live scent so when sabs turn up hours beforehand and put down scent dullers and false trails they're doing more harm than good and quite possibly facilitating a kill. The hunt trail layers know where they can go, the huntsman and whippers-in know where they should be but the hounds obviously don't. Fox scent is long lasting and very pungent and quarry based scent is always preferable to the hounds but like any other scent it is very susceptible to environmental conditions so my argument is give them all a fighting chance to stay legal and don't disrupt the hounds.
		
Click to expand...

sorry FW that quote hasn't worked well.
there are 2 sides to it. Firstly whilst it is your right to legally trail hunt it is also the right of animal owners to keep their animals in their fields. It is up to the hunt to make sure they are not disrupting these animal owners with their activities so those animals eg Barney can graze in peace or be stabled to protect them. The hunt trail layers know where they are laying the trail. They know (or most certainly should know) where the animal owners and their animals are. There is no reason why the hunt cannot contact them either by phone or text to advise of the forthcoming activity. If the hunt are unwilling to do this then it says to those animal keepers that the hunt's day out is far more important than our animals are. That is wrong.

Secondly whilst I appreciate that hounds don't know the trail route that doesn't mean they should stray onto private land. Somehow or other the huntsman has a responsibility to prevent that from happening. I appreciate that if he is trying to hunt with sabs disrupting things then it may not be easy but it is no excuse. The argument is between the sabs and the hunt. The private landowner does not come into it. Just because the sabs are disrupting the hunt doesn't mean the hunt should then allow their hounds onto someone's fields.[/QUOTE]

Have you had a word with the hunt secretary? I'm sure you'll find a sympathetic ear, it might cost you a couple of quid for a meet card but worth it I'd say. Also shoot managers have a code of conduct to follow, you should inform them about your horses.


----------



## paddy555 (20 January 2022)

Fellewell said:



			sorry FW that quote hasn't worked well.
there are 2 sides to it. Firstly whilst it is your right to legally trail hunt it is also the right of animal owners to keep their animals in their fields. It is up to the hunt to make sure they are not disrupting these animal owners with their activities so those animals eg Barney can graze in peace or be stabled to protect them. The hunt trail layers know where they are laying the trail. They know (or most certainly should know) where the animal owners and their animals are. There is no reason why the hunt cannot contact them either by phone or text to advise of the forthcoming activity. If the hunt are unwilling to do this then it says to those animal keepers that the hunt's day out is far more important than our animals are. That is wrong.

Secondly whilst I appreciate that hounds don't know the trail route that doesn't mean they should stray onto private land. Somehow or other the huntsman has a responsibility to prevent that from happening. I appreciate that if he is trying to hunt with sabs disrupting things then it may not be easy but it is no excuse. The argument is between the sabs and the hunt. The private landowner does not come into it. Just because the sabs are disrupting the hunt doesn't mean the hunt should then allow their hounds onto someone's fields.
		
Click to expand...

Have you had a word with the hunt secretary? I'm sure you'll find a sympathetic ear, it might cost you a couple of quid for a meet card but worth it I'd say. Also shoot managers have a code of conduct to follow, you should inform them about your horses.[/QUOTE]

the hunt don't have a meet card and the shoot are well aware I have horses however they have a right to shoot on their own land and I equally have a right to have my horses in the adjoining fields which are my land. Whilst I am aware which days they shoot I cannot keep the horses in because they are so close it is dangerous so they have to go out where they are safer and can run. Riding for us is out on shooting days as we don't know where they are. OH got caught in the middle of them on a public road. I went to rescue him when I saw what was going to happen. `I asked them to stop shooting  till he got home. They stopped for 1 minute then resumed, the horse took off down a steep hill on the road and ran for home 1/4mile away.. OH is an excellent rider. Anyone else may have been on the ground. 


In general you haven't addressed 2 more general points. First hunts not contacting animal keepers to advise they are going to be hunting close to their animals to give owners the chance to move them. If you have nothing to hide let people know.  Secondly keeping their hounds from straying onto private land. .


----------



## paddy555 (20 January 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			- the two pastimes ought to liaise with each other or it could get messy.

.
		
Click to expand...

we can always be hopeful.


----------



## Clodagh (20 January 2022)

I don’t see that either hunts or shoots should not go near anyone with private land. We all like to do what we want with our land and who are we to tell our neighbours how they should spend their time?
I don’t think there should ever be trespass by hunts or shoots to private land.


----------



## Tiddlypom (20 January 2022)

I think that Paddy555 has had an issue with shot landing on her property? That is specifically mentioned in the Code of Good Shooting Practice as something that should not happen.

https://www.gwct.org.uk/media/768987/CodeGoodSHootingPractice.pdf

_'Avoid birds and spent shot falling on to public places, roads and neighbouring property'_

Spent shot, apart from potentially terrifying horses if it lands on them, can cause serious eye injuries to man and beast - my late Dad had to treat such injuries in humans.


----------



## Clodagh (20 January 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			I think that Paddy555 has had an issue with shot landing on her property? That is specifically mentioned in the Code of Good Shooting Practice as something that should not happen.

https://www.gwct.org.uk/media/768987/CodeGoodSHootingPractice.pdf

_'Avoid birds and spent shot falling on to public places, roads and neighbouring property'_

Spent shot, apart from potentially terrifying horses if it lands on them, can cause serious eye injuries to man and beast - my late Dad had to treat such injuries in humans.
		
Click to expand...

Yes but I believe she spoke to the shoot and they stopped that.


----------



## Tiddlypom (20 January 2022)

There is (a lot) more in the Code of Good Shooting Practice. You'd hope it that was all common sense. What is it that they say about common sense - that it isn't common? Even if shooting takes place entirely on private land and with the full permission of the landowners, there are guidelines to be followed wrt others.

No shoot should be frightening horses being ridden past on a road or right of way.
_
• All involved in shooting must have regard for others and their safety at all times.

• The frequency of shooting must not give rise to unreasonable nuisance (particularly noise) to neighbours.

• Shoot managers and Guns must have special regard to the safety of riders and their horses. Noise from gunfire, beaters working in cover adjacent to bridleways or falling shot can alarm horses and endanger riders.

Shooting or beating should be paused to allow horses or other rights of way users to pass._


----------



## paddy555 (20 January 2022)

Clodagh said:



			Yes but I believe she spoke to the shoot and they stopped that.
		
Click to expand...

yes we had a little "chat" about that and to give them their due they have stopped firing so shot lands on the roofs.


----------



## paddy555 (20 January 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			There is (a lot) more in the Code of Good Shooting Practice. You'd hope it that was all common sense. What is it that they say about common sense - that it isn't common? Even if shooting takes place entirely on private land and with the full permission of the landowners, there are guidelines to be followed wrt others.

No shoot should be frightening horses being ridden past on a road or right of way.

_• All involved in shooting must have regard for others and their safety at all times._

_• The frequency of shooting must not give rise to unreasonable nuisance (particularly noise) to neighbours._

_• Shoot managers and Guns must have special regard to the safety of riders and their horses. Noise from gunfire, beaters working in cover adjacent to bridleways or falling shot can alarm horses and endanger riders._

_Shooting or beating should be paused to allow horses or other rights of way users to pass._

Click to expand...

all of those are fine in a perfect world but in areas that are too small just impossible. Shooting needs a lot of space. There is no getting away from gunfire when it is in surrounding fields and of course people have the right to hold their shoot just a much a someone has the right to have horses. 
When we asked the nearest person to the road to stop them firing so OH could get his horse past he did stop but he had no way of stopping the other guns who were all lined up across the field shooting down into the bottom of the field. We know him well, he wasn't being difficult he said he had no way of stopping them and nothing he could do. 

The problem is there are too many shoots on small areas, too many bridlepaths and roads through and around that land and too many horses. They just don't  mix.


----------



## Fellewell (21 January 2022)

paddy555 said:



			well Saturday afternoon is going to be great for my chaps. We are in the middle of a "pincer" attack. Shoot will be coming in on direction only a field away and the hunt coming from the other direction.

I know some people get lots of pleasure from all this killing but I am just fed up having to live  with it.
		
Click to expand...

To answer you without reposting lots of text:
You clearly have a point of contact with the hunt so perhaps you can start a dialogue and I'm sure your concerns can be addressed. As to hunts contacting everyone, it's unlikely that could happen, firstly due to logistics and secondly due to those who wish to use that information for nefarious means.
It sounds as though you don't want anybody near your boundaries. I think lockdown has made everyone a bit more territorial which is understandable.
Hunts really are up against it with NT refusing licences and councils being lobbied into issuing bans on land that wasn't even used by hunts. You probably think this is ok but I don't and we are never going to agree.


----------



## palo1 (21 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Whilst round us the hunt is always made aware of shoot locations and timings to ensure trails are not laid into the line of fire and that the shoots are not disrupted. The last thing you want is a landowner withdrawing permission for disrupting their business.
		
Click to expand...




palo1 said:



			There are clearly a few posters on this forum that get a particular kick out of haranguing others whilst failing utterly to engage in any of the discussion; I don't  know why tbh as most people who are clearly supporting legal trail hunting on this thread really try to explain and discuss their viewpoint rather than just batter away with one idea and one narrative without trying to explore other experiences and ideas.  It is massively frustrating and occasionally offensive! I have felt a bit targeted at times so I do appreciate other people giving their input too; I know there are other people who support trail hunting but can't face the 'tone' of some posters here on the forum.  That is a shame but not unexpected and I really don't blame them one bit!!  If this was a pub or other RL discussion I would have been out the door several years ago lol!!
		
Click to expand...

FB brought this article to my attention today: it seems pertinent to the way that opinion and virtue signalling can impact on facts and science.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...fforts-scientists-warn-trophy-hunting-dispute


----------



## Tiddlypom (21 January 2022)

Fellewell said:



			As to hunts contacting everyone, it's unlikely that could happen, firstly due to logistics and secondly due to those who wish to use that information for nefarious means.

Hunts really are up against it with NT refusing licences and councils being lobbied into issuing bans on land that wasn't even used by hunts. You probably think this is ok but I don't and we are never going to agree.
		
Click to expand...

Hunts are indeed under pressure, but this in no way makes it acceptable for them to rock up without pre warning local horse owners. Noone wants what  happened to the lovely Barney to happen to any other horse. Hunting is a minority sport that has to fit in with country life, not barrel on upsetting everyone.

As to logistics - it can be done. You need a good network of trusted volunteers who get to know all the locals who wish to have a meet card and a back up text when the hunt are coming. We had such a gem here, and she did sterling work. But she eventually got peed off by certain masters who didn't keep her in the loop, so she packed it in.

Quote from a master as said to me in conversation after yet another unexpected appearance 'I can't be expected to let everyone with an acre and a pony know that we are coming' 🙄. Helpful, eh? If you are unwilling to put the graft in, don't take on a mastership.

Well, actually everyone with an acre and a pony who wishes to be told when the hunt are coming absolutely should be told. You just need a decent system of disseminating out the information.

After meet cards were withdrawn here (though they have now been reinstated) , a hunt follower told me how landowners who used to get them, but now didn't, were coming out to shout at the hunt as they came by without warning upsetting their turned out horses. 'Why didn't you tell us that you were coming?' they shouted. Said hunt follower thought that it was a big mistake to stop notifying horse owners - it was p1ssing off a load of people who previously had no issue with the hunt.


----------



## ycbm (21 January 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Hunts are indeed under pressure, but this in no way makes it acceptable for them to rock up without pre warning local horse owners. Noone wants what  happened to the lovely Barney to happen to any other horse. Hunting is a minority sport that has to fit in with country life, not barrel on upsetting everyone.

As to logistics - it can be done. You need a good network of trusted volunteers who get to know all the locals who wish to have a meet card and a back up text when the hunt are coming. We had such a gem here, and she did sterling work. But she eventually got peed off by certain masters who didn't keep her in the loop, so she packed it in.

Quote from a master as said to me in conversation after yet another unexpected appearance 'I can't be expected to let everyone with an acre and a pony know that we are coming' 🙄. Helpful, eh? If you are unwilling to put the graft in, don't take on a mastership.

Well, actually everyone with an acre and a pony who wishes to be told when the hunt are coming absolutely should be told. You just need a decent system of disseminating out the information.

After meet cards were withdrawn here (though they have now been reinstated) , a hunt follower has told me how landowners who used to get them but now didn't were coming out to shout at the hunt as they came by without warning upsetting their turned out horses. 'Why didn't you tell us that you were coming?' they shouted. Said hunt follower thought that it was a big mistake to stop notifying horse owners - it was p1ssing off a load of people who previously had no issue with the hunt.
		
Click to expand...

Have they not heard of email? 
.


----------



## paddy555 (21 January 2022)

Fellewell said:



			. As to hunts contacting everyone, it's unlikely that could happen, firstly due to logistics and secondly due to those who wish to use that information for nefarious means.
It sounds as though you don't want anybody near your boundaries. 
.
		
Click to expand...

the hunts don't need to contact everyone. A simple public notice in the local press etc would do fine. Sorry, I forgot, they don't want people to know their whereabouts. 
No problem with them near  my boundaries more of a problem "inside" my boundaries.


----------



## Fred66 (21 January 2022)

…


----------



## Sandstone1 (22 January 2022)

They will not tell people where and when they are meeting because a lot of them are fox hunting. 
 The pro hunters on this thread may well be legally trail hunting and have nothing to hide but sadly that is not true for a lot of hunts that are illegally fox hunting.
My local hunt is one hundred per cent fox hunting.
If challenged they say a kill was a accident, they have accidents every week!
Maybe the hunters here are telling the truth and their hunts are following the law but this does not mean that other hunts are doing so.
Sabs will get the blame for many incidents and yes some sabs are not perfect but because of the actions of some hunts you are all being tarred with the same brush and until you all realise this and do something to stop illegal hunting then trail hunting is at risk from being banned too.    
My local hunt for example, hunts next to and along main roads.
They have been fined for trespassing on a railway line.
They hunt well in to the dark causing a real hazard for other road users.
They do not inform other horse owners when they will be in the area.
They have recently killed a deer.
They recently killed a fox at a childrens meet.
They and their foot followers cause a lot of disruption on local roads.
These are not isolated incidents, they happen pretty much every time the hunt is out.
The pro hunters here will spout lots of stuff saying the opposite, blaming sabs, saying their hunt does not hunt foxes, quoting endless reports etc etc.
The truth is illegal fox hunting IS going on.


----------



## Gallop_Away (22 January 2022)

We primarily use our landowners to notify locals. Afterall who knows the area and their neighbours better? Our masters also do their bit and between them it seems they get around everyone. 
We do have a meet card which did used to be public on the hunts Facebook page. However due to sab disruption it has been withdrawn from social media and is now only available via contacting the hunt secretary and masters directly.


----------



## Koweyka (22 January 2022)

We don’t need a meet card to find a hunt, it’s doing a disservice to local people not to warn them


Sandstone1 said:



			They will not tell people where and when they are meeting because a lot of them are fox hunting.
The pro hunters on this thread may well be legally trail hunting and have nothing to hide but sadly that is not true for a lot of hunts that are illegally fox hunting.
My local hunt is one hundred per cent fox hunting.
If challenged they say a kill was a accident, they have accidents every week!
Maybe the hunters here are telling the truth and their hunts are following the law but this does not mean that other hunts are doing so.
Sabs will get the blame for many incidents and yes some sabs are not perfect but because of the actions of some hunts you are all being tarred with the same brush and until you all realise this and do something to stop illegal hunting then trail hunting is at risk from being banned too.   
My local hunt for example, hunts next to and along main roads.
They have been fined for trespassing on a railway line.
They hunt well in to the dark causing a real hazard for other road users.
They do not inform other horse owners when they will be in the area.
They have recently killed a deer.
They recently killed a fox at a childrens meet.
They and their foot followers cause a lot of disruption on local roads.
These are not isolated incidents, they happen pretty much every time the hunt is out.
The pro hunters here will spout lots of stuff saying the opposite, blaming sabs, saying their hunt does not hunt foxes, quoting endless reports etc etc.
The truth is illegal fox hunting IS going on.
		
Click to expand...

I know your hunt, I don’t know how they are even allowed to leave the kennels, thank god for the Sabs that document all they do, hopefully they will go the same way as the Atherstone and fold. Probably the most revolting hunt in the country. 

I don’t understand all the secrecy about meet cards, it really does a disservice to the local landowners and not giving locals a chance to protect their horses and pets ….wow when you think that people have to do that so some people can go out for a jolly with a pack of dogs that have the potential to cause great harm.

We don’t need a meet card if we want to find a hunt there a trillion ways to do it, we have a list of people we contact and warn when the hunt is in their area, shocking that the antis do it and not the people causing the mayhem.


----------



## Tiddlypom (22 January 2022)

ycbm said:



			Have they not heard of email?
.
		
Click to expand...

Or a brief text - there is no need for a personal visit or a phone call to every horse owner, just a brief heads up.

This is the entirety of a text that I received one previous hunting day - it tells me all that I needed to know in order to get my horses in and generally prep for the hunt to be nearby. I don't need chapter and verse on the meet details.

_'Hi, the hunt may be in your area on Wednesday between 11 and three, thank you.'_

I always text straight back with a 'Thanks for letting me know'.  As Koweyka says, the antis always find out where the hunt is anyway, it's us poor residents who are the last to find out if we haven't been pre warned.


----------



## ycbm (22 January 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Or a brief text - there is no need for a personal visit or a phone call to every horse owner, just a brief heads up.

This is the entirety of a text that I received one previous hunting day - it tells me all that I needed to know in order to get my horses in and generally prep for the hunt to be nearby. I don't need chapter and verse on the meet details.

_'Hi, the hunt may be in your area on Wednesday between 11 and three, thank you.'_

I always text straight back with a 'Thanks for letting me know'.  As Koweyka says, the antis always find out where the hunt is anyway, it's us poor residents who are the last to find out if we haven't been pre warned.
		
Click to expand...


Yup, simple text and email lists will cover almost everyone. One text,  one email.   Phone call to the luddites.


----------



## Gallop_Away (22 January 2022)

Koweyka said:



			We don’t need a meet card to find a hunt, it’s doing a disservice to local people not to warn them


I know your hunt, I don’t know how they are even allowed to leave the kennels, thank god for the Sabs that document all they do, hopefully they will go the same way as the Atherstone and fold. Probably the most revolting hunt in the country.

I don’t understand all the secrecy about meet cards, it really does a disservice to the local landowners and not giving locals a chance to protect their horses and pets ….wow when you think that people have to do that so some people can go out for a jolly with a pack of dogs that have the potential to cause great harm.

We don’t need a meet card if we want to find a hunt there a trillion ways to do it, we have a list of people we contact and warn when the hunt is in their area, shocking that the antis do it and not the people causing the mayhem.
		
Click to expand...

Well the blame solely lies at the feet of sabs for our meet cards no longer being available online. They're constant harassment and tresspass towards not only the hunt but also landowners themselves, the decision was made about 3 years ago to withdraw the meet list from social media.
They can be emailed via out hunt staff but they will vet who you are when you call to ask. 
Its not fool proof sabs still find us but I admit it did make a difference to the amount of meets sabs have disrupted since.


----------



## Koweyka (22 January 2022)

Yes yes yes, blame the Sabs for everything blah blah blah 

If hunts weren’t continually doing this, hunting wouldn’t have a sab problem.

https://fb.watch/aHzU40Tkwp/


----------



## ycbm (22 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			Well the blame solely lies at the feet of sabs for our meet cards no longer being available online.
		
Click to expand...

IMO, this blindness to reality is what will cause hunting to be lost altogether.  


.


----------



## paddy555 (22 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			Well the blame solely lies at the feet of sabs for our meet cards no longer being available online. They're constant harassment and tresspass towards not only the hunt but also landowners themselves, the decision was made about 3 years ago to withdraw the meet list from social media.
They can be emailed via out hunt staff but they will vet who you are when you call to ask.
Its not fool proof sabs still find us but I admit it did make a difference to the amount of meets sabs have disrupted since.
		
Click to expand...

so  you blame the sabs for not issuing meet cards but then you take it out on the rest of the population ie we won't tell you where we are so hard luck if your animals get hurt. 

The hunt "vet" who you are. So if you don't pass their vetting you are likely to have your animals disrupted. 

There are a lot of things people have problems with concerning the hunt. Straying hounds, lack of meet info, killing domestic pets, cruelty to foxes and possibly more. 
Top of the list however for many people who lump fox hunting and trail hunting in together is simply arrogance. 
Your post is a classic example. We may tell you or if we consider you unworthy we won't. 



Why should landowners have to notify locals? what if they are unable to for some reason. It is up to the hunt to take responsibility to make sure everyone knows and can take action if required. 

If they are trail hunting that should not be an onerous task. They are following a trail, they know where the trail is and only so many animal owners along the way.


----------



## YorksG (22 January 2022)

If we have a large ride out, from our riding club, should we tell everyone whose property we ride alongside?


----------



## CanteringCarrot (22 January 2022)

Just let the law take care of the Sabs? Just like the law is supposed to take care of illegal hunting and/or illegal acts commited by hunts. 

Right?


----------



## CanteringCarrot (22 January 2022)

YorksG said:



			If we have a large ride out, from our riding club, should we tell everyone whose property we ride alongside?
		
Click to expand...

That's not the same though. I get your point that you're trying to make, but a large ride out from the riding club is not the same as a hunt.


----------



## YorksG (22 January 2022)

CanteringCarrot said:



			That's not the same though. I get your point that you're trying to make, but a large ride out from the riding club is not the same as a hunt.
		
Click to expand...

But if it isn't entering your property, the hunt and it's followers have no obligation to tell you that they will be in the area, I'm really quite amazed that people believe that they have a right to know what other people intend to do on land that the person complaining, has no rights over.


----------



## meleeka (22 January 2022)

YorksG said:



			If we have a large ride out, from our riding club, should we tell everyone whose property we ride alongside?
		
Click to expand...

I think if you were planning on galloping en mass past the field where their animals were kept it would be the decent thing to do, especially if you then had a pack of dogs which could potential stray into the field.


----------



## CanteringCarrot (22 January 2022)

YorksG said:



			But if it isn't entering your property, the hunt and it's followers have no obligation to tell you that they will be in the area, I'm really quite amazed that people believe that they have a right to know what other people intend to do on land that the person complaining, has no rights over.
		
Click to expand...

The thing is though, unfortunately, hunts do enter property that they might not "intend" to/have gotten a reputation for doing so.

If the land directly borders livestock on another piece of land, it's a nice neighborly thing to do. It's no obligation, of course.

If a well behaved legal hunt said "hey, we're going to pass by your property, but not go on it, just a heads up we'll be around", I'd say thanks for the notification and would see myself as feeling positive toward the hunt. If they didn't notify me, I would think, would be nice to know when they're coming by, but whatever. So if hunting wants to clean up it's image and community relations, then it's not a bad idea to be as neighborly as possible. Of course you don't have to.

Yes, I know this may attract Sabs though.


----------



## YorksG (22 January 2022)

CanteringCarrot said:



			The thing is though, unfortunately, hunts do enter property that they might not "intend" to/have gotten a reputation for doing so.

If the land directly borders livestock on another piece of land, it's a nice neighborly thing to do. It's no obligation, of course.

If a well behaved legal hunt said "hey, we're going to pass by your property, but not go on it, just a heads up we'll be around", I'd say thanks for the notification and would see myself as feeling positive toward the hunt. If they didn't notify me, I would think, would be nice to know when they're coming by, but whatever. So if hunting wants to clean up it's image and community relations, then it's not a bad idea to be as neighborly as possible. Of course you don't have to.

Yes, I know this may attract Sabs though.
		
Click to expand...

Would you be happy that the sabs knew the hunt were going to pass your land? I certainly wouldn't, as I do not want my, or others, animals disrupting by a bunch of vigilantes


----------



## Gallop_Away (22 January 2022)

paddy555 said:



			so  you blame the sabs for not issuing meet cards but then you take it out on the rest of the population ie we won't tell you where we are so hard luck if your animals get hurt.

The hunt "vet" who you are. So if you don't pass their vetting you are likely to have your animals disrupted.

There are a lot of things people have problems with concerning the hunt. Straying hounds, lack of meet info, killing domestic pets, cruelty to foxes and possibly more.
Top of the list however for many people who lump fox hunting and trail hunting in together is simply arrogance.
Your post is a classic example. We may tell you or if we consider you unworthy we won't.



Why should landowners have to notify locals? what if they are unable to for some reason. It is up to the hunt to take responsibility to make sure everyone knows and can take action if required.

If they are trail hunting that should not be an onerous task. They are following a trail, they know where the trail is and only so many animal owners along the way.
		
Click to expand...

If you had bothered to read my previous posts you would see that we do tell locals when we are in the area. Our land owners are happy to communicate it to neighbours as do our masters. Local residents can also contact the hunt secretary directly and ask when we are in the area. Saying you have animals in the area would of course be a good enough reason.



ycbm said:



			IMO, this blindness to reality is what will cause hunting to be lost altogether. 


.
		
Click to expand...

It isn't blindness whatsoever. The disruption caused by sabs WAS the only reason our meet list was taken off our social media. I can't speak for all hunts but it was the only reason our hunt had to withdraw it as we are doing nothing wrong. Since then we have invited monitors to join us in the field as we have nothing to hide but they have declined. If you want to call it suspicious that we don't leave our meet list on Facebook be my guest but we are not going to leave ourselves open to more harassment and violence from sabs.


----------



## Sandstone1 (22 January 2022)

Sabs would not be needed if hunts stuck to the law.   Yes before you say it I know you will say your hunt trail hunts but sadly many do not.  That is a fact.  Whatever you say to the contrary illegal fox hunting is going on and without sabs it would go on un hindered.  Why should it all be done in secret if nothing untoward is happening?   Pretty sure sabs have enough to do without following legal trail hunting but the problem is in most cases thats not whats going on.
Sabs will get to know where and when you are hunting anyway so you may as we have the common courtesy to let other land owners and horse owners know to save the distress caused to other animals.


----------



## paddy555 (22 January 2022)

YorksG said:



			But if it isn't entering your property, the hunt and it's followers have no obligation to tell you that they will be in the area, I'm really quite amazed that people believe that they have a right to know what other people intend to do on land that the person complaining, has no rights over.
		
Click to expand...


do you let your riders dogs climb over the fences and stray onto the neighbouring fields with animals in them? if so then I believe they do have a right to know. 
The land over which the person has no rights is very often the public highway and everyone has the same rights.


----------



## Gallop_Away (22 January 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Sabs would not be needed if hunts stuck to the law.   Yes before you say it I know you will say your hunt trail hunts but sadly many do not.  That is a fact.  Whatever you say to the contrary illegal fox hunting is going on and without sabs it would go on un hindered.  Why should it all be done in secret if nothing untoward is happening?   Pretty sure sabs have enough to do without following legal trail hunting but the problem is in most cases thats not whats going on.
Sabs will get to know where and when you are hunting anyway so you may as we have the common courtesy to let other land owners and horse owners know to save the distress caused to other animals.
		
Click to expand...

Equally why are sabs still harassing our hunt when there isn't anything illegal going on? Because that is precisely what is happening constantly.
The fact is the only reason we withdrew our meet cards was because of sabs. If all they did was peacefully monitor we would have no reason not to publish our meet list on social media.
Yes sabs do still find us sadly but its made their lives a lot harder it would seem as we are not so frequently visited by them as we were before.
We've also had no incidents where anyone has been unaware that we are in the area and animals have been injured. So it would seem our system is working.


----------



## paddy555 (22 January 2022)

YorksG said:



			Would you be happy that the sabs knew the hunt were going to pass your land? I certainly wouldn't, as I do not want my, or others, animals disrupting by a bunch of vigilantes
		
Click to expand...

but's its OK for the hunt to disrupt my animals?


----------



## Sandstone1 (22 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			Equally why are sabs still harassing our hunt when there isn't anything illegal going on? Because that is precisely what is happening constantly.
The fact is the only reason we withdrew our meet cards was because of sabs. If all they did was peacefully monitor we would have no reason not to publish our meet list on social media.
Yes sabs do still find us sadly but its made their lives a lot harder it would seem as we are not so frequently visited by them as we were before.
We've also had no incidents where anyone has been unaware that we are in the area and animals have been injured. So it would seem our system is working.
		
Click to expand...

If you are hunting legally than you have nothing to worry about surely?


----------



## YorksG (22 January 2022)

The sabs were targeting hunts long before the hunting act, with violence and intimidation. If someone was threatening you, would you tell them where to find you?


----------



## Gallop_Away (22 January 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			If you are hunting legally than you have nothing to worry about surely?
		
Click to expand...

You would think not but yet we are harassed by them all the same


----------



## Sandstone1 (22 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			You would think not but yet we are harassed by them all the same
		
Click to expand...

Maybe they do not believe you?  Going by my local hunt they have every reason not to.


----------



## paddy555 (22 January 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Maybe they do not believe you? .
		
Click to expand...

fair point. I asked which hunt this was but not forthcoming.


----------



## Sandstone1 (22 January 2022)

Maybe you should have more sympathy for the horses and livestock you disrupt if you feel "harassed" by sabs, think how they feel to be minding their own business when a field of riders and hounds come galloping past them.
Think how people feel to have their fences cut and riders and hounds disrupting livestock and killing pets, how annoying it is to be held up on main roads by the hunt, to have to deal with sweat drenched horse upset by them.  I could go on....


----------



## YorksG (22 January 2022)

There appears to be a conflation of passing and trespassing. Passing someone's property, at whatever pace, is entirely legal and acceptable. Crossing property without permission, either with or without dogs, is not acceptable. The two things are not the same and do not hold the same responsibility.


----------



## Gallop_Away (22 January 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Maybe they do not believe you?  Going by my local hunt they have every reason not to.
		
Click to expand...

I will repeat again....we have invited them to monitor us on several occasions but that has been declined. They have no shred of proof that we are illegal hunting, and yet they would rather continue to hurl abuse at us. 



paddy555 said:



			fair point. I asked which hunt this was but not forthcoming.
		
Click to expand...

And I explained my reasons why I did not want to post on a thread on a public forum and at least one poster admiting to being part of a sab group.



Sandstone1 said:



			Maybe you should have more sympathy for the horses and livestock you disrupt if you feel "harassed" by sabs, think how they feel to be minding their own business when a field of riders and hounds come galloping past them.
Think how people feel to have their fences cut and riders and hounds disrupting livestock and killing pets, how annoying it is to be held up on main roads by the hunt, to have to deal with sweat drenched horse upset by them.  I could go on....
		
Click to expand...

I completely agree this behaviour is not on and why we do try and make every effort to tell people when we are in the area whilst still protecting ourselves from sabs. 
We have not had any incidents or complaints from locals of any harm coming to any animals. Nor would we dream of cutting fences and going where we were not welcome.


----------



## CanteringCarrot (22 January 2022)

YorksG said:



			Would you be happy that the sabs knew the hunt were going to pass your land? I certainly wouldn't, as I do not want my, or others, animals disrupting by a bunch of vigilantes
		
Click to expand...

Ok, then. It's all about the Sabs. No, I wouldn't want that either. 

I don't know what the solution is really, for BOTH hunting and the community. 

It's also becoming a bit "can't help you if you can't help yourself" type deal, in some cases.


----------



## CanteringCarrot (22 January 2022)

YorksG said:



			There appears to be a conflation of passing and trespassing. Passing someone's property, at whatever pace, is entirely legal and acceptable. Crossing property without permission, either with or without dogs, is not acceptable. The two things are not the same and do not hold the same responsibility.
		
Click to expand...

I think everyone here knows that.

It's just a courtesy to inform when passing by as a hunt. There's no *need* to be courteous. It is legal to pass by, that's not the crux of the matter here.


----------



## paddy555 (22 January 2022)

YorksG said:



			There appears to be a conflation of passing and trespassing. Passing someone's property, at whatever pace, is entirely legal and acceptable. *Crossing property without permission, either with or without dogs, is not acceptable. *The two things are not the same and do not hold the same responsibility.
		
Click to expand...

at long last you understand.  

so let's take it a tiny step further having got this far. 

those dogs climb over the bank and run across the field where they have no permission to be. In doing so they cause a horse, cow or anything else to charge around and either be at risk of injury or to get injured. 
Sadly this is a pretty common occurrence. 

so I, or Barney's owner, are now left with an injured animal. 

That injury which could be either death or a horse having done a tendon or something which means it is off work for a long time could have been prevented. 

It could have been prevented because the owner knew that if pack of dogs ran through their herd it was likely to happen. 
They knew the best thing to do was to keep the horse in, move it or take some other action. 

The tiny bit of info they didn't know, because someone didn't have the courtesy to tell them, was that this could happen on that particular day because of the hunt which was following it's trail was going past.  

If this had happened to your horse how would you feel? A totally preventable accident. .


----------



## paddy555 (22 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			I will repeat again....we have invited them to monitor us on several occasions but that has been declined. They have no shred of proof that we are illegal hunting, and yet they would rather continue to hurl abuse at us.



And I explained my reasons why I did not want to post on a thread on a public forum and at least one poster admiting to being part of a sab group.
		
Click to expand...

just curious. You are hunting legally or at least there is not a shed of proof of illegal hunting and I am sure that every sab is aware of every hunt so I don't really see that.


----------



## Gallop_Away (22 January 2022)

paddy555 said:



			just curious. You are hunting legally or at least there is not a shed of proof of illegal hunting and I am sure that every sab is aware of every hunt so I don't really see that.
		
Click to expand...

Given everything we have put up with at the hands of sabs I do not wish to attract more negative attention than we already endure.


----------



## Fred66 (22 January 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			If you are hunting legally than you have nothing to worry about surely?
		
Click to expand...

Are you totally naive? Maybe you tell the truth and are honest and not abusive or law breaking, but the ones I have had the misfortune to come across recently are aggressive, violent, abusive, and their social media updates are riddled with a mixture of half truths and lies and abuse. 
We have tried to show that we hunt legally, in 3 years of monitoring then they have not posted anything other than innuendo to indicate that we are doing anything but hunting legally but still they come.


----------



## Sandstone1 (22 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Are you totally naive? Maybe you tell the truth and are honest and not abusive or law breaking, but the ones I have had the misfortune to come across recently are aggressive, violent, abusive, and their social media updates are riddled with a mixture of half truths and lies and abuse.
We have tried to show that we hunt legally, in 3 years of monitoring then they have not posted anything other than innuendo to indicate that we are doing anything but hunting legally but still they come.
		
Click to expand...

I am neither naive or a sab.   I have witnessed my local hunt chasing a fox very recently and I have reported it to the police.  If hunting attracts such negative attention and is so stressful for its followers I really do wonder why you all do it?   For a ride across country?  for the social aspects? It has no advantage for land owners now so why do it?


----------



## YorksG (22 January 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			I am neither naive or a sab.   I have witnessed my local hunt chasing a fox very recently and I have reported it to the police.  If hunting attracts such negative attention and is so stressful for its followers I really do wonder why you all do it?   For a ride across country?  for the social aspects? It has no advantage for land owners now so why do it?
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps because people do not feel that it's appropriate to stop doing something simply as a means to appease others, who have been using violence and intimidation, for many decades?


----------



## Crugeran Celt (22 January 2022)

I do not hunt, never have, not because I am anti hunting but I am simply not brave enough. Speaking to many farmers they appreciate the hunt as they keep the fox population in check. I think a big problem with many is they cannot see that allowing the fox population to keep growing is going to cause an issue, it's a bit like veganism becoming so popular because so many now have no idea where their food comes from and can't accept farming, it's mad. I have worked with children as old as 15 who have no idea that the meat they eat was once a living animal, these same people are anti hunting. The fact they are prepared to hurt the horses beggers belief when they claim that the whloe point of their protest is animal cruelty.


----------



## GSD Woman (22 January 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			The pro hunters here will spout lots of stuff saying the opposite, blaming sabs, saying their hunt does not hunt foxes, quoting endless reports etc etc.
The truth is illegal fox hunting IS going on.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't realize that anyone is saying that illegal hunting is going on.

Why isn't the job the hunt monitors are doing enough?  Sabs make my blood boil.


----------



## ycbm (22 January 2022)

YorksG said:



			Passing someone's property, at whatever pace, is entirely legal and acceptable
		
Click to expand...


It's legal,  but I wouldn't find it acceptable if fifty riders in a group galloped along the outside of my boundary without warning me that they were going to.  I would expect the courtesy of a warning.  The only time it has happened,  with the drag,  I got a warning and invited to join them if I wanted to.  


ETA this was my first taste of drag hunting and I was hooked and continued on and off (horse depending)  until the drag hunt folded.


----------



## ycbm (22 January 2022)

GSD Woman said:



			I didn't realize that anyone is saying that illegal hunting is going on.
		
Click to expand...


Are you aware of a conviction for incitement to hunt fox illegally which happened a couple of months back,  following 2 webinars run by people at the very top of hunting and attended by,  I think,  hundreds of others?


----------



## Sandstone1 (22 January 2022)

YorksG said:



			Perhaps because people do not feel that it's appropriate to stop doing something simply as a means to appease others, who have been using violence and intimidation, for many decades?
		
Click to expand...

Even though its illegal and has been for many years now?
I think what it needs is a few people to go to jail for it to sink in.


----------



## YorksG (22 January 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Even though its illegal and has been for many years now?
I think what it needs is a few people to go to jail for it to sink in.
		
Click to expand...

The sabs use violence and intimidation against those legally hunting.
Eta my post was in response to your question about why people still follow hunts.


----------



## Sandstone1 (22 January 2022)

Deleted as not worth it.


----------



## YorksG (22 January 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Deleted as not worth it.
		
Click to expand...

Out of interest who do you sab with?


----------



## Sandstone1 (22 January 2022)

YorksG said:



			Out of interest who do you sab with?
		
Click to expand...

Actually I dont.  I would if I had more time though.


----------



## YorksG (22 January 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Actually I dont.  I would if I had more time though.
		
Click to expand...

You would sab, rather than monitor?


----------



## Sandstone1 (22 January 2022)

YorksG said:



			You would sab, rather than monitor?
		
Click to expand...

I would monitor but I would not allow foxes to be killed if I could help it either.   I think hunters are guilty of violence as the video of riders running down a sab this week shows.   Fox hunting is illegal but its going on and if you think otherwise you are very wrong.


----------



## YorksG (22 January 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			I would monitor but I would not allow foxes to be killed if I could help it either.   I think hunters are guilty of violence as the video of riders running down a sab this week shows.   Fox hunting is illegal but its going on and if you think otherwise you are very wrong.
		
Click to expand...

There is a huge difference between monitoring and sabbing. I would also suggest that hunters should face the consequences of violence, however I have heard little evidence to suggest that they set out to find sabs, and use violence and threats to "disuade" them from meeting to perform legal acts.


----------



## Tiddlypom (22 January 2022)

YorksG said:



			There appears to be a conflation of passing and trespassing. Passing someone's property, at whatever pace, is entirely legal and acceptable.
		
Click to expand...

Of course it is, no one has suggested otherwise. But when residents courteously request that they get advance notice of the hunt coming by, so that they can make arrangements to keep their own animals safe, it is absolutely not acceptable for the hunt to refuse to do so.

I seem to always have at least one horse here who will completely freak out when the hunt comes by, for reasons unknown. They become panic stricken and overwrought, and would gallop around in a frenzy til they dropped. Currently this is my senior mare, who at 21 yo has calmed down a tad from her younger days - I have owned her for 19 years. I also have my wonky IDx, who had a major pelvic injury 2 years ago, so no way do I want her to be dashing about the field in a tizz either.

So while having the hunt here is always a major logistical PITA, so long as I am given due advance warning, I will get my horses in and the hunt will not get a peep of protest out of me, no matter how inconvenient it is to me. But if the hunt decided not to bother to notify me, and then rocked up without warning, be assured that I get very cross indeed.

Having hunted so much in the past, I know full well what is or is not acceptable behaviour from a hunt.

In addition, if a hunt knows that it may attract antis, then it is even more beholden upon it to pre warn residents, because of the extra aggro that might happen. We who live here are unwittingly caught in the middle. It's happened here before, and it is horrid.


----------



## Koweyka (22 January 2022)

Just got in from one of “our” hunts, a man was in his allotment with his two year old daughter, twenty hounds invaded looking for the fox they just chased and surrounded the little girl, dad owns land, he wasn’t told the hunt would be there, they trespassed, so one terrified little girl and an upset father and landowner.
But that’s not the fault of the hunt is it, can’t be seen to admit they aren’t squeaky clean and are breaking the law, trespassing and upsetting locals …oh no that just wouldn’t fit the narrative would it.


----------



## Sandstone1 (22 January 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Just got in from one of “our” hunts, a man was in his allotment with his two year old daughter, twenty hounds invaded looking for the fox they just chased and surrounded the little girl, dad owns land, he wasn’t told the hunt would be there, they trespassed, so one terrified little girl and an upset father and landowner.
But that’s not the fault of the hunt is it, can’t be seen to admit they aren’t squeaky clean and are breaking the law, trespassing and upsetting locals …oh no that just wouldn’t fit the narrative would it.
		
Click to expand...

The pro hunters on here need a good dose of reality.


----------



## Sandstone1 (22 January 2022)

YorksG said:



			There is a huge difference between monitoring and sabbing. I would also suggest that hunters should face the consequences of violence, however I have heard little evidence to suggest that they set out to find sabs, and use violence and threats to "disuade" them from meeting to perform legal acts.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe they are too busy slashing tyres.  Another incident this week, but maybe sabs did that themselves hey.


----------



## Fern007 (22 January 2022)

Crugeran Celt said:



			I do not hunt, never have, not because I am anti hunting but I am simply not brave enough. Speaking to many farmers they appreciate the hunt as they keep the fox population in check. I think a big problem with many is they cannot see that allowing the fox population to keep growing is going to cause an issue, it's a bit like veganism becoming so popular because so many now have no idea where their food comes from and can't accept farming, it's mad. I have worked with children as old as 15 who have no idea that the meat they eat was once a living animal, these same people are anti hunting. The fact they are prepared to hurt the horses beggers belief when they claim that the whloe point of their protest is animal cruelty.
		
Click to expand...

The fox population is kept in check by legal shooting


----------



## YorksG (22 January 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Maybe they are too busy slashing tyres.  Another incident this week, but maybe sabs did that themselves hey.
		
Click to expand...

Where was this and what is the evidence that this was linked with hunting? Having spoken to more than one member of ALF over the years, their actions were certainly not confined to sabbing hunts, although that was part of the activity.


----------



## Koweyka (22 January 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			The pro hunters on here need a good dose of reality.
		
Click to expand...

I think they have conveniently forgotten the “how to kill a fox and get away with it” criminal conviction from earlier this year.


----------



## The Fuzzy Furry (22 January 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Maybe they are too busy slashing tyres.  Another incident this week, but maybe sabs did that themselves hey.
		
Click to expand...

That's why I stopped hunting.... 6 pretty new tyres slashed, windscreen smashed, my mounts bridle grabbed by balaclavered man screaming obscenities. .... terrifying and vile.
This on private land where landowner was equally intimidated and threatened by the sabs running around his property.
This hunt has some well behaved monitors, but rent a crowd turn up to regularly sab. Their media reports are in complete opposite of monitor reports, go figure!


----------



## Sandstone1 (22 January 2022)

The Fuzzy Furry said:



			That's why I stopped hunting.... 6 pretty new tyres slashed, windscreen smashed, my mounts bridle grabbed by balaclavered man screaming obscenities. .... terrifying and vile.
This on private land where landowner was equally intimidated and threatened by the sabs running around his property.
This hunt has some well behaved monitors, but rent a crowd turn up to regularly sab. Their media reports are in complete opposite of monitor reports, go figure!
		
Click to expand...

It was hunt supporters that slashed sabs tyres.


----------



## Sandstone1 (22 January 2022)

YorksG said:



			Where was this and what is the evidence that this was linked with hunting? Having spoken to more than one member of ALF over the years, their actions were certainly not confined to sabbing hunts, although that was part of the activity.
		
Click to expand...

it was at a hunt meet and filmed so guess thats pretty clear but I doubt you would believe it.


----------



## Koweyka (22 January 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			it was at a hunt meet and filmed so guess thats pretty clear but I doubt you would believe it.
		
Click to expand...

Another sab hospitalised by supporters of the Oakley hunt today, clearly asked for his head to be stamped on as he is bound to be blamed.


----------



## Sandstone1 (22 January 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Another sab hospitalised by supporters of the Oakley hunt today, clearly asked for his head to be stamped on as he is bound to be blamed.
		
Click to expand...

I hope he is ok.  I also hope the police are involved.


----------



## Gallop_Away (22 January 2022)

Of course there are bad hunts that break the law and behave appalling. No one is disputing this! *But not all trail hunts act this way *


----------



## ycbm (22 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			Of course there are bad hunts that break the law and behave appalling. No one is disputing this! *But not all trail hunts act this way *

Click to expand...


Can you give the sabs an easy and reliable way to tell the difference? 
.


----------



## YorksG (22 January 2022)

ycbm said:



			Can you give the sabs an easy and reliable way to tell the difference?
.
		
Click to expand...

This could be written as " can you tell people who will commit illegal acts, an easy and reliable way of telling who else will commit illegality".


----------



## Sandstone1 (22 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			Of course there are bad hunts that break the law and behave appalling. No one is disputing this! *But not all trail hunts act this way *

Click to expand...

I have never said all trail hunts behave this way.  Sadly some do though.  What do you, as a legitimate trail hunter suggest can be done about illegal hunting?
How can illegal hunting be stopped?  Can genuine trail hunters  show how they are hunting within the law?  Can the trail be published beforehand?   If a pre laid trail is used it must be possible to do this?   If you do not all want to be tarred with the same brush you are going to have to distance yourselves from fox hunters.


----------



## YorksG (22 January 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			I have never said all trail hunts behave this way.  Sadly some do though.  What do you, as a legitimate trail hunter suggest can be done about illegal hunting?
How can illegal hunting be stopped?  Can genuine trail hunters  show how they are hunting within the law?  Can the trail be published beforehand?   If a pre laid trail is used it must be possible to do this?   If you do not all want to be tarred with the same brush you are going to have to distance yourselves from fox hunters.
		
Click to expand...

Likewise all anti hunt people will have to distance themselves from sabs who set out to commit violence and damage. Perhaps a first step would be to ensure there is no link with the Animal Liberation Front, who over the years have behaved in a very similar manner to terrorist cells.


----------



## Sandstone1 (22 January 2022)

YorksG said:



			Likewise all anti hunt people will have to distance themselves from sabs who set out to commit violence and damage. Perhaps a first step would be to ensure there is no link with the Animal Liberation Front, who over the years have behaved in a very similar manner to terrorist cells.
		
Click to expand...

Its not the same thing at all, with all the bad press hunting is getting can you not see that unless trail hunting shows itself to be whiter than white you are going to go down with fox hunting?  The webinars, the fox stabbing, the woman hitting her horse, the riders running down a sab.  Hunts killing deer and frequent fox kills just to mention a few incidents.   That is if you are trail hunting at all..


----------



## palo1 (22 January 2022)

YorksG said:



			Likewise all anti hunt people will have to distance themselves from sabs who set out to commit violence and damage. Perhaps a first step would be to ensure there is no link with the Animal Liberation Front, who over the years have behaved in a very similar manner to terrorist cells.
		
Click to expand...

Quite.  The police and government briefings about animal rights activists (including hunt saboteurs) identifies them as a significant risk and in certain instances on a par with terrorists.  This isn't something anyone should take lightly or underestimate.   They do not identify registered trail hunts in the same way as the ideology and preparedness of animal rights activists to cause harm, civil order issues and illegal disruption is far greater and more serious than anything a hunt has proven itself prepared to do.  It is, in fact individuals within a hunt that cause problems that require police attendance yet the entire underlying manifesto of animal rights activists is to disrupt and cause damage.  

That is not to justify any violent or antisocial action by hunt individuals but membership of certain organisations related to animal rights activism causes far more concern to the police  than any hunt activity is going to.  The Hunting Act is sufficient for the Police to deal with antisocial or illegal hunting activities.  Every time an animal rights organisation is involved however, the police have to consider the terrorism/ proscribed groups legislation and potential for terrorism.  There have been incidents, serious ones too of fraud to deal with.  And sabs complain that the police are biased....


----------



## ycbm (22 January 2022)

YorksG said:



			Likewise all anti hunt people will have to distance themselves from sabs who set out to commit violence and damage. Perhaps a first step would be to ensure there is no link with the Animal Liberation Front, who over the years have behaved in a very similar manner to terrorist cells.
		
Click to expand...

Anti hunt people don't "have to" distance themselves from anything to achieve an end to illegal hunting,  they can just sit back and watch hunting self-destruct. 

Sadly it's probably going to take legal hunting with it.  




palo1 said:



			The Hunting Act is sufficient for the Police to deal with antisocial or illegal hunting activities
		
Click to expand...

Of course it isn't.  Person after person has described to you how they are affected by antisocial hunting and you yourself have described how fox hunting can't be stopped because hunts are pushing to the very edge of the letter of the law with no intention whatsoever of sticking to the spirit of the law even though that spirit is completely clear. 
.


----------



## Crugeran Celt (22 January 2022)

Fern007 said:



			The fox population is kept in check by legal shooting
		
Click to expand...

I have seen some of this shooting, finding wounded foxes struggling to get up to get away because a clean shot has not been made. So cruel.


----------



## Gallop_Away (23 January 2022)

ycbm said:



			Can you give the sabs an easy and reliable way to tell the difference?
.
		
Click to expand...

By the *peaceful* monitoring of hunts of course. Legitimate trail packs would have no issue with this.


----------



## CanteringCarrot (23 January 2022)

palo1 said:



			Quite.  The police and government briefings about animal rights activists (including hunt saboteurs) identifies them as a significant risk and in certain instances on a par with terrorists.  This isn't something anyone should take lightly or underestimate.   They do not identify registered trail hunts in the same way as the ideology and preparedness of animal rights activists to cause harm, civil order issues and illegal disruption is far greater and more serious than anything a hunt has proven itself prepared to do.  It is, in fact individuals within a hunt that cause problems that require police attendance yet the entire underlying manifesto of animal rights activists is to disrupt and cause damage.

That is not to justify any violent or antisocial action by hunt individuals but membership of certain organisations related to animal rights activism causes far more concern to the police  than any hunt activity is going to.  The Hunting Act is sufficient for the Police to deal with antisocial or illegal hunting activities.  Every time an animal rights organisation is involved however, the police have to consider the terrorism/ proscribed groups legislation and potential for terrorism.  There have been incidents, serious ones too of fraud to deal with.  And sabs complain that the police are biased....
		
Click to expand...


"The Hunting Act is sufficient for the Police to deal with antisocial or illegal hunting activities."

There are also laws to deal with illegal activities committed by sabs. Well, problem solved. Don't know what everyone is complaining about.

Ok, I'm being facetious but I've seen the argument of "let the law deal with it" come up a few times re illegal hunting and/or damages caused by hunts. So the same would go for illegal activities by Sabs and/or damages caused by them. However, this doesn't solve the problem, at all, because people are still p'd off and there is antisocial and illegal behavior by both sides (hunts and sabs) with seemingly very little to no consequences.


As an aside, I do not believe every anti hunt person is a Sab or would be one. I'd never be a Sab, I don't mind legal activity/trail hunts, but also understand the public getting fed up and see that many hunts and individuals that belong to those hunts aren't doing the sport and favors (the arrogance is astounding). It's one of those things that requires a huge attitude shift and doing some work/extra things that are viewed as not necessary, but may just help save the sport. I don't know that it can be saved or deserves to be at this point, if things continue as is.

I get that there are much bigger fish to fry, but that doesn't take away from this mess or the fact that it needs to be dealt with.

Sort of feels like one of those things we'll bicker about for ages though.


----------



## ycbm (23 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			By the *peaceful* monitoring of hunts of course. Legitimate trail packs would have no issue with this.
		
Click to expand...


There are hunts that works for and hunts that we're told it doesn't.  I don't know if that's geography,  or something else. 

I suspect you're on a losing wicket until you find a way to put more distance between yourselves and the people hunting fox.   With the MFA still insistent that the webinars were taken out of context, and people insisting that although the spirit of the law is perfectly clear,  it's fine to allow foxes to be killed by hounds as long as the evidence to prosecute can't be obtained,  that doesn't seem likely to happen soon.  
.


----------



## Fred66 (23 January 2022)

CanteringCarrot said:



			……. I don't mind legal activity/trail hunts, but also understand the public getting fed up and see that many hunts and individuals that belong to those hunts aren't doing the sport and favors (the arrogance is astounding). It's one of those things that requires a huge attitude shift and doing some work/extra things that are viewed as not necessary, but may just help save the sport. I don't know that it can be saved or deserves to be at this point, if things continue as is.
		
Click to expand...

That’s the thing it’s not many hunts and most are not arrogant. Most are polite, law abiding people who support both each other and the local community. 
How would you have us change our attitude?


----------



## ycbm (23 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			That’s the thing it’s not many hunts and most are not arrogant.
		
Click to expand...

You should read this thread with the eyes of people who don't hunt and people,  especially locals, who don't even ride.  
.


----------



## ycbm (23 January 2022)

Crugeran Celt said:



			I have seen some of this shooting, finding wounded foxes struggling to get up to get away because a clean shot has not been made. So cruel.
		
Click to expand...

I've lived for 31 years in an area that has never been hunted. I've never seen a wounded fox,  though my farming friends have had plenty shot for them.   There are vast areas of the UK where foxes have never been hunted with hounds (though you'd never believe that when you hear hunters criticise shooters)  and the Burns report concluded,  as I recollect,  that there was no difference in overall welfare level between hunting and shooting.
.


----------



## palo1 (23 January 2022)

ycbm said:



			You should read this thread with the eyes of people who don't hunt and people,  especially locals, who don't even ride. 
.
		
Click to expand...

In fairness, that is only the same few posters referring to the same hunts; the vast majority of HHO posters are not bothered enough either way to comment on hunting.  The thread title attracts those for whom this is a significant issue and in reality there are few of us.  Very, very occasionally hunting will be brought up in another thread (as was the case late last year) with no problems reported.  I think you too should read the thread and listen to the voices that present a different picture to yours.  @ycbm - you don't have a local hunt so I understand so you are reporting on things that you haven't perhaps seen but have heard of.  I am not saying that you are not reporting correctly but that you yourself have not had issues with hunting.    Yet you have a strong voice against hunting - that is perfectly fair but you can't say that you have had issues with a hunt on your land or with your horses?


----------



## palo1 (23 January 2022)

ycbm said:



			I've lived for 31 years in an area that has never been hunted. I've never seen a wounded fox,  though my farming friends have had plenty shot for them.   There are vast areas of the UK where foxes have never been hunted with hounds (though you'd never believe that when you hear hunters criticise shooters)  and the Burns report concluded,  as I recollect,  that there was no difference in overall welfare level between hunting and shooting.
.
		
Click to expand...

You are deluded if you think that all shooting of foxes is 'clean' and provides a swift and humane death.  A decent shot does provide that but not every person shooting is a decent shot and not every shot hits the mark or provides opportunity for a further terminal shot.   Not everyone shooting foxes is particularly interested in the skill of shooting - nor are they necessarily bothered with the humane element.  I am not sure what countryside you actually live in tbh!!


----------



## CanteringCarrot (23 January 2022)

Palo, are you purposely being obtuse? I really can't tell at this point. People are seemingly misreading on purpose at times.

Not every shot is clean (no one here thinks every shot is perfect), I'm not sure how fox hunting with hounds is exactly humane either. One person going out shooting fox might technically carry less risk of other incidents. I'm not saying it's THE answer and flawless, just something I thought about.


----------



## ycbm (23 January 2022)

palo1 said:



			You are deluded if you think that all shooting of foxes is 'clean' and provides a swift and humane death.
		
Click to expand...

Well I would be if that's what I had written,  but I didn't. 

The Burns report concluded that shooting and hunting,  taken overall,  were  equally  (in)humane, didn't it? So why do hunters persistently bring up shooting to support their arguments?  It annoys the shooters no end.  
.


----------



## palo1 (23 January 2022)

CanteringCarrot said:



			Palo, are you purposely being obtuse? I really can't tell at this point. People are seemingly misreading on purpose at times.

Not every shot is clean (no one here thinks every shot is perfect), I'm not sure how fox hunting with hounds is exactly humane either. One person going out shooting fox might technically carry less risk of other incidents. I'm not saying it's THE answer and flawless, just something I thought about.
		
Click to expand...

I wasn't meaning to be deliberately obtuse and I agree that shooting foxes is one way of getting rid of them, when they need controlling and potentially a low risk in other ways, although our experience here, of groups of fox shooters is that they do feel they can wander at will to a degree, often at night.  That unnerves local people too and we often get local messages to say that these groups are about.  For some people there are issues with that kind of fox control too and plenty of local stories about groups of people moving through the countryside at night with guns taking every fox they can.  For some people, that also presents concerns about people on their yards or property wrt the risk of quad or other machinery theft.   That may well be gossip or dodgy info and generally I have no worries at all about it but it's not a trouble free approach in the way some people think it might be.


----------



## palo1 (23 January 2022)

ycbm said:



			Well I would be if that's what I had written,  but I didn't.

The Burns report concluded that shooting and hunting,  taken overall,  were  equally  (in)humane, didn't it? So why do hunters persistently bring up shooting to support their arguments?  It annoys the shooters no end. 
.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, you didn't say that on this occasion but you have done previously I think.  Apologies for conflating this reply with earlier ones.  I have no desire to annoy shooters as I have many shooting friends and much respect for many aspects of shooting.  I am quite happy to support shooting and our own hunt works well with local shoots so the conflict narrative isn't one I have experienced.  I don't have an issue with people shooting foxes if they have permission or want to shoot them on their land (though I think numbers possibly should be controlled) - I am just saying what my experience and understanding is.


----------



## ycbm (23 January 2022)

palo1 said:



			In fairness, that is only the same few posters referring to the same hunts; the vast majority of HHO posters are not bothered enough either way to comment on hunting.  The thread title attracts those for whom this is a significant issue and in reality there are few of us.  Very, very occasionally hunting will be brought up in another thread (as was the case late last year) with no problems reported.  I think you too should read the thread and listen to the voices that present a different picture to yours.  @ycbm - you don't have a local hunt so I understand so you are reporting on things that you haven't perhaps seen but have heard of.  I am not saying that you are not reporting correctly but that you yourself have not had issues with hunting.    Yet you have a strong voice against hunting - that is perfectly fair but you can't say that you have had issues with a hunt on your land or with your horses?
		
Click to expand...

I've drag hunted with 4 packs.   I've fox hunted with 4 different hunts. I stabled on the yard of a hunt master for several years.   I've personally been part of causing  the kind of upset and irritation that hunting generates. I've seen the arrogance and sense of entitlement by those at the top of every one of those hunts,  and I hear it echoed on this thread.


----------



## ycbm (23 January 2022)

palo1 said:



			Yes, you didn't say that on this occasion but you have done previously I think.
		
Click to expand...

Never.  I have NEVER said that every fox which is shot is shot clean. 

I am not a fool. 
.


----------



## CanteringCarrot (23 January 2022)

palo1 said:



			I wasn't meaning to be deliberately obtuse and I agree that shooting foxes is one way of getting rid of them, when they need controlling and potentially a low risk in other ways, although our experience here, of groups of fox shooters is that they do feel they can wander at will to a degree, often at night.  That unnerves local people too and we often get local messages to say that these groups are about.  For some people there are issues with that kind of fox control too and plenty of local stories about groups of people moving through the countryside at night with guns taking every fox they can.  For some people, that also presents concerns about people on their yards or property wrt the risk of quad or other machinery theft.   That may well be gossip or dodgy info and generally I have no worries at all about it but it's not a trouble free approach in the way some people think it might be.
		
Click to expand...

Yeah, I mean, every method has its risks. No one (hunt or hunter) should be on property without permission anyway. Here, when they want to hunt pig for example, they just talk to the property owners they'll be around or wish to go onto, and just come up with a day/days to do it. Nothing sketchy occurs, so would be nice if it could work that way over there for fox. Sometimes that means we don't put the horses out for a day or certain time in the day because it's possible they're in the fields and have notified us so we know.

Basically it just comes down to people need to stop being weird and sketchy 🙄


----------



## palo1 (23 January 2022)

CanteringCarrot said:



			Yeah, I mean, every method has its risks. No one (hunt or hunter) should be on property without permission anyway. Here, when they want to hunt pig for example, they just talk to the property owners they'll be around or wish to go onto, and just come up with a day/days to do it. Nothing sketchy occurs, so would be nice if it could work that way over there for fox. Sometimes that means we don't put the horses out for a day or certain time in the day because it's possible they're in the fields and have notified us so we know.

Basically it just comes down to people need to stop being weird and sketchy 🙄
		
Click to expand...

Yes, that covers it well lol!!    Goodness knows how things will be handled here when our wild boar population shows evidence of having swine fever, which I fear is probably only a  matter of time.  Weird and sketchy folk of all persuasions are likely to make themselves very present...


----------



## Fred66 (23 January 2022)

ycbm said:



			You should read this thread with the eyes of people who don't hunt and people,  especially locals, who don't even ride. 
.
		
Click to expand...

But they are talking from a biased starting position based upon experience of a handful of hunts. Equally the negative press is coming from a tiny group of people. Chris Packham blamed a burnt out vehicle near his property on hunting people, despite the fact that there was absolutely no evidence and another burnt vehicle was found in the local area, but once the statement is out then there are those who believe no smoke without fire.


----------



## Fred66 (23 January 2022)

Many of you on here seem keen to see all forms of hunting banned, some of you purport to want this out of concern for animals. Can I ask those people how they will square the deaths of 10,000+ hounds with their consciences if they are successful?


----------



## skinnydipper (23 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Many of you on here seem keen to see all forms of hunting banned, some of you purport to want this out of concern for animals. Can I ask those people how they will square the deaths of 10,000+ hounds with their consciences if they are successful?
		
Click to expand...

You are asking the wrong people to examine their conscience.  You should be asking the people who continued to breed and train dogs for something which was banned in 2004.


----------



## Fred66 (23 January 2022)

skinnydipper said:



			You are asking the wrong people to examine their conscience.  You should be asking the people who continued to breed and train dogs for something which was banned in 2004.
		
Click to expand...

FFS - trail, drag and blood isn’t banned !!


----------



## skinnydipper (23 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			FFS - trail, drag and blood isn’t banned !!
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I know that  

My post still stands.


----------



## planete (23 January 2022)

If the foxhounds bred since 2004 had been trained to follow an artificial scent and the hunts had abided by the law the situation would be very different.


----------



## skinnydipper (23 January 2022)

planete said:



			If the foxhounds bred since 2004 had been trained to follow an artificial scent and the hunts had abided by the law the situation would be very different.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks, planete.

I was just typing something very similar.


----------



## Koweyka (23 January 2022)

The deaths of any fox hounds lies squarely with the hunts, you kill them when they become slow, you kill them if they don’t show the kill instinct, hell you even kill them if they are too playful. 

When the huntsman joins a new hunt they kill some existing hounds, so they can introduce their own. 

Killing hounds is something hunts do on a regular basis. 

If hunts had got their acts together and not continued to break the law for 17 YEARS and trained hounds on an artificial scent, not “mimicking” the behaviour of a fox by laying fox scent where foxes live then you wouldn’t be where you are now.

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp, you clung on to the fallacy that the ban would be overturned. It isn’t going to be yet all these puppies are bred, so don’t do the usual and try shift the blame on the anti’s because it just won’t wash.


----------



## skinnydipper (23 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			FFS - trail, drag and blood isn’t banned !!
		
Click to expand...


I know more about dogs that I do about hunting so I will put this to you using dogs as an example.

Why would you train a dog to retrieve a ball and then expect it not to want to retrieve the ball that you threw?

You wouldn't would you?  That would be stupid.


----------



## Tiddlypom (23 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Many of you on here seem keen to see all forms of hunting banned, some of you purport to want this out of concern for animals. Can I ask those people how they will square the deaths of 10,000+ hounds with their consciences if they are successful?
		
Click to expand...

IF there was a mass cull of hounds if all hunting was fully banned, then the responsibility for any cull of living hounds would lie entirely with the hunts who carried it out.

They could alternatively keep the current generation of hounds on living happily in kennels and being exercised daily, as they are in the summer when there is no hunting. The numbers of hounds would gradually reduce to zero due to loss by natural causes and ageing over a few years.


----------



## Sandstone1 (23 January 2022)

Yet hunts are still breeding hounds to be trained to hollow fox sent.....  So guess who's fault it would be if hounds had to be culled?
Dogs can be trained to any sent.   What about medical detection dogs trained to sniff out Covid, cancer or warn of epileptic episodes?
Police dogs trained to find drugs, cash or dead bodies.  Some dogs are trained to sniff out bed bugs.
And yet 17 years after fox hunting was banned you are still breeding and training dogs to follow fox sent...
I wonder why that is?
Dogs sense of smell is many thousand times better than ours and they are very capable of being trained to many types of sent but no, hunts in their wisdom continue to train to the sent of a animal its been illegal to hunt with hounds for years.
Also, hunts are well known to cull hounds for many reasons.  too old, too ill or they simply do not want to hunt?  They get a bullet to the head!   So please do not try to guilt trip anti hunters for that one.


----------



## ycbm (23 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			But they are talking from a biased starting position based upon experience of a handful of hunts.
		
Click to expand...

You have people on this thread from one end and side of the country to the other, many of whom have hunted.  




			Equally the negative press is coming from a tiny group of people. Chris Packham blamed a burnt out vehicle near his property on hunting people, despite the fact that there was absolutely no evidence and another burnt vehicle was found in the local area, but once the statement is out then there are those who believe no smoke without fire.
		
Click to expand...


What is legal hunting doing to stop this misrepresentation? 

Staying affiliated to an organisation which issues statements saying that the webinars have been taken out of context and used to harm them  and  that the convicted man has been hard done by. 

Laying trails with fox pee, in fox country.

Saying it's OK to flout the spirit of the law after 17 years as long as the letter of the law provides an escape from prosecution.

And then complain about being sabbed  🤷


----------



## Sandstone1 (23 January 2022)

ycbm said:



			You have people on this thread from one end and side of the country to the other, many of whom have hunted. 




What is legal hunting doing to stop this misrepresentation?

Staying affiliated to an organisation which issues statements saying that the webinars have been taken out of context and used to harm them  and  that the convicted man has been hard done by.

Laying trails with fox pee, in fox country.

Saying it's OK to flout the spirit of the law after 17 years as long as the letter of the law provides an escape from prosecution.

And then complain about being sabbed  🤷
		
Click to expand...

And constantly blame sabs for violence when hunt members have been filmed running down sabs, slashing tyres and only yesterday it appears put someone in hospital...


----------



## paddy555 (23 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Many of you on here seem keen to see all forms of hunting banned, some of you purport to want this out of concern for animals. Can I ask those people how they will square the deaths of 10,000+ hounds with their consciences if they are successful?
		
Click to expand...

I read the above and thought how terrible, all those poor dogs who will probably have around 12 years on this planet will have to be killed. All that loss of life for such loved animals. Tears came to my eyes and my conscience certainly couldn't condone that. That was of course the reaction you would have expected from an  animal lover to your post. 

Then I started to wonder, why do hunts need so many, how long do these hounds live, what happens when they are too old to work, what happens to the ones who just don't the grade. So I googled. Then I realised the number would be quickly reduced and perhaps they didn't all end up with an armchair by the fire. I did wonder how they were killed. Calmly at the vets, sedative so they were out of it and went peacefully. Then another dose of reality kicked in and I realised being culled would not be any different to what would have happened anyway. Shot and thrown into the incinerator. 


_In evidence to the Burn’s Inquiry, *the Countryside Alliance admitted 3,000 hounds are killed each year,* the true figure is considerably higher. Detailed research by Protect Our Wild Animals states “that the numbers of hounds deliberately and unnecessarily killed by their own Hunts per annum in the UK is probably somewhere between 4,942 and 7,302.”

Hounds are simply an accessory to hunters and are shot or clubbed to death without a moments thought when the hunt no longer has a use for them. A hound can live to be fourteen quite easily, few hounds belonging to hunts live much beyond five or six years of age. Hounds as young as one are killed by hunts for not showing enough hunting instinct, bloodlust or just not being aesthetic._


----------



## Chianti (23 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Many of you on here seem keen to see all forms of hunting banned, some of you purport to want this out of concern for animals. Can I ask those people how they will square the deaths of 10,000+ hounds with their consciences if they are successful?
		
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but this comment might have more impact if we hadn't all seen photos of hunt staff shooting hounds which have presumably out lived their usefulness in some way. Dogs are intelligent animals and if they've been trained to follow a certain scent I don't see why they can't be retrained to follow a different one.


----------



## Gallop_Away (23 January 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			And constantly blame sabs for violence when hunt members have been filmed running down sabs, slashing tyres and only yesterday it appears put someone in hospital...
		
Click to expand...

Why does it always need to be tit for tat? Can we not agree that violent sabs of which I could give you many examples of, and illegal hunts are both as bad as each other?
Violence to make a point is never ok. Regardless of which "side" you fall on.



ycbm said:



			There are hunts that works for and hunts that we're told it doesn't.  I don't know if that's geography,  or something else.

I suspect you're on a losing wicket until you find a way to put more distance between yourselves and the people hunting fox.   With the MFA still insistent that the webinars were taken out of context, and people insisting that although the spirit of the law is perfectly clear,  it's fine to allow foxes to be killed by hounds as long as the evidence to prosecute can't be obtained,  that doesn't seem likely to happen soon.
.
		
Click to expand...

If they can be sabbed these hunts can also be monitored.
I completely agree something needs to be done for legal trail backs to be distinguished from illegal hunts. Trail packs need to distance themselves to begin with but I don't think this will be enough on it's own. There is a huge issue with the public's perception of hunts and I think changing this view will be extremely difficult, especially after the last few years which have been a disaster for hunting all thanks to illegal hunts.
However sabs need to also be willing to work with hunts. If they demand to know the dates of our meets and be allowed to follow our activities they must also be willing to behave in a civilised manner and cease intimidation and violence.
Legitimate trail packs would have no reason to have any issue with monitors keeping an eye on things, but you can not expect them to leave themselves open to bullying and intimidation. Especially when they have made every effort to show they are hunting within the law.


----------



## GSD Woman (23 January 2022)

ycbm said:



			Are you aware of a conviction for incitement to hunt fox illegally which happened a couple of months back, following 2 webinars run by people at the very top of hunting and attended by, I think, hundreds of others?
		
Click to expand...




Koweyka said:



			Just got in from one of “our” hunts, a man was in his allotment with his two year old daughter, twenty hounds invaded looking for the fox they just chased and surrounded the little girl, dad owns land, he wasn’t told the hunt would be there, they trespassed, so one terrified little girl and an upset father and landowner.
But that’s not the fault of the hunt is it, can’t be seen to admit they aren’t squeaky clean and are breaking the law, trespassing and upsetting locals …oh no that just wouldn’t fit the narrative would it
		
Click to expand...

That is horrid.  But again, we all know that illegal hunting goes on in the UK. Being an American I would be tempted to carry a pistol to protect my property and family.

I had heard of the webinar where illegal foxhunting is discussed and encouraged.  Again, that is illegal and disgusting. It should have been highly condemned by the legit hunts.  

Off to work for me. I doubt I'll time to read more of this thread today.


----------



## rextherobber (23 January 2022)

In reply to @Fred66  #2777
I can think of a few ways in which hunt followers could change their attitude:
* Please keep the hounds off my property, away from my livestock, and off of roads. Please try to actually be with the hounds, arriving 30 minutes after they have left is useless, and in no way made up for by you sending someone around (the following day) to fix fences.  If a hunt is genuinely trail hunting, how feasible is it that 10 -12 hounds would be rampaging around a village, in and out of gardens, crashing through fences etc. for a good 20 minutes before moving on. How does this happen, why does it happen, and how is it ever allowed to happen more than once? (Because it isn't a particularly rare occurrence)
* Instruct your car followers that they are still bound by the Highway Code, the fact that they are trying to follow the hunt in a vehicle doesn't make them above the law. Why are the car followers so aggressive towards other motorists? We are only trying to get to work/home with our shopping before the frozen stuff defrosts, why the need to drive us off the road?
*Why can hunts not tell local livestock owners where and roughly when, they will be in an area? They are following a pre laid trail, they know...don't they? (Don't give me the old excuse about not wanting to attract sabs, do you want to be tolerated by the local community or not?)
*If you are trail hunting, why can you not pass other people's livestock at a more sedate pace? The trail isn't going to get away, is it?
* Please stop this ridiculously selfish, inconsiderate parking of trailers and lorries. God help us if a fire engine ever needs to get through...
 Not having a go, Fred66, but you did ask...


----------



## paddy555 (23 January 2022)

palo1 said:



			- that is perfectly fair but you can't say that you have had issues with a hunt on your land or with your horses?
		
Click to expand...

she might not have had but I have.


----------



## paddy555 (23 January 2022)

this is a write up about the Lamerton  last week. 
So to our hunters this is one thing that you could do to improve matters. ie don't mark trails with fox scent.

LAMERTON HUNT KILL FOX – 19.01.22
(Watch the video here: https://fb.watch/aHIgOxlhy0/)
On Wednesday we paid a visit to the Lamerton Hunt who met at Boasley Cross near Bratton Clovelly, right outside a primary school.
You might remember the Lamerton as the hunt that is hosted by disgraced ex Attorney General, Geoffrey Cox, and who have been in court on a number of occasions for illegal hunting.
After the usual food and speeches, this gormless band of criminals headed east to draw the valley near Luddon. Sabs kept up with the huntsman and hounds as they started drawing the valley, and almost immediately a fox broke in front of huntsman David Lewis, who encouraged the hounds on using horn calls. Sabs ran in to cover the line of the fox with citronella and rate the hounds out of the valley. David pulled his hounds out, only to put them back in ahead of where the fox had been seen running, despite being told repeatedly that he was on film. You would think he'd have learned something from his numerous court appearances.
While hounds were scenting in the valley, David was drawn into a long and pointless conversation with sabs about how he didn't want the hounds to hunt the fox, he wanted them to hunt the trail. How the hounds would be able to tell the difference between a live fox and a fox based "trail" (if there was one) is beyond us. David then continued to encourage his hounds in the valley, drawing blank after blank, so we are confident that this one got away.
The hunt then moved off towards Boasley Wood and then Fursdon Wood, barely going into cry, despite "trails having been laid".
Moving off from Fursdon Wood and towards the valley near Mendea, hounds started speaking and moments later sabs spotted a fox running for his life, only a few seconds ahead of the hounds. Sabs rushed towards a patch of gorse where they could hear hounds in full cry. Meanwhile another team was with the huntsman and told him that the hounds were on a fox. He refused to call them off, once again claiming that they were on a "trail".
Sabs desperately tried to rate the hounds out of the gorse, but it was so impenetrable that they couldn't get close enough. Despite their very best efforts, the fox was killed before they could get there. See our video posted yesterday.
Sabs were able to retrieve the body of the fox, and returned him to our vehicle, where they were set upon by hunt thugs who tried to claim that the fox had been hit by a car. The video speaks for itself. Presumably afraid that sabs might gather yet more evidence of illegal activity, the hunt packed up early at 1:30. After seeing the hunt off, we were able to give this poor fox the respectful burial he should never have needed. Rest in peace little one 
	
	
		
		
	


	




The fox was killed on land which is owned by a man who runs a music shop in Exeter called Project Music. We were told they had permission to be there. If you feel inclined, let them know what you think about their owner allowing a bunch of animal killing criminals to run riot on his land.
If the Lamerton thought our attention was elsewhere, they are sadly mistaken. If you have any information relating to the Lamerton, like any upcoming meets, please get in touch


----------



## Fred66 (23 January 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			IF there was a mass cull of hounds if all hunting was fully banned, then the responsibility for any cull of living hounds would lie entirely with the hunts who carried it out.

They could alternatively keep the current generation of hounds on living happily in kennels and being exercised daily, as they are in the summer when there is no hunting. The numbers of hounds would gradually reduce to zero due to loss by natural causes and ageing over a few years.
		
Click to expand...

If all forms of currently legal hunting are banned then the kennels would have to be closed. You would not be able to mass exercise them as the law is likely to be written in such a way as to try and avoid catching your average dog owner but stopping mass exercise. The hounds whilst generally hugely people friendly are hard to rehome in domestic settings and if the hunts themselves are illegal then who would do this?


----------



## paddy555 (23 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			If all forms of currently legal hunting are banned then the kennels would have to be closed. You would not be able to mass exercise them as the law is likely to be written in such a way as to try and avoid catching your average dog owner but stopping mass exercise. The hounds whilst generally hugely people friendly are hard to rehome in domestic settings and if the hunts themselves are illegal then who would do this?
		
Click to expand...

then cull them humanely. Large numbers are culled anyway.  I expect some would end up being re homed. Many hunters and supporters are not your average 3 bed semi. A lot are on farms, small holdings, land and stables. Same way as puppy walking but the other end.


----------



## ycbm (23 January 2022)

paddy555 said:



			then cull them humanely. Large numbers are culled anyway.  I expect some would end up being re homed. Many hunters and supporters are not your average 3 bed semi. A lot are on farms, small holdings, land and stables. Same way as puppy walking but the other end.
		
Click to expand...

I think it is humane to shoot a dog Paddy. I've never seen the attraction of a needle in the arm for a dog over a bullet in the brain from behind it.  
.


----------



## Sandstone1 (23 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			If all forms of currently legal hunting are banned then the kennels would have to be closed. You would not be able to mass exercise them as the law is likely to be written in such a way as to try and avoid catching your average dog owner but stopping mass exercise. The hounds whilst generally hugely people friendly are hard to rehome in domestic settings and if the hunts themselves are illegal then who would do this?
		
Click to expand...

Then stop breeding them now.


----------



## paddy555 (23 January 2022)

ycbm said:



			I think it is humane to shoot a dog Paddy. I've never seen the attraction of a needle in the arm for a dog over a bullet in the brain from behind it. 
.
		
Click to expand...

absolutely not getting into the shoot them or inject them argument again. Up to everyone to do what they believe to be best. 
My dogs and cats have always been PTS by injection by the vet. . Everyone has gone quietly so I have nothing but praise for that method. I have never had one shot so I cannot comment.


----------



## ycbm (23 January 2022)

rextherobber said:



			* Instruct your car followers that they are still bound by the Highway Code, the fact that they are trying to follow the hunt in a vehicle doesn't make them above the law. 

* Please stop this ridiculously selfish, inconsiderate parking of trailers and lorries. God help us if a fire engine ever needs to get through...
Not having a go, Fred66, but you did ask...
		
Click to expand...


Where roughly are you Rex. The last time I wrote something like this (having many times been part of large groups with many parking inconsiderately and often illegally in Cheshire)  I was told that other hunts  usually meet and park on private land.  

Is Cheshire the only county this goes on in, or are  you talking about different hunts?

I also recall someone (Palo? Apologies if it wasn't you)  saying there was no problem with foot followers blocking country lanes because they came back and moved their cars as soon as they were told there was a problem. 🙄


----------



## skinnydipper (23 January 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Then stop breeding them now.
		
Click to expand...

No, they can't do that.  That would require basic skills in forward planning.


----------



## rextherobber (23 January 2022)

ycbm said:



			Where roughly are you Rex. The last time I wrote something like this (having many times been part of large groups with many parking in considerately and sometimes illegally in Cheshire)  I was told that other hunts  usually meet and park on private land. 

Is Cheshire the only county this goes on in, or are  you talking about different hunts?

I also recall someone (Palo? Apologies if it wasn't you)  saying there was no problem with foot followers blocking country lanes because they came back and moved their cars as soon as they were told there was a problem. 🙄
		
Click to expand...

I'm in the south of the UK, so definitely a different hunt.


----------



## Fred66 (23 January 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			And constantly blame sabs for violence when hunt members have been filmed running down sabs, slashing tyres and only yesterday it appears put someone in hospital...
		
Click to expand...

You by your own admission don’t hunt, don’t monitor and don’t sab. So you have absolutely no first hand knowledge of these events.

Obviously there is footage of a sab being hit by a horse last week, however the rider that caught him does look unsighted and it does look like an unfortunate accident. Is there evidence of tyre slashing out there or of what happened yesterday?

There are hunt members who have been assaulted had property damaged (including brake lines cut) and at least one who lost his life to hunt monitors/saboteurs.

So yes I blame sabs for initiating violence, as this is what I have experienced. I would acknowledge that there are good and bad on both sides but the level of provocation offered by sabs is something else.


----------



## Sandstone1 (23 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			You by your own admission don’t hunt, don’t monitor and don’t sab. So you have absolutely no first hand knowledge of these event.

Obviously there is footage of a sab being hit by a horse last week, however the rider that caught him does look unsighted and it does look like an unfortunate accident. Is there evidence of tyre slashing out there or of what happened yesterday?

There are hunt members who have been assaulted had property damaged (including brake lines cut) and at least one who lost his life to hunt monitors/saboteurs.

So yes I blame sabs for initiating violence, as this is what I have experienced. I would acknowledge that there are good and bad on both sides but the level of provocation offered by sabs is something else.
		
Click to expand...

I do not hunt now but have in the past.  pre ban and decided  it was not for me.  I have never said I had not hunted so please do not put words in my mouth.   I do not sab or monitor only because I do not have time too. I certainly would do and may well do in the future.
I do have first hand knowledge as I often see the chaos caused by my local hunt and have recently reported them to the police as I saw them with my own eyes chasing a fox.
Fox hunting is illegal and you can argue til the cows come home about who is right and who is wrong but the fact remains if you are fox hunting you are breaking the law and sabs will continue to try and stop you.


----------



## Fellewell (23 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Many of you on here seem keen to see all forms of hunting banned, some of you purport to want this out of concern for animals. Can I ask those people how they will square the deaths of 10,000+ hounds with their consciences if they are successful?
		
Click to expand...

Concern for animals Fred? oh well I'm up for a flaming too

No matter how careful breeders are with gene pools and health screening nature still throws up some surprises. You can look at your expensive pooches and not realise that they are the result of repeated outcrossing and backcrossing and the inevitable culling to produce the desired result (not always desirable sadly)
Like any working dog a hound has a job to do and must be fit for purpose, for the country he has to cross, stamina, nose, voice, intelligence, independence, trainability and above all conformation. However careful breeding does not always produce what is expected or required and a hound that is ill or struggling is not made to suffer.
Unfortunately in the pet world it can be all about the money and dogs are bred indiscriminately and sold to the highest bidder. We really shouldn't be seeing 4 month old puppies suffering with crippling degenerative diseases, while bitches who've had the requisite 4 registered litters are dumped in rescues.
At least the hunt takes care of its own.


----------



## Fred66 (23 January 2022)

..


Sandstone1 said:



			I do not hunt now but have in the past.  pre ban and decided  it was not for me.  I have never said I had not hunted so please do not put words in my mouth.   I do not sab or monitor only because I do not have time too. I certainly would do and may well do in the future.
I do have first hand knowledge as I often see the chaos caused by my local hunt and have recently reported them to the police as I saw them with my own eyes chasing a fox.
Fox hunting is illegal and you can argue til the cows come home about who is right and who is wrong but the fact remains if you are fox hunting you are breaking the law and sabs will continue to try and stop you.
		
Click to expand...

Everyone on here who has said they are pro hunt has indicated on numerous occasions that they are pro-legal hunting and against brea the law.

My comment regarding your being involved in hunting was specifically in respect of being able or not to talk of current experience of the saboteurs and hunts. Also as it is approaching 17 years since the ban any first hand experience is a long time ago.

You obviously have some experience of your local hunt (not sure which) and if they are hunting illegally and causing significant disruption and damage then this should be dealt with, but this is not the case for all hunts.


----------



## Sandstone1 (23 January 2022)

Fellewell said:



			Concern for animals Fred? oh well I'm up for a flaming too

No matter how careful breeders are with gene pools and health screening nature still throws up some surprises. You can look at your expensive pooches and not realise that they are the result of repeated outcrossing and backcrossing and the inevitable culling to produce the desired result (not always desirable sadly)
Like any working dog a hound has a job to do and must be fit for purpose, for the country he has to cross, stamina, nose, voice, intelligence, independence, trainability and above all conformation. However careful breeding does not always produce what is expected or required and a hound that is ill or struggling is not made to suffer.
Unfortunately in the pet world it can be all about the money and dogs are bred indiscriminately and sold to the highest bidder. We really shouldn't be seeing 4 month old puppies suffering with crippling degenerative diseases, while bitches who've had the requisite 4 registered litters are dumped in rescues.
At least the hunt takes care of its own.
		
Click to expand...

I do not disagree about pet dogs.  Sadly hounds are still being bred and trained for a job that should not exist.   Yes we know trail hunting is still legal at the moment at least but that does not explain why hounds are trained to follow fox sent.
If hunts really care about their hounds they would reduce the amount of puppies they bred now.


----------



## Sandstone1 (23 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			..

Everyone on here who has said they are pro hunt has indicated on numerous occasions that they are pro-legal hunting and against brea the law.

My comment regarding your being involved in hunting was specifically in respect of being able or not to talk of current experience of the saboteurs and hunts. Also as it is approaching 17 years since the ban any first hand experience is a long time ago.

You obviously have some first hand experience of your local hunt (not sure which) and if they are hunting illegally and causing significant disruption and damage then this should be dealt with, but this is not the case for all hunts.
		
Click to expand...

I often come in to contact with the hunt and its followers on local roads and witness first hand the chaos they cause by hunting along side roads.  Seen first hand.  hunting and riding in to the dark seen first hand.  Chasing a fox seen first hand.   churning up bridleways seen first hand.  upsetting livestock first hand.


----------



## skinnydipper (23 January 2022)

Fellewell said:



			At least the hunt takes care of its own.
		
Click to expand...

Oh, that's all right then     Remind me again how many are 'disposed of' each year.

I think to call it 'taking care of' is a bit of a stretch


----------



## paddy555 (23 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Obviously there is footage of a sab being hit by a horse last week, however the rider that caught him does look unsighted and it does look like an unfortunate accident.
		
Click to expand...

a group of people cantering horses towards others to intimidate them is not an accident. It is a deliberate act and beyond any sort of belief. If you canter a horse at someone there is always the possibility of something going wrong and you not being able to control the outcome as was the case here. 
Far from being regarded as an accident it should be regarded as a deliberate assault and the rider should be prosecuted. He rode that way and at that person deliberately. It was very easy to foresee what could, and did, become the outcome. 

All the public saw from that clip was the total arrogance of the hunt prepared to knock people down in temper for their sport. 


For the sake of balance I have no problem in prosecuting sabs as well.


----------



## Millionwords (23 January 2022)

paddy555 said:



			a group of people cantering horses towards others to intimidate them is not an accident. It is a deliberate act and beyond any sort of belief. If you canter a horse at someone there is always the possibility of something going wrong and you not being able to control the outcome as was the case here.
Far from being regarded as an accident it should be regarded as a deliberate assault and the rider should be prosecuted. He rode that way and at that person deliberately. It was very easy to foresee what could, and did, become the outcome.

All the public saw from that clip was the total arrogance of the hunt prepared to knock people down in temper for their sport.


For the sake of balance I have no problem in prosecuting sabs as well.
		
Click to expand...

Agree, these are not the actions a person would take unless they were happy with the potential to cause harm.


----------



## Millionwords (23 January 2022)

Millionwords said:



			Agree, these are not the actions a person would take unless they were happy with the potential to cause harm.
		
Click to expand...

Anyone doing anything to cause harm, hunt or Sabs deserve the same treatment by the law.


----------



## Clodagh (23 January 2022)

I’m pro hunting but this thread is turning me into an anti!
Hunts need to stop trespassing and upsetting other people. They could still carry on killing foxes and no one in the main would care. The trespass and damage is far more upsetting to your average rural dweller (IMO).


----------



## Sandstone1 (24 January 2022)

Clodagh said:



			I’m pro hunting but this thread is turning me into an anti!
Hunts need to stop trespassing and upsetting other people. They could still carry on killing foxes and no one in the main would care. The trespass and damage is far more upsetting to your average rural dweller (IMO).
		
Click to expand...

I agree about the upsetting other people and trespassing etc but have to very strongly disagree with your comment on killing foxes!
I think most people do care very much about the hunt killing foxes illegally.    It has been illegal for 17 years now and I think most people do not realise it still goes on.   This, I think is what hunts rely on.  It very much needs to be brought to the general populations notice that it is still going on.


----------



## palo1 (24 January 2022)

@Clodagh : 'I’m pro hunting but this thread is turning me into an anti!''  Generally that is the intention on this thread...

Truly, none of the hunts I know of behave badly.  None of my friends hunts across the country behave badly. There are still many or even most hunts that behave entirely respectably.  Only last night though I was reading on various bloodhound posts of the abuse and trolling they get from sabs and antis.  Most of the bloodhound packs support legal trail hunting but not illegal hunting.   Hunting is not one community and one thing and there are badly behaved hunts that need disciplining or disbanding but that is not the case across the country.


----------



## Clodagh (24 January 2022)

palo1 said:



@Clodagh : 'I’m pro hunting but this thread is turning me into an anti!''  Generally that is the intention on this thread...

Truly, none of the hunts I know of behave badly.  None of my friends hunts across the country behave badly. There are still many or even most hunts that behave entirely respectably.  Only last night though I was reading on various bloodhound posts of the abuse and trolling they get from sabs and antis.  Most of the bloodhound packs support legal trail hunting but not illegal hunting.   Hunting is not one community and one thing and there are badly behaved hunts that need disciplining or disbanding but that is not the case across the country.
		
Click to expand...

It is very difficult, in todays crowded world, to not upset other people. I just think hunts need to move with the times and be super careful and considerate. 
I’m glad your hunt nor any you know ever do anything like trespass or misbehave.


----------



## ycbm (24 January 2022)

Clodagh said:



			It is very difficult, in todays crowded world, to not upset other people. I just think hunts need to move with the times and be super careful and considerate.
		
Click to expand...




palo1 said:



			Truly, none of the hunts I know of behave badly.
		
Click to expand...

They do,  Palo, you just don't recognise what other people call "behaving badly". As Clodagh says,  the world is too crowded now.  The population  has increased by close to ten million, well over 10%  since the Hunting Act was drafted

 I'm reasonably sure it was you earlier on in the thread who said it was OK for your foot followers to block country roads with their cars because they came back and moved them straight away if they were called. I think most people who aren't with the hunt call that behaving badly.  My experience is that any meet where the parking isn't on private land/takes place at a pub/has ridden followers filling local paths used by walkers etc. will result in many locals believing the hunt has behaved badly.  

I think possibly that your own hunt is smaller and more rural than the hunts people are complaining about in other parts of the country.  
.


----------



## Sandstone1 (24 January 2022)

I would call actually stopping traffic both ways on a main road just so the hunt can "follow a trail"  behaving pretty badly.  Stopping lorries and people trying to go about their legal daily business. 
  Also riding in the dark on roads with no lights on,  blocking gateways and churning up grass verges and bridleways.   Killing other wildlife because hounds out of control, allowing hounds on railways. 
 Upsetting peoples livestock and horses because the hunt can not even let people know when they are in the area...  I could go on but its all been said before.
Thats not even mentioning the illegal fox hunting.
Maybe people need to realise that even if their hunt does not behave like this there certainly are hunts that do.


----------



## Tiddlypom (24 January 2022)

The 'I can't be expected to let everyone with an acre and a pony know that the hunt are coming by them' master also vehemently tried to defend the issue of the hunt regularly blocking roads herabouts to through traffic.

Not slowing through traffic, but blocking it completely with horses and gormless riders draped all over the road, and by stupid parking of car followers, lorries, trailers and other hunt vehicles on blind bends etc.

My mobile hairdresser arrived very late one day, having been held for a long time by the hunt blocking the road. She's a horsey country girl, born and bred in the area. She was fuming. I relayed this to the master, who flatly denied that the hunt had caused a nuisance. He insisted that everyone who comes across the hunt on the roads is delighted to be forced to stop and wait, because they want to spend time admiring the hunt.

Err, no. I did my best to disabuse him of this notion, but that entitled attitude is still far too common amongst those who hunt.

It took me nearly half an hour to drive a mile on a NSL road past the hunt once, I was held up by multiple groups of riders en route who were in no hurry to move out of the way.


----------



## Gallop_Away (24 January 2022)

I always find it a bit odd when self proclaimed animal lovers act so flippant towards the destruction of tens of thousands of hounds. Yes they can argue that it’s the hunts fault not theirs, but the same could be said for the death of a fox. It’s the hunts that are doing the killing, yet they clearly find the death of a fox unacceptable. Why does it seem more acceptable to you to cull hounds? 
I suppose I just find it quite hypocritical to show such outrage at the death of a fox, but not seem to care that an outright ban would result in the deaths of so many hounds.


----------



## ycbm (24 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			I always find it a bit odd when self proclaimed animal lovers act so flippant towards the destruction of tens of thousands of hounds.
		
Click to expand...

Lets be realistic though,  no more hounds would die than usual,  they would just not live quite as many years in a kennel.  And that isn't the dream some people make it out to be,  I've seen the scars from kennel fights.  
.


----------



## stangs (24 January 2022)

Maybe I'm missing something, but could someone explain to me why all these hounds would have to be destroyed? Why can't they be retrained and passed onto drag hunts, or (the younger ones) retrained to do work that'll use their noses?


----------



## Gallop_Away (24 January 2022)

Do hunts kill more foxes than ones hit by cars? The end result is the same afterall. That same fox killed by a hunt could have been run over the following week. Or shot. Everything dies eventually so if it doesn't matter that a hound is killed sooner rather than later why does it matter with a fox? 
Just to point out I'm advocating hunting foxes with hounds by the way. I'm just merely trying to play devils advocate to point out why I find some of the comments on here hypocritical.


----------



## Miss_Millie (24 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			Do hunts kill more foxes than ones hit by cars? The end result is the same afterall. That same fox killed by a hunt could have been run over the following week. Or shot. Everything dies eventually so if it doesn't matter that a hound is killed sooner rather than later why does it matter with a fox?
Just to point out I'm advocating hunting foxes with hounds by the way. I'm just merely trying to play devils advocate to point out why I find some of the comments on here hypocritical.
		
Click to expand...

Should we all go out killing wildlife as we please, just because it might get hit by a car at some point? Should I start killing the birds and hedgehogs living in my garden, because oh well everything dies eventually. 

I'm sorry but this is the silliest whataboutery I've heard so far.


----------



## skinnydipper (24 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			Do hunts kill more foxes than ones hit by cars? The end result is the same afterall. That same fox killed by a hunt could have been run over the following week. Or shot. Everything dies eventually so if it doesn't matter that a hound is killed sooner rather than later why does it matter with a fox?
Just to point out I'm advocating hunting foxes with hounds by the way. I'm just merely trying to play devils advocate to point out why I find some of the comments on here hypocritical.
		
Click to expand...

I can see an obvious difference.

If a fox is hit by a car it is an accidental death.

If it is killed by a hunt then it has lost its life for the purpose of providing entertainment for humans.


----------



## Gallop_Away (24 January 2022)

stangs said:



			Maybe I'm missing something, but could someone explain to me why all these hounds would have to be destroyed? Why can't they be retrained and passed onto drag hunts, or (the younger ones) retrained to do work that'll use their noses?
		
Click to expand...

Because in the same way my terrier will still hunt rats even though I've never trained her to do so, a fox hound would still retain it's instinct to hunt foxes. 
Drag pack use bloodhounds which are entirely different to a foxhound. 
They are working animals and can not be rehomed to just anyone. Some could be but the likelihood is many would end up being destroyed.


----------



## meleeka (24 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			I always find it a bit odd when self proclaimed animal lovers act so flippant towards the destruction of tens of thousands of hounds. Yes they can argue that it’s the hunts fault not theirs, but the same could be said for the death of a fox. It’s the hunts that are doing the killing, yet they clearly find the death of a fox unacceptable. Why does it seem more acceptable to you to cull hounds? 
I suppose I just find it quite hypocritical to show such outrage at the death of a fox, but not seem to care that an outright ban would result in the deaths of so many hounds.
		
Click to expand...

I don’t think many posters have an issue with death if needed.  It’s the unnecessary suffering that’s wrong (and yes I’m counting the chase of a fox as unnecessary in the vast majority of cases).  

Those hounds aren’t going to make it into middle age anyway. so doing the same job a few years or months earlier than planned isn’t really going to make any difference to them.


----------



## Gallop_Away (24 January 2022)

Miss_Millie said:



			Should we all go out killing wildlife as we please, just because it might get hit by a car at some point? Should I start killing the birds and hedgehogs living in my garden, because oh well everything dies eventually.

I'm sorry but this is the silliest whataboutery I've heard so far.
		
Click to expand...

You've completely missed my point. I even stated at the bottom of my post i was NOT advocating hunting of foxes with hounds. That is not what I am saying at all. 
Ycbm said that hounds will only be killed at a later point so if hunting is banned and hounds are culled it wouldn't really matter. But that same argument could be applied to foxes and yet people find it unacceptable to kill them but act quite flippantly towards the death of hounds.


----------



## Gallop_Away (24 January 2022)

skinnydipper said:



			I can see an obvious difference.

If a fox is hit by a car it is an accidental death.

If it is killed by a hunt then it has lost its life for the purpose of providing entertainment for humans.
		
Click to expand...

What does the reason matter? Dead is dead. 

I just think antis and so called animal lovers need to have a think about the implications of an outright ban. Why does the life of a fox matter but the life of a hound does not?


----------



## Fred66 (24 January 2022)

stangs said:



			Maybe I'm missing something, but could someone explain to me why all these hounds would have to be destroyed? Why can't they be retrained and passed onto drag hunts, or (the younger ones) retrained to do work that'll use their noses?
		
Click to expand...

Because people are pushing for banning all forms of hunting with hounds.


----------



## meleeka (24 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			What does the reason matter? Dead is dead. 

I just think antis and so called animal lovers need to have a think about the implications of an outright ban. Why does the life of a fox matter but the life of a hound does not?
		
Click to expand...

Humans thundering through the countryside while a fox literally runs for its life, then loses, is hardly comparable to a hound being shot quickly and cleanly, out of necessity, not sport. 

You ought to be happy people don’t concern themselves more with  the welfare of hounds or hunting would be even more unpopular than already is.


----------



## skinnydipper (24 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			What does the reason matter? Dead is dead.

I just think antis and so called animal lovers need to have a think about the implications of an outright ban. Why does the life of a fox matter but the life of a hound does not?
		
Click to expand...

I will remind you of planete's excellent post.



planete said:



			If the foxhounds bred since 2004 had been trained to follow an artificial scent and the hunts had abided by the law the situation would be very different.
		
Click to expand...


You are mistaken if you think I would be happy about the destruction of hounds.


----------



## Gallop_Away (24 January 2022)

meleeka said:



			Humans thundering through the countryside while a fox literally runs for its life, then loses, is hardly comparable to a hound being shot quickly and cleanly, out of necessity, not sport.

You ought to be happy people don’t concern themselves more with  the welfare of hounds or hunting would be even more unpopular than already is.
		
Click to expand...

I appreciate the unnecessary suffering is also a factor for many people. 
However reading some of the comments along the lines of "thats not our problem" towards the death of hounds from people who claim to love animals!!? Well I really do find that to be hypocrisy of the highest order I'm afraid


----------



## Fred66 (24 January 2022)

ycbm said:



			Lets be realistic though,  no more hounds would die than usual,  they would just not live quite as many years in a kennel.  And that isn't the dream some people make it out to be,  I've seen the scars from kennel fights.
.
		
Click to expand...

Some hounds are put down each year for a combination of reasons: injured/ill health not suitable for job (may not be safe round livestock, may be prone to stray, may be aggressive etc), age. They are large dogs and work hard and 8 /9 is probably the upper age they can realistically work, some might be retired back to their puppy walkers but many would not go back to that environment. So yes around 12% of hounds are probably put down each year, however if all hunting of any form of scent with hounds is banned then this figure will rise to around 95%. The very thought of this brings tears to my eyes, and the deliberate callousness of some peoples comments “no more hounds than normal”, “so if hunting is banned and a few more hounds are culled it wouldn’t really matter” from people who purport to be bothered about animals is hypocritical and just, well to be honest words fail me.


----------



## skinnydipper (24 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Some hounds are put down each year for a combination of reasons: injured/ill health not suitable for job (may not be safe round livestock, may be prone to stray, may be aggressive etc), age. They are large dogs and work hard and 8 /9 is probably the upper age they can realistically work, some might be retired back to their puppy walkers but many would not go back to that environment. So yes around 12% of hounds are probably put down each year, however if all hunting of any form of scent with hounds is banned then this figure will rise to around 95%. The very thought of this brings tears to my eyes, and the deliberate callousness of some peoples comments “no more hounds than normal”, “so if hunting is banned and a few more hounds are culled it wouldn’t really matter” from people who purport to be bothered about animals is hypocritical and just, well to be honest words fail me.
		
Click to expand...

The more I learn about this "sport" the more it disgusts me.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/thousands-healthy-foxhounds---including-6061265

https://www.wildlifeguardian.co.uk/hunting/hounds/


----------



## Gallop_Away (24 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Some hounds are put down each year for a combination of reasons: injured/ill health not suitable for job (may not be safe round livestock, may be prone to stray, may be aggressive etc), age. They are large dogs and work hard and 8 /9 is probably the upper age they can realistically work, some might be retired back to their puppy walkers but many would not go back to that environment. So yes around 12% of hounds are probably put down each year, however if all hunting of any form of scent with hounds is banned then this figure will rise to around 95%. The very thought of this brings tears to my eyes, and the deliberate callousness of some peoples comments “no more hounds than normal”, “so if hunting is banned and a few more hounds are culled it wouldn’t really matter” from people who purport to be bothered about animals is hypocritical and just, well to be honest words fail me.
		
Click to expand...

It really is unbelievable how callous so called animal lovers can be. This idea that hunts don't care about their hounds. Our master knows each hound by name, can tell you their parents siblings bloodlines etc. He can tell you their strengths and how they tend to hunt. 
Sabs just love to post photos of themselves hugging the hounds with the caption along the lines "the only love they'll ever know". I can tell you that is pure bull poop. They would not be so affectionate towards people if they were not shown love and affection regularly. 
To watch our master interact with his hounds is amazing. He adores them and they him. 
To hear those who say they love animals be so flippant towards the deaths of these beautiful animals who are very much thought of and cared for just disgusts me to be honest.


----------



## paddy555 (24 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			Because in the same way my terrier will still hunt rats even though I've never trained her to do so, a fox hound would still retain it's instinct to hunt foxes.
Drag pack use bloodhounds which are entirely different to a foxhound.
They are working animals and can not be rehomed to just anyone. Some could be but the likelihood is many would end up being destroyed.
		
Click to expand...

so if you take a foxhound hunting it retains it's instinct to hunt foxes. Hunting fox is illegal so what is the point of foxhounds if they are always likely to go off the rails after the fox.


----------



## paddy555 (24 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Some hounds are put down each year for a combination of reasons: injured/ill health not suitable for job (may not be safe round livestock, may be prone to stray, may be aggressive etc), age. They are large dogs and work hard and 8 /9 is probably the upper age they can realistically work, some might be retired back to their puppy walkers but many would not go back to that environment. So yes around 12% of hounds are probably put down each year, however if all hunting of any form of scent with hounds is banned then this figure will rise to around 95%. The very thought of this brings tears to my eyes, and the deliberate callousness of some peoples comments “no more hounds than normal”, “so if hunting is banned and a few more hounds are culled it wouldn’t really matter” from people who purport to be bothered about animals is hypocritical and just, well to be honest words fail me.
		
Click to expand...

I am afraid this comes across as the tear jearker. You said 10k would have to be destroyed, the Countryside alliance 3000 killed a year. 
However your posts, Palo's and Gallops deflection of PTS hounds just appear to be an effort to deflect the situation and guilt trip those who want it banned

People want it banned for reasons. They have been pointed out numerous times on here. Surely you cannot have missed them. 

Many of the public don't care if all hunting stopped tomorrow. If you want hunting to remain you need to get your house in order. Stop riding over people, stop letting your hounds kill both small furries and the likes of Barney. Stop fox hunting and stop treating the public with contempt. 

I note the people supporting hunting on here hunt with hunts that are squeaky clean. Are they really?


----------



## Gallop_Away (24 January 2022)

paddy555 said:



			so if you take a foxhound hunting it retains it's instinct to hunt foxes. Hunting fox is illegal so what is the point of foxhounds if they are always likely to go off the rails after the fox.
		
Click to expand...

That is where it is important to have a good master and whips team that can control their hounds. It can be done as it's something I have witnessed for many years.


----------



## paddy555 (24 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			That is where it is important to have a good master and whips team that can control their hounds. It can be done as it's something I have witnessed for many years.
		
Click to expand...

so if it can be done why isn't it? Only reason can be lack of inclination.


----------



## Gallop_Away (24 January 2022)

paddy555 said:



			I am afraid this comes across as the tear jearker. You said 10k would have to be destroyed, the Countryside alliance 3000 killed a year.
However your posts, Palo's and Gallops deflection of PTS hounds just appear to be an effort to deflect the situation and guilt trip those who want it banned

People want it banned for reasons. They have been pointed out numerous times on here. Surely you cannot have missed them.

Many of the public don't care if all hunting stopped tomorrow. If you want hunting to remain you need to get your house in order. Stop riding over people, stop letting your hounds kill both small furries and the likes of Barney. Stop fox hunting and stop treating the public with contempt.

I note the people supporting hunting on here hunt with hunts that are squeaky clean. Are they really?
		
Click to expand...

It is not deflection at all. We are talking about real animals here not fictional ones. And they most certainly matter. 
It is very much a reality that these animals would need to be destroyed if hunting was banned. The truth hurts clearly.....


----------



## Gallop_Away (24 January 2022)

paddy555 said:



			so if it can be done why isn't it? Only reason can be lack of inclination. 

Click to expand...

By SOME hunts ... not by all.
I thought we had clearly established some hunts floute the law. Must we keep going round in circles? I will say it again I do not deny nor condone the fact that many hunts are hunting illegally!


----------



## TGM (24 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			Drag pack use bloodhounds which are entirely different to a foxhound.
		
Click to expand...

No they don't.  Drag packs use foxhounds, whilst bloodhound packs use (unsurprisingly) bloodhounds!

Drag packs follow a 'dragged' scent.  Bloodhound packs follow the unadulterated scent of human runners (hence the term 'the clean boot').


----------



## ester (24 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			Because in the same way my terrier will still hunt rats even though I've never trained her to do so, a fox hound would still retain it's instinct to hunt foxes.
Drag pack use bloodhounds which are entirely different to a foxhound.
They are working animals and can not be rehomed to just anyone. Some could be but the likelihood is many would end up being destroyed.
		
Click to expand...

Bloodhound packs use bloodhounds, the drag here have foxhounds.


----------



## paddy555 (24 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			It is not deflection at all. We are talking about real animals here not fictional ones. And they most certainly matter.
It is very much a reality that these animals would need to be destroyed if hunting was banned. The truth hurts clearly.....
		
Click to expand...

I'm afraid it doesn't hurt at all, no use trying to guilt trip me it does.


----------



## paddy555 (24 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			By SOME hunts ... not by all.
I thought we had clearly established some hunts floute the law. Must we keep going round in circles? I will say it again I do not deny nor condone the fact that many hunts are hunting illegally!
		
Click to expand...

then it is up to you and your hunting friends to address the problem of the ones who flout the law and the ones, legal or not, who cause the public such problems. You want hunting to continue, get it sorted. What are you actually doing about it? Any of you?  (other than posting on here)

I don't want it to continue so I don't care.


----------



## Gallop_Away (24 January 2022)

Ah my apologies. I thought drag hunts used bloodhounds or in some cases a foxhound bloodhound x. I have two drag packs close to me who both use bloodhounds. I didn't realise foxhounds were also used for drag hunts. You learn something new everyday. 
Perhaps some hounds from trail packs could be rehomed to drag packs then but obviously would still require careful management out hunting.


----------



## Gallop_Away (24 January 2022)

paddy555 said:



			then it is up to you and your hunting friends to address the problem of the ones who flout the law and the ones, legal or not, who cause the public such problems. You want hunting to continue, get it sorted. What are you actually doing about it? Any of you?  (other than posting on here)

I don't want it to continue *so I don't care*.
		
Click to expand...

Says it all really I'm afraid.....

I have said consistently throughout this thread that legal trail hunts need to distance themselves from illegal hunts and condem illegal hunting and condem it bloody loudly!! 
I would happily see a new governing body set up for true trail packs.


----------



## ester (24 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			Ah my apologies. I thought drag hunts used bloodhounds or in some cases a foxhound bloodhound x. I have two drag packs close to me who both use bloodhounds. I didn't realise foxhounds were also used for drag hunts. You learn something new everyday.
Perhaps some hounds from trail packs could be rehomed to drag packs then but obviously would still require careful management out hunting.
		
Click to expand...

I was told they get the rejects 🤣, because it's easier to follow a drag trail (they also don't take out so many) not sure how true that is! They do breed some themselves too though.


----------



## meleeka (24 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			Says it all really I'm afraid.....

I have said consistently throughout this thread that legal trail hunts need to distance themselves from illegal hunts and condem illegal hunting and condem it bloody loudly!! 
I would happily see a new governing body set up for true trail packs.
		
Click to expand...

I think that’s the whole point of this thread and  what most people are saying.  The trouble is we’ve also got those that can’t see that’s what needs to happen and continually give us the whatabouteries and the few who want it stopped in its entirety.


----------



## paddy555 (24 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			Says it all really I'm afraid.....

I have said consistently throughout this thread that legal trail hunts need to distance themselves from illegal hunts and condem illegal hunting and condem it bloody loudly!!
I would happily see a new governing body set up for true trail packs.
		
Click to expand...

*so the question remains what are you and the legal trail hunts doing about it? *The answer appears to be nothing. There have been several instances on this thread, the cat on hound exercise, Barney, the fox and the spade and others. I cannot see any outrage from the packs hunting legally. No attempt to stop these maverick packs. If the legal trail hunts cannot bring pressure to bear  then who is going to? There is no one.  


I don't care if it all goes because I cannot see any way whatsoever how legal trail and illegal hunting can be separated. One carries the stigma of the other. That to me seems to be the only way out. There is no governing body, no discipline, no penalties. No real consequences for the actions of the hunts iro trespass, damaging livestock and small furries.


----------



## ycbm (24 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			Ah my apologies. I thought drag hunts used bloodhounds or in some cases a foxhound bloodhound x. I have two drag packs close to me who both use bloodhounds. I didn't realise foxhounds were also used for drag hunts. You learn something new everyday. 
Perhaps some hounds from trail packs could be rehomed to drag packs then but obviously would still require careful management out hunting.
		
Click to expand...

Bloodhounds are way too slow to satisfy drag hunters 😁 !


----------



## YorksG (24 January 2022)

paddy555 said:



*so the question remains what are you and the legal trail hunts doing about it? *The answer appears to be nothing. There have been several instances on this thread, the cat on hound exercise, Barney, the fox and the spade and others. I cannot see any outrage from the packs hunting legally. No attempt to stop these maverick packs. If the legal trail hunts cannot bring pressure to bear  then who is going to? There is no one.


I don't care if it all goes because I cannot see any way whatsoever how legal trail and illegal hunting can be separated. One carries the stigma of the other. That to me seems to be the only way out. There is no governing body, no discipline, no penalties. No real consequences for the actions of the hunts iro trespass, damaging livestock and small furries.
		
Click to expand...

Are you aware that there are packs hunting, which have no affiliation with any governing bodies? Asking those who follow the law to be expected to "deal" with those who break the law, it's a foolish as  the average driver  being expected to prevent others from speeding, or driving recklessly. What are the majority of horse owners doing to prevent trotting races on the roads?


----------



## GoldenWillow (24 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			Because in the same way my terrier will still hunt rats even though I've never trained her to do so, a fox hound would still retain it's instinct to hunt foxes.
Drag pack use bloodhounds which are entirely different to a foxhound.
They are working animals and can not be rehomed to just anyone. Some could be but the likelihood is many would end up being destroyed.
		
Click to expand...

I've asked this a few times but it's possibly kept getting lost as I've never had an answer but I live in an area that holds regular hound trails. These run over a track laid with a parrafin and aniseed mix. The hounds run on their own and very, very few don't come in with the pack and I've never known or heard of the lot running far from the trail let alone into fields they didn't have permission to be on. So why can't hunts do this?


----------



## Gallop_Away (24 January 2022)

paddy555 said:



*so the question remains what are you and the legal trail hunts doing about it? *The answer appears to be nothing. There have been several instances on this thread, the cat on hound exercise, Barney, the fox and the spade and others. I cannot see any outrage from the packs hunting legally. No attempt to stop these maverick packs. If the legal trail hunts cannot bring pressure to bear  then who is going to? There is no one.


I don't care if it all goes because I cannot see any way whatsoever how legal trail and illegal hunting can be separated. One carries the stigma of the other. That to me seems to be the only way out. There is no governing body, no discipline, no penalties. No real consequences for the actions of the hunts iro trespass, damaging livestock and small furries.
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps you and I are reading different threads then because I have seen plenty of comments on here expressing disgust and sadness for what happened to Barney and other pets that have been attacked.
I've also seen several others say they would welcome a new governing body for trail hunts. I completely agree trail packs as a whole are currently not doing enough to be separated from illegal hunting.


----------



## Gallop_Away (24 January 2022)

ycbm said:



			Bloodhounds are way too slow to satisfy drag hunters 😁 !
		
Click to expand...

Well bloody hell I've hunted with our local drag pack (bloodhounds) and it was completely bonkers. It is a little too structured for my liking, but it is most definitely fast!!!! So if that is considered too slow I dread to think 😂


----------



## limestonelil (24 January 2022)

I've asked this a few times but it's possibly kept getting lost as I've never had an answer but I live in an area that holds regular hound trails. These run over a track laid with a parrafin and aniseed mix. The hounds run on their own and very said:
			
		


			Good point GW and I hadn't seen it before. I think the hunts acting illegally have Masters and consequently employees who don't care about upsetting anybody else, for whatever reason, and just ride/hunt roughshod over other people/land/pets/roads, doing what they want.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Tiddlypom (24 January 2022)

YorksG said:



			Are you aware that there are packs hunting, which have no affiliation with any governing bodies? Asking those who follow the law to be expected to "deal" with those who break the law, it's a foolish as  the average driver  being expected to prevent others from speeding, or driving recklessly. What are the majority of horse owners doing to prevent trotting races on the roads?
		
Click to expand...

After you posted this (below)  a few days ago, bringing football into the mix :-



YorksG said:



			That feels rather like saying that because, say Chelsea FC have a lot of hooligans in their crowd, that Bradford fc need to alter their behaviour.
		
Click to expand...

To which SEL, continuing with the football analogy, made this rather excellent reply showing just how change can come from within, as long as the determination is there to effect it.


SEL said:



			When English teams were banned from playing in Europe due to their fans behaviour EVERY football club worked hard to get hooliganism under control so they could rejoin the European leagues.

If people who hunt want to continue the sport then they need to stop saying "well it wasn't us" and start dealing with hunts who trespass, commit criminal damage and cause harm. Otherwise it won't be around for anyone in a pretty short space of time.
		
Click to expand...

Or you just can carry on insisting that illegal hunting is nothing to do with legal hunting, despite legal and illegal registered packs being under the same governing body.

The illegal pirate packs are a separate issue from the illegal registered packs.


----------



## YorksG (24 January 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			The illegal pirate packs are a separate issue from the illegal registered packs.
		
Click to expand...

What is your answer to the pirate packs?


----------



## paddy555 (24 January 2022)

YorksG said:



			Are you aware that there are packs hunting, which have no affiliation with any governing bodies? Asking those who follow the law to be expected to "deal" with those who break the law, it's a foolish
		
Click to expand...

absolutely spot on. In a nutshell. Impossible to tell the difference and the only way is therefore to stop the whole lot.


----------



## paddy555 (24 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			Perhaps you and I are reading different threads then because I have seen plenty of comments on here expressing disgust and sadness for what happened to Barney and other pets that have been attacked.
I've also seen several others say they would welcome a new governing body for trail hunts. I completely agree trail packs as a whole are currently not doing enough to be separated from illegal hunting.
		
Click to expand...

but it is not the comments of few people on here but of the legal hunts. What are they doing about it. I'm sure everyone on here is sorry, I am sure they would welcome a new governing body. There are a lot of packs thought to be legally hunting. After each of the incidents one would expect total condemnation from them yet I google the incidents and none of them appear to express any sorrow at the incident, no condemnation or any action to prevent it in the future so I can only guess they couldn't care less.

What is there to stop the legal trail packs taking action, setting up a governing body. Promoting their activities, advertising all their meets quite openly. Having monitors to cover every bit of their activities. 

If hunts don't want to join and abide by the rules then there can be only one conclusion. 

You say trail packs are not currently doing enough to separate them from illegal hunting so why don't they do more?


----------



## Tiddlypom (24 January 2022)

YorksG said:



			What is your answer to the pirate packs?
		
Click to expand...

 Thankfully I don't have any knowledge or experience of pirate packs, so I am not the person to ask about those. They've not been an issue in the parts of the country that I've lived in.

Are there many of them?


----------



## YorksG (24 January 2022)

I know of two local pirate foot packs


----------



## Sandstone1 (24 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			I always find it a bit odd when self proclaimed animal lovers act so flippant towards the destruction of tens of thousands of hounds. Yes they can argue that it’s the hunts fault not theirs, but the same could be said for the death of a fox. It’s the hunts that are doing the killing, yet they clearly find the death of a fox unacceptable. Why does it seem more acceptable to you to cull hounds?
I suppose I just find it quite hypocritical to show such outrage at the death of a fox, but not seem to care that an outright ban would result in the deaths of so many hounds.
		
Click to expand...

Once again stop breeding them then!   You breed them you are responsible for them.


----------



## Gallop_Away (24 January 2022)

YorksG said:



			I know of two local pirate foot packs
		
Click to expand...

I know of at least two also around by me. They are more common than people think


----------



## Gallop_Away (24 January 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Once again stop breeding them then!   You breed them you are responsible for them.
		
Click to expand...

Yes hunts are responsible for them but I still find it odd how little concern they are shown from you who claim to be animal lovers.
They exist so simply saying "it's not my problem" sounds like a total cop out I'm afraid 🙄


----------



## Chianti (24 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Some hounds are put down each year for a combination of reasons: injured/ill health not suitable for job (may not be safe round livestock, may be prone to stray, may be aggressive etc), age. They are large dogs and work hard and 8 /9 is probably the upper age they can realistically work, some might be retired back to their puppy walkers but many would not go back to that environment. So yes around 12% of hounds are probably put down each year, however if all hunting of any form of scent with hounds is banned then this figure will rise to around 95%. The very thought of this brings tears to my eyes, and the deliberate callousness of some peoples comments “no more hounds than normal”, “so if hunting is banned and a few more hounds are culled it wouldn’t really matter” from people who purport to be bothered about animals is hypocritical and just, well to be honest words fail me.
		
Click to expand...

Why do the hounds have to be put down if trail hinting is banned?  Could the ex hunt followers not pay for their keep until the age at which they would have been PTS if they were still hunting?


----------



## Chianti (24 January 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			It really is unbelievable how callous so called animal lovers can be. This idea that hunts don't care about their hounds. Our master knows each hound by name, can tell you their parents siblings bloodlines etc. He can tell you their strengths and how they tend to hunt.
Sabs just love to post photos of themselves hugging the hounds with the caption along the lines "the only love they'll ever know". I can tell you that is pure bull poop. They would not be so affectionate towards people if they were not shown love and affection regularly.
To watch our master interact with his hounds is amazing. He adores them and they him.
To hear those who say they love animals be so flippant towards the deaths of these beautiful animals who are very much thought of and cared for just disgusts me to be honest.
		
Click to expand...

And yet it's perfectly acceptable for one to be shot if it doesn't meet the required spec. Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical? They're 'very much thought of and cared for' until they don't make the grade.


----------



## Miss_Millie (24 January 2022)

Chianti said:



			And yet it's perfectly acceptable for one to be shot if it doesn't meet the required spec. Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical? They're 'very much thought of and cared for' until they don't make the grade.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly. It is very much an exploitative attitude.


----------



## Koweyka (24 January 2022)

The hounds are as much victims as the foxes and the other casualties of trail hunting. If they aren’t hanging off barbed wire, running with cut feet, kicked by horses, hit by cars, run over by trains, falling off cliffs, falling down mine shafts, the bitches suffering from prolapses from over breeding, having chunks taken out of them due to kennel fights.  They get a bullet in the back of the head when they no longer fulfil their purpose, so dont fein fake concern over them and blame the anti’s because it doesn’t wash. Again you have had 17 YEARS to get your house in order and you haven’t. 

It’s not like trail hunting will end over night, but it will end so slow down the breeding now, one huntsman I have the misfortune of knowing is already bragging about the bitches he is going to breed this summer, the same huntsman that shot twenty hounds because they followed a fake trail too well and had lost the fox killing  instinct when he took over.

We get to know the hounds, when we don’t see them for a few weeks we worry they have been killed, I spoke to a hunt supporter she said it’s ok to kill them when they are six as they have had great lives. So forgive me if I am not buying the fake outrage about the hounds because the blame lies squarely on every trail hunt/rider/supporter who has kept quiet and buried their heads for 17 YEARS. 

When we see hounds that are struggling we have asked if we can rehome them through recognised charities with RBU and home checks if the hunts would work with charities direct and not even deal with us and we get told to F off.

So yes you should all weep at the tragedy you have created for these innocent dogs.


----------



## Forum Admin Team (25 January 2022)

Thread closed while recent remarks (and users) are reviewed.


----------



## TheFatControlleR (25 January 2022)

*After a 24 hour cooling-off period the thread is now open for further contributions.
_______________________________________
Several submissions (and responses) have been removed.

Please be mindful of what is acceptable when submitting content for publication on the forum. Be civil at all times and accepting of the opinions of others, whether you agree with them or not, whether they are 'right' or not.

Please do not post bullishly or aggressively, and bear in mind that it is a rare instance when someone is persuaded to change their mind/opinion/position on social media, repeating ones own view is unnecessary and rarely helpful.

Users failing in this regard may find their access to the thread (and elsewhere) disabled.*


----------



## Fred66 (26 January 2022)

Koweyka said:



			……. so dont fein fake concern over them and blame the anti’s because it doesn’t wash.
		
Click to expand...

As fat controller said we are not going to change each other’s mind on this subject so  there probably is very little else to say on this subject, however I cannot allow this comment to pass without reply as you are so wrong if you think we don’t care for the hounds.


----------



## Gallop_Away (26 January 2022)

Just to be clear. I do not think illegal hunting should continue just so hounds don't end up being culled. That was not the point I was trying to make.
I think that LEGAL trail hunting should be allowed to continue along with drag hunting. I do not think these beautiful animals deserve to be culled if trail hunting was banned. Some hounds may be rehomed, others may be used as drag hounds, and yes in some cases hunt followers may be happy to pay for their keep if trail hunting was banned (I think many of our members, myself included would happily contribute even if hunting was banned). But the reality is many would end up being destroyed because there simply wouldn't be enough suitable homes or the funds to keep them, and that is so terribly sad in my opinion.
As Fred and admin said we are clearly very unlikely to agree on this but I can assure you we do care about our hounds. They are the very reason we can do the legal sport we love. Just as we love our horses. Without these beautiful animals trail hunting wouldn't be possible. We have a huge amount of love and respect for these animals.
I appreciate some here will never agree or understand our view but I just wanted to clarify I was not suggesting illegal hunting should be allowed to continue. I won't say any more on the matter.


----------



## Koweyka (26 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			As fat controller said we are not going to change each other’s mind on this subject so  there probably is very little else to say on this subject, however I cannot allow this comment to pass without reply as you are so wrong if you think we don’t care for the hounds.
		
Click to expand...

Then you need to start taking some collective responsibility for these beautiful creatures. Everything I have said above regarding incidents with hounds is true. It may not be with your pack but I have seen with my own eyes the reckless danger hounds are put in on a weekly basis. Not all hounds are living the dream.


----------



## Koweyka (26 January 2022)

This sums up perfectly what is happening all around the country and why we feel the way we do about trail hunting.
Less than 10% of hunts are monitored, this is a snapshot of just one month ….one month just look at how many foxes and hounds have died. These are the ones we know about approx 178 hunts have no monitoring at all.


----------



## Sandstone1 (26 January 2022)

Koweyka said:



			This sums up perfectly what is happening all around the country and why we feel the way we do about trail hunting.
Less than 10% of hunts are monitored, this is a snapshot of just one month ….one month just look at how many foxes and hounds have died. These are the ones we know about approx 178 hunts have no monitoring at all.
		
Click to expand...

How many " Accidents"  are acceptable when "Trail hunting"?


----------



## Koweyka (26 January 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			How many " Accidents"  are acceptable when "Trail hunting"?
		
Click to expand...

None, absolutely none. All steps must be taken to avoid any accidents, this includes the scent and the areas the scent is laid, it must be laid well away from anywhere foxes are likely to live and to cast hounds into areas where foxes are should also be seen as deliberate hunting.


----------



## ycbm (26 January 2022)

Fred66 said:



			I cannot allow this comment to pass without reply as you are so wrong if you think we don’t care for the hounds.
		
Click to expand...


This is another case of not seeing things through the eyes of ordinary folks who don't hunt I'm afraid.  I'm sure hunts care about them,  but only within the bounds of them doing a job for the hunt. 

All the hounds I've seen have lived in groups in concrete based cages with stables type bedding of some kind. I've seen a badly scarred hound that I was told resulted from a kennel fight.  I've heard of hounds killed in kernel fights.  I've seen injuries caused by barbed wire and I've seen a caught hound teetering on a barbed wire fence screaming until somebody came to unhook it.  I've seen a loose hound hit by a car.  I've seen two hunts amalgamate and all the hounds from one of them shot within a season.  As soon as a hound is too slow,  loses,  or never had,  the desire to hunt it will be put down. 

Ordinary folk with no attachment to hunting would not perceive that as "caring for the hounds".  

I'm sorry to continue to argue back against you like this,  and I suspect you will find this difficult to believe,  but I want legal trail hunting to continue. 

It frustrates the hell out of me that I can't see that happening unless hunting people start to realise how what they are saying comes across to other people outside the sport. 
.


----------



## ycbm (26 January 2022)

Koweyka said:



			This sums up perfectly what is happening all around the country and why we feel the way we do about trail hunting.
Less than 10% of hunts are monitored, this is a snapshot of just one month ….one month just look at how many foxes and hounds have died. These are the ones we know about approx 178 hunts have no monitoring at all.
		
Click to expand...


For the sake of balance I have to say that I think the gravestone is daft anthropomorphism and to state that if those foxes were causing a nuisance,  I would be perfectly happy for them to have been shot. 
.


----------



## Clodagh (26 January 2022)

I would say that I work my dogs and they are scarred and have had many injuries. It doesn’t mean I don’t adore them. I know that is shooting, another contentious issue but all dogs that work have the risk of injuries, as do horses.
If you do something with an animal you elevate the risk of harm. 
Hunt staff do love their hounds. They do try to find retirement homes for some that will cope. We have had retired hounds, the foxhounds have never coped but the bassets and harriers did.
But I also agree that they should stop breeding so many if you need to hunt a smaller pack to maintain control and it will be easier going forwards.


----------



## CanteringCarrot (26 January 2022)

Hunts, IMO, opinion "care for the hounds" in that they provide for their basic needs (shelter, water, food, and exercise). They also care for them as long as they do the job. 

It's going to be an uphill battle to show that hunts care for the hounds when they're talking to people that have dogs as pets. I've seen some kennels where hounds are kept and I'd never keep a dog that way, and I think that goes for most dog (as a pet) owners. So it's going to be hard for them to see that hunts care for the hounds.

Obviously hounds aren't pets and they're  working dogs, but some conditions I've seen in kennels are how hounds are cared for has been very subpar and disgusting. So it's going to be really hard for the non-hunt or average dog owner to accept this. 

I get that shooting a hound when it can't do the job isn't the worst thing for it and that they're not exactly easy to rehome in many cases, but you're going to be criticized for that. I think that's hard to avoid.


----------



## Clodagh (26 January 2022)

Koweyka said:



			None, absolutely none. All steps must be taken to avoid any accidents, this includes the scent and the areas the scent is laid, it must be laid well away from anywhere foxes are likely to live and to cast hounds into areas where foxes are should also be seen as deliberate hunting.
		
Click to expand...

I agree about using non fox based scent but there are few places in the countryside you can be absolutely sure there won’t be a fox. In the middle of large open field possibly, and that’s no guarantee.


----------



## Koweyka (26 January 2022)

Clodagh said:



			I agree about using non fox based scent but there are few places in the countryside you can be absolutely sure there won’t be a fox. In the middle of large open field possibly, and that’s no guarantee.
		
Click to expand...

But it’s all about mitigating the risk, we aren’t daft, we know a fox can pop up, but the deliberate laying of trails (when they are laid) into areas that absolutely stink of fox is always an accident waiting to happen. If trails have to be in the middle of a field then so be it, it can still be an interesting day, there just hasn’t been any compromise or change since the ban. We want to “mimic” how a fox runs ….that’s the smokescreen 🤷‍♀️


----------



## Koweyka (26 January 2022)

ycbm said:



			For the sake of balance I have to say that I think the gravestone is daft anthropomorphism and to state that if those foxes were causing a nuisance,  I would be perfectly happy for them to have been shot.
.
		
Click to expand...

Why is it daft, did you see hounds and deer and a horse were included ? They are all dead and doubt Barney was causing a nuisance to anybody or the deer, the hounds on the railway … they weren’t following a pre laid trail, all are victims whichever way you look at it.


----------



## paddy555 (26 January 2022)

Clodagh said:



			But I also agree that they should stop breeding so many if you need to hunt a smaller pack to maintain control and it will be easier going forwards.
		
Click to expand...


can hunting people explain why so many hounds are needed? less hounds easier to control?


----------



## Gallop_Away (26 January 2022)

paddy555 said:



			can hunting people explain why so many hounds are needed? less hounds easier to control?
		
Click to expand...

Clodagh makes a good point. We are a relatively small pack compared to some of our neighbours.
Our master does have excellent control as I've said before but I can definitely see how having a smaller pack helps in this matter.
I remember our master also telling us that it's usually the younger hounds that are more of a "flight risk" so he tries to alternate how many youngsters he takes out at a time as easier to keep an eye on them. Usually with a good mix of older more experienced hounds and also depends on the type of country we are hunting.


----------



## Clodagh (26 January 2022)

paddy555 said:



			can hunting people explain why so many hounds are needed? less hounds easier to control?
		
Click to expand...

Some hounds are better at things than others, so some better at finding the line, some better at being persistent, some better on poor scenting areas and so on. Also some speak better. And more sounds wonderful, imo.


----------



## ycbm (26 January 2022)

I don't think it's the number of hounds that's the problem.  I'm pretty sure I never saw less than 20 out drag hunting and although I saw them latch onto fox scent several times, they were always swiftly recalled.  
.


----------



## Clodagh (26 January 2022)

ycbm said:



			I don't think it's the number of hounds that's the problem.  I'm pretty sure I never saw less than 20 out drag hunting and although I saw them latch onto fox scent several times, they were always swiftly recalled.  
.
		
Click to expand...

I am not up to date but when I hunted (foxhounds) they’d have used 20 couple, or thereabouts, so 40.


----------



## saalsk (26 January 2022)

I can't work out how to quote, I apologise

Paddy 555 asked "why are so many hounds needed - less hounds, easier to control"

My situation is that several times a year, people on foot use hounds ( maybe 10-12 ) to hunt foxes in this area. They don't tell us when, so they just appear. They (the men) don't trespass on my land, so I can't do anything. But the dogs do. They upset my sheep, my horses and freak the cats out. The men are several fields away - I can see them with binoculars, and sometimes in the distance, but if anything happened on my yard, they would be 10-15 mins walk away. The dogs are quite obviously not under close control, as required. The horns are blaring, the hounds take about as much notice as my lurcher would, when telling him not to grab a bit of bacon rind that fell on the floor. Or not to roll in fox poop when out on a walk. So no - less hounds is obviously not easier to control for some packs - and I would be amazed if these *hunters* are affiliated with any governing body that is going to be regulating them in any way. A recent local community FB topic, from many other people complaining about the hounds being on the road, chasing cats, invading gardens and causing a nuisance, gave the pro-hunt people plenty of chance to tell them that ""they live in the country - get used to it"" and that their ""town views have no place here, f off back to the town"". They were clearly hunting foxes when they crossed my land - the arrogance is mind blowing, and their attitudes are rude and bullying, which is one of the reasons they feel free to carry on as they do, safe in the knowledge that most people would not stick their head above the parapet to say something out loud. I have absolutely no problem with legal trail hunting - but that isn't what some of them are doing. Much as they try to tell us otherwise.


----------



## GSD Woman (27 January 2022)

palo1 said:



			Quite. The police and government briefings about animal rights activists (including hunt saboteurs) identifies them as a significant risk and in certain instances on a par with terrorists. This isn't something anyone should take lightly or underestimate. They do not identify registered trail hunts in the same way as the ideology and preparedness of animal rights activists to cause harm, civil order issues and illegal disruption is far greater and more serious than anything a hunt has proven itself prepared to do. It is, in fact individuals within a hunt that cause problems that require police attendance yet the entire underlying manifesto of animal rights activists is to disrupt and cause damage.

That is not to justify any violent or antisocial action by hunt individuals but membership of certain organisations related to animal rights activism causes far more concern to the police than any hunt activity is going to. The Hunting Act is sufficient for the Police to deal with antisocial or illegal hunting activities. Every time an animal rights organisation is involved however, the police have to consider the terrorism/ proscribed groups legislation and potential for teIt



I've worked in biomedical research and there was a seminar with the FBI about the animal rights movement and the extreme arms of the of the AR movement.  The planted bombs, houses flooded by having water hoses fed through mail slots and the hose turned on, families being threated and harassed.  

Why is so hard for the legit hunts to arrange monitors to ensure that they are being legal?

As far as what happens to the hounds, they are working dogs first and foremost.  Rehoming is great if the hound is suitable. A good, clean shot isn't any crueler than the  a syringe of the pink juice.  People may be offended  by that point of view but I'm a realist and know many kennel kept  hounds, or any typed of kennel kept dog, can be incredible hard to housetrain.  Instinct is very  hard to train away.  Many years ago I did a hound walk and asked about why the hounds didn't run deer.  The answer was that the hounds have been bred to track fox.

My older GSD is from protection and sport dogs and he has worked sheep and goats.  Again instinct.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## skinnydipper (27 January 2022)

Gareth Thomas, Emeritus Professor, University of East Anglia Law School

When you have read his tweets click on show replies/show more replies


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1486372786729893897


----------



## Clodagh (27 January 2022)

skinnydipper said:



			Gareth Thomas, Emeritus Professor, University of East Anglia Law School

When you have read his tweets click on show replies/show more replies


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1486372786729893897

Click to expand...

It’s really wrong but that made me laugh. I have to admit when we farmed in Essex the police did respond very rapidly to illegal coursers. I suppose, to look it in a kind way, you can get a prosecution for coursing but not for (accidental) hunting?


----------



## skinnydipper (27 January 2022)

Clodagh said:



			It’s really wrong but that made me laugh. I have to admit when we farmed in Essex the police did respond very rapidly to illegal coursers. I suppose, to look it in a kind way, you can get a prosecution for coursing but not for (accidental) hunting?
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, Clodagh.  I had deleted it, as rather pointless post really. 

Reinstated.


----------



## Koweyka (28 January 2022)

They could have caused the pregnant mare to lose her foal and could have killed the foal at foot, but its ok because they will tell the owner when they will come to chase foxes next time and they fixed the broken fence.
https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news...4SJLwJinERBBCpPiXP5o76eayksY-H8ZTibwU4vUhKUbo


----------



## paddy555 (28 January 2022)

Koweyka said:



https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news...4SJLwJinERBBCpPiXP5o76eayksY-H8ZTibwU4vUhKUbo

Click to expand...

this article totally sums up the problems that land owners (or renters) and the general public have with hunting. It is also the problem that people supporting hunting just will not acknowledge and it is very difficult to see how to get them to do so. 

No doubt some will reply saying it was not acceptable and would not happen with their own hunt  which is fair enough but it is happening. It has happened to many of us. 
Would you want a frightened 9mo in with a group of big horses? I certainly wouldn't. Would you want a mare 2 months of foaling upset like that? I wouldn't want that either. 
Not being able to control your animals and allowing them to break a fence is also unacceptable. 

I have been in the situation that girl was except mine was a very elderly Jersey. Next time it was also an older horse with joint problems. Both were doing fine left alone to wander around their field. 

The riders and hunt staff have horses. They must surely be able to read horses, read a situation and have a good idea what is going to happen. This could have been prevented if they had routed their trail away from this horse yard. If they had told her. 

If they had control of the hounds they should have been able to stop it. 

This is the second incident of this sort in a couple of weeks. Was this the same hunt as Barney? 

Don't the hunt supporters realise that the rest of us are being held hostage? people cannot be sure their horses are going to be in one piece after the hunt have been through.


----------



## Tiddlypom (28 January 2022)

Well, isn't this just ticketyboo. Yet another case of residents' horses being panicked by the unauthorised entry of hounds onto private property, and fencing being damaged.

_'We will warn her of any future trail hunts'._

That should already be happening as standard to all horse owners, and not just the ones that the hunt has previously managed to upset.

_'She (_the master)_ said: “I have been in contact with the horse owner and apologised for the very unfortunate incident and to check her horses are OK.  _

_“I have also ensured her this will not happen again and we will warn her of any future trail hunts in the coming years.  _

_“We are also arranging to replace the fencing.'_

I have known of several cases of mares slipping foals after being upset by a hunt. I had to grab my own in foal mare in one day when the hunt fetched up here yet again without warning, and she was dashing around in a tizz. That master hadn't even bothered to let the farmers know he was coming, or the helpful local lady who would normally have alerted us. She was so apologetic, but it wasn't her fault at all.


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 January 2022)

paddy555 said:



			this article totally sums up the problems that land owners (or renters) and the general public have with hunting. It is also the problem that people supporting hunting just will not acknowledge and it is very difficult to see how to get them to do so.

No doubt some will reply saying it was not acceptable and would not happen with their own hunt  which is fair enough but it is happening. It has happened to many of us.
Would you want a frightened 9mo in with a group of big horses? I certainly wouldn't. Would you want a mare 2 months of foaling upset like that? I wouldn't want that either.
Not being able to control your animals and allowing them to break a fence is also unacceptable.

I have been in the situation that girl was except mine was a very elderly Jersey. Next time it was also an older horse with joint problems. Both were doing fine left alone to wander around their field.

The riders and hunt staff have horses. They must surely be able to read horses, read a situation and have a good idea what is going to happen. This could have been prevented if they had routed their trail away from this horse yard. If they had told her.

If they had control of the hounds they should have been able to stop it.

This is the second incident of this sort in a couple of weeks. Was this the same hunt as Barney?

Don't the hunt supporters realise that the rest of us are being held hostage? people cannot be sure their horses are going to be in one piece after the hunt have been through.
		
Click to expand...

But no one on heres hunt behaves like that so that makes it ok.


----------



## Gallop_Away (28 January 2022)

Not good at all and I would personally be livid if that had happened on our yard and those were my horses.

You would think with hunting being under such scrutiny that they would be going above and beyond to behave themselves. Do they not realise they are signing their own death warrant? 

I do not want to see trail hunting banned, but sadly I think that will be the outcome if things do not change.


----------



## GSD Woman (28 January 2022)

We similar behavior here from deer hunters.  Many are respectful of the private land but there are some that will shoot at anything, including other hunters.  It used to be we could only hack out on Sundays but now rifle season is allowed all days of the week.  A friend had a hunter tell her that her dog should be kept in during the hunting season because it might be shot on her own land. (10 acres.) It was implied that he would be the one to shoot it.

Here shooting can also equal hunting.


----------



## Emmalee23 (28 January 2022)

Can someone explain why fox is still used as the trail scent instead of something else that is non-animal related? Remove the temptation for the hounds to pick up the wrong trail? 

Mistakes will always happen but they would be a lot fewer if the hounds were following a completely different scent. 

I would love to go on a trail hunt one day, just for the atmosphere and thrill of the ride but don't agree that being torn to death by dogs is the most "humane' way to kill foxes. What's wrong with trapping and euthanasia?


----------



## ycbm (28 January 2022)

Trapping is pretty cruel to be honest.  Trapped animals, in my experience,  are very frightened by being caught in a trap for hours before someone checks it. 
.


----------



## bonny (28 January 2022)

On the bbc Scotland news just now is footage of a fox being chased by a hound from the Buccleuch hunt. Hunt denying it’s illegal but the police are investigating.


----------



## meleeka (28 January 2022)

bonny said:



			On the bbc Scotland news just now is footage of a fox being chased by a hound from the Buccleuch hunt. Hunt denying it’s illegal but the police are investigating.
		
Click to expand...

I saw that.  I’m pretty sure dogs chasing a fox is illegal, whatever way you look at it.


----------



## ycbm (29 January 2022)

Scotland has different rules from England and Wales.   I think they can use more than 2 hounds to chase a fox towards a gun.

Basically,  as long as anyone in the field is carrying a gun,  they can probably say it's legal.

ETA they tried to introduce this wrinkle into English/Welsh law a number of years back (I don't know the NI law). I tried to tell my MP to vote against it because it would make any illegal fox hunting conviction nigh on impossible if any follower had a gun,  but he wouldn't listen.  Scottish MPs were going to vote against it even though it doesn't affect Scotland  and it got withdrawn at the last moment. 
.


----------



## meleeka (29 January 2022)

ycbm said:



			Scotland has different rules from England and Wales.   I think they can use more than 2 hounds to chase a fox towards a gun.

Basically,  as long as anyone in the field is carrying a gun,  they can probably say it's legal.

ETA they tried to introduce this wrinkle into English/Welsh law a number of years back (I don't know the NI law). I tried to tell my MP to vote against it because it would make any illegal fox hunting conviction nigh on impossible if any follower had a gun,  but he wouldn't listen.  Scottish MPs were going to vote against it even though it doesn't affect Scotland  and it got withdrawn at the last moment. 
.
		
Click to expand...

 I wasn’t aware of this so thankyou.


----------



## Sandstone1 (30 January 2022)

Well,it seems the Warwickshire hunt have killed yet another fox.    I expect it will be yet another "accident"  or it will be the sabs fault.
Their "smokescreen" seems to be working for them as considering they are a trail hunt they seem to kill almost every week!


----------



## Sandstone1 (31 January 2022)

__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=943341143240407



Why are they allowed to get away with killing foxes again and again??
Another accident?


----------



## Koweyka (2 February 2022)

This isn't surprising at all…..

“Cows, sheep, hounds, partridges, ponies and foxes all end-up in skips. These bins, overflowing with animal body parts, are deemed to be of the highest risk to humans and animals yet the covert filming shows them left open to the elements”.

“ITV News approached all hunts that had been filmed. Their responses were very similar. Each said they were subject to routine inspections that ensured compliance with the regulatory requirements that they all said they adhered to”

“This secret filming shows what happens when people don’t think they’re being watched’.

The video is horrific, discretion is advised.


https://www.itv.com/news/2022-02-02...oM7fZEz0helG8m-hOG0RnB6qpICaVzTcjONCmMlXBUH5Q


----------



## Sandstone1 (2 February 2022)

Koweyka said:



			This isn't surprising at all…..

“Cows, sheep, hounds, partridges, ponies and foxes all end-up in skips. These bins, overflowing with animal body parts, are deemed to be of the highest risk to humans and animals yet the covert filming shows them left open to the elements”.

“ITV News approached all hunts that had been filmed. Their responses were very similar. Each said they were subject to routine inspections that ensured compliance with the regulatory requirements that they all said they adhered to”

“This secret filming shows what happens when people don’t think they’re being watched’.

The video is horrific, discretion is advised.


https://www.itv.com/news/2022-02-02...oM7fZEz0helG8m-hOG0RnB6qpICaVzTcjONCmMlXBUH5Q

Click to expand...

Thats horrific.   Thats where peoples much loved animals end up when they go to the hunt for disposal?


----------



## Steerpike (2 February 2022)

That's disgusting, I've fast come to the conclusion hunts really do not care about any laws and will do what ever they like as long as they get to gallop across anyone's land catching foxes.


----------



## skinnydipper (2 February 2022)

Surely no-one will come forward and try to defend that.


----------



## Sandstone1 (2 February 2022)

skinnydipper said:



			Surely no-one will come forward and try to defend that.
		
Click to expand...

I wouldnt count on it...
I have most of the pro hunters on UI so I cant see their clap trap.


----------



## Koweyka (2 February 2022)

These poor hunt hounds shot and tossed away like trash, one even jumping up to look in the bins before a bullet in the head and thrown away, utterly disgusting. What a hideous industry hunting is, from top to bottom. Just no words for this.

It’s on the ITV news this evening

Discretion advised watching the video. 



https://fb.watch/aWw5td44g7/


----------



## Sandstone1 (2 February 2022)

Koweyka said:



			These poor hunt hounds shot and tossed away like trash, one even jumping up to look in the bins before a bullet in the head and thrown away, utterly disgusting. What a hideous industry hunting is, from top to bottom. Just no words for this.

It’s on the ITV news this evening

Discretion advised watching the video.



https://fb.watch/aWw5td44g7/

Click to expand...

Heartbreaking.   These are the hounds that are so prized by hunts, that it will be anti hunters and sabs fault they are put down...
How can any "Animal lover" condone this..


----------



## ycbm (2 February 2022)

There are 3 completely separate things going on here. I'll remind people first that I'm anti fox hunting.  



Are the animals killed quickly and humanely and without knowing a thing about it? Would I be happy for an animal of mine to die that way?

Yes.




Are the bodies being treated with respect?  Who does it matter to?

No,  they are being treated as carcasses with no feeling,  which is what they are.  I do understand that people find seeing this happen upsetting but it isn't actually doing harm to anyone or any animal,  however distasteful it is.   I wouldn't have much sympathy with any consumer of mass produced meat who complains about what is on the video.  




Are there health and safety breaches going on here? 

Yes,  they need sorting.  
.


----------



## ester (2 February 2022)

Yeah I'm only bothered by the H+S situations in that video but presumed others would consider me a terrible heartless person for saying so!


----------



## AFishOutOfWater (2 February 2022)

You'd think given wet markets/COVID stuff people would be a bit more careful about wild animals getting into biological waste like that 🤢


----------



## Koweyka (2 February 2022)

So driving a quad bike repeatedly over a dead animals head for fun is acceptable behaviour and it doesn’t bother  ?

All the people that let the hunt take their ponies, if they were doing that to  your pony it would be completely acceptable to you ?

It shouldn’t matter if it’s a cow being defiled like that.  Those are the terrier men that go out with the hunts …. Though knowing which hunts are involved it doesn’t surprise me.

There is much more to this than has been shown.

Throwing dead badgers in the bins, well considering some people think badgers are TB loaded killing machines (I am not getting into the cull as obviously I oppose it) and the Kimblewick hounds caught TB and had to be destroyed what terrible chances they are taking with public and animal welfare.


----------



## ycbm (2 February 2022)

Koweyka said:



			So driving a quad bike repeatedly over a dead animals head for fun is acceptable behaviour and it doesn’t bother  ?
		
Click to expand...

It wasn't for fun it was probably  to get the carcass inside an already  pretty full bin and get the lid shut as the law required.  




			All the people that let the hunt take their ponies, if they were doing that to  your pony it would be completely acceptable to you ?
		
Click to expand...

Like Ester I expect to be accused of being heartless,  but what difference does it make what happens to the body after the animal is dead?  It's a clean quick death that bothers me.  

Pick your battles better Koweyka, and I'm with you.  Trying to raise an emotional storm about dead flesh and I'm not with you.  Your energy would be better spent campaigning about mass meat production and what it does to live animals.  What happens to dead and senseless carcasses really isn't the big issue.


----------



## AFishOutOfWater (2 February 2022)

Much as I am loathe to say it yep agree. It's really, really distasteful of course, and no, I wouldn't like it if my pets were being treated like that: my solution to that is use alternative arrangements for their disposal when they die.

But the suffering of actual live animals is _surely _the far more pressing problem? Corpses don't feel pain remember.


----------



## Dave's Mam (2 February 2022)

On ITV news right now.


----------



## Sandstone1 (2 February 2022)

Given how hunts treat live animals it does not surprise me how they treat the dead.  No respect.


----------



## Koweyka (2 February 2022)

Live animal abuse was also filmed (not been shown yet), I am a minority I do understand that but I believe animals deserve respect in death as well as life and I can’t find any justification for using a dead cow as a trampoline.

The terrier boys filmed are well known and most in the anti hunt movement aren’t surprised.


----------



## AFishOutOfWater (2 February 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Live animal abuse was also filmed (not been shown yet), I am a minority I do understand that but I believe animals deserve respect in death as well as life and I can’t find any justification for using a dead cow as a trampoline.

The terrier boys filmed are well known and most in the anti hunt movement aren’t surprised.
		
Click to expand...

No one is saying it's not distasteful though, what we're saying is yes it's not great but there is a lot worse that goes on. Much as I dislike what was filmed (I could not/did not watch it all) I think the suffering of live animals ought to take priority.


----------



## ester (2 February 2022)

No a dead cow being driven over doesn't bother me. It's dead.
Same would apply to my pony.


----------



## Dave's Mam (2 February 2022)

With dead cattle, they need to get rid of the gas in the gut.  Cattle swell up if left.  It's certainly not picturesque, but I imagine it needs done before disposal.


----------



## ester (2 February 2022)

I do remember age 15 on work experience with the local council environment section being taken to one of the local kennels on an inspection. I was prewarned it might be a grim, I wasn't bothered then either (had also done plenty of farm and vet time by that point). They used to do a lot more of their own processing then though, rather than bin for collection.


----------



## Dave's Mam (2 February 2022)

The open bins with magpies & a random dog mooching round are disturbing.


----------



## Steerpike (3 February 2022)

I'm sorry but there are better ways to getting rid of gas than driving a quad repeatedly onto the carcass.


----------



## Sandstone1 (3 February 2022)

It just shows a lack of respect.   Would people honestly not care if they saw a much loved horse being treated like that?   Thats leaving aside the very serious health and safety risks and the risk to public health.


----------



## skinnydipper (3 February 2022)

Wasn't somebody warbling on about how much the hunts think of the hounds.  Well I don't buy it.  

The casual way those dogs are shot and discarded stinks and quite literally too, I would imagine.

I've never been able to get my head around killing for fun but this was even worse, this was taking lives without thought.

Life is cheap, it seems.

I couldn't bring myself to watch the programme. My opinion is based on the video clips shared above.


----------



## Clodagh (3 February 2022)

I think if you feel strongly about how carcasses are treated you probably don’t use the hunt for disposal.
I’ve been in a lot of flesh houses and they’ve all been pretty neat and clean, although yes they do smell.
The use of waste carcasses to make electricity seems sensible and if vegans prefer that not to happen is it different to rabbits being shot so they don’t eat vegetable crops?
Hounds being shot is not nice to watch but they were, possibly, hounds that had rioted and needed culling? (Just supposition there). Yes it was done quickly. Shooting is a quick death, many of us choose it for our horses. 
It wasn’t nice viewing and I suspect that anyone that culls animals for a living gets casual about it.


----------



## CanteringCarrot (3 February 2022)

It's so easy to say "but it's dead" and for the most part I agree. Still would just bug me if I saw my horse's dead body being treated in such a way and I know some of you all would come on here making the same complaints if you lost a horse near and dear to you. I can talk like it wouldn't bother me, and maybe it wouldn't. I can act like the rational side of me would prevail, but you know, I don't actually know this until I am in the situation. I might be a bit bothered, I might not be. Certainly not hysterical though.

So it's possible that I could overlook that. The health and safety stuff, no.

The thing is, life IS cheap, and animals are just commodities to some. A tool, a thing...just livestock. Killing and also creating waste is alarmingly easy for some. For some it has to be, depending on your occupation, or if you want to eat animals, for example.

When it comes to a quick death, I think their are far worse things that can happen to animals. Still though, it's worth taking a moment to think about it sometimes.


----------



## ycbm (3 February 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Would people honestly not care if they saw a much loved horse being treated like that?
		
Click to expand...

Well I wouldn't stand and watch because I'd want my last memories to be good ones,  but no,  it doesn't bother me what is done to the body that remains,  it's got no feelings.  It's not my horse,  it's just the shell it used to walk around in.  

I think it's unreasonable to expect to be able to train people to kill farm livestock all day long and shovel them up with dumper trucks because of the size and volume and not expect them to be unemotional/uncaring about it.  

And as I said above,  any person who eats mass produced meat who is upset by that video needs to give their meat consumption a very hard rethink.  
.


----------



## ester (3 February 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			It just shows a lack of respect.   Would people honestly not care if they saw a much loved horse being treated like that?
		
Click to expand...

As I already said, no honestly not. TBH I find it a bit baffling why people worry what happens to bodies.


----------



## rabatsa (3 February 2022)

I have been in the unfortunate position of having to have three animals shot in three months.  The two horses I stood and watched the whole proceedings and chatted to the knackerman the whole time they were winched onto the wagon.  The donkey was a different matter, I had to walk away until the ramp went up.

This does not mean that the horses meant any less to me, I cannot really rationalise it myself.  The biggest difference is that both horses were late teens and had problems when they arrived here, although one had been here for nearly 5 years.  The donkey was only four years old and only here for nine months, and I had expected him to be here for many years more.


----------



## CanteringCarrot (3 February 2022)

ester said:



			As I already said, no honestly not. TBH I find it a bit baffling why people worry what happens to bodies.
		
Click to expand...

Because people, in general, are obsessed. Look how elaborate some funerals are and the amount of money we spend on tombstones, embalming, and fancy boxes...that just get buried. I know, it's humans, paying respect, celebrating life, and all that, but we're a bit over the top about it all, as a society. So we've just got this idea or mindset ingrained in us, I think. I mean, not all of us think or view it in the same way, but I think it's just something to note.


----------



## ester (3 February 2022)

I was just sat here thinking maybe I should say I don't 'get' funerals either and am working on not attending any more but tricky when there is such a massive social expectation regarding them.


----------



## cauda equina (3 February 2022)

So sorry about your donkey rabatsa


----------



## rabatsa (3 February 2022)

ester said:



			I was just sat here thinking maybe I should say I don't 'get' funerals either and am working on not attending any more but tricky when there is such a massive social expectation regarding them.
		
Click to expand...

I am with you on this.  My family had two funerals for my father, one for just the immediate family where he was interred and another at the weekend for everyone, then straight onto the bun fight.  Everyone was horrified that I would only attend one and it was the second event.

One blessing of covid is that there is now a lot less social stigma about small private send offs.  The brother in laws cremation was only attended by his partner and that is the way we would like to go.


----------



## ycbm (3 February 2022)

ester said:



			I was just sat here thinking maybe I should say I don't 'get' funerals either and am working on not attending any more but tricky when there is such a massive social expectation regarding them.
		
Click to expand...

I get funerals,  but they're for the living,  not the dead.  
.


----------



## skinnydipper (3 February 2022)

...


----------



## meleeka (3 February 2022)

ester said:



			I was just sat here thinking maybe I should say I don't 'get' funerals either and am working on not attending any more but tricky when there is such a massive social expectation regarding them.
		
Click to expand...

We didn’t have a funeral for MIL.  It would only have been us there so we decided that we didn’t need to do it.  I agree with ycbm, funerals are for the people grieving and I respect anyones right to do that however they see fit.

I think the way dead bodies are treated is about respect.  I get that they’re dead and they don’t care but I think you should still be as kind as you can.  Bodies need to be processed and disposed of, but that should be done with some degree of respect. Remember the outcry of the racing trainer photographed sitting on a dead horse?  Again, it was about respect.  Repeatedly driving over a cow because you can’t be bothered to do it the correct way isn’t respectful either imo.


----------



## Amymay (3 February 2022)

ester said:



			As I already said, no honestly not. TBH I find it a bit baffling why people worry what happens to bodies.
		
Click to expand...

TBF, whilst the video in itself did not particularly offend me, you’d have to be pretty hard nosed to say you’d feel nothing if it was your beloved animal whose body was treated with such little respect.


----------



## ester (3 February 2022)

Guess that’s me then 🤷‍♀️ I mean I wouldn’t by choice watch it and I’d be sad but that would be because my horse is dead, but I guess it highlights that everyone feels differently about death stuff.


----------



## milliepops (3 February 2022)

ycbm said:



			I think it's unreasonable to expect to be able to train people to kill farm livestock all day long and shovel them up with dumper trucks because of the size and volume and not expect them to be unemotional/uncaring about it. 


.
		
Click to expand...

this is a part that sticks out for me.
I wouldn't like the body of my pet horse to be stood on or driven over, but then I am also not having to deal with a reality where i'm moving dead animals around for my job.it's a bit like the reports about how people who work in slaughterhouses get massively desensitised to it - of course they do, it's a god awful job and kind of no wonder things go off the rails as a result.

FWIW We had no funeral for my uncle, the whole situation was already crap enough as he died alone and wasn't found for ages, no one really needed anything in terms of a service after dealing with that and I wouldn't particularly choose to attend others in the future.

so i guess i am sentimental/sensitive in some ways and not in others!  With this incident it's the lax treatment of potentially hazardous waste that is the biggest concern to me.


----------



## NinjaPony (3 February 2022)

Regardless of how we feel about death, handling of bodies etc, I think most of us can agree that the above situation (didn’t watch the videos, can’t bring myself to) does nothing to enhance the image of hunts, particularly given how hazardous and dangerous it is to have contamination like that. If public perception is that hunts don’t care about animals, both their own and other peoples, then treating dead bodies like that is yet another nail in the coffin.


----------



## CanteringCarrot (3 February 2022)

NinjaPony said:



			Regardless of how we feel about death, handling of bodies etc, I think most of us can agree that the above situation (didn’t watch the videos, can’t bring myself to) does nothing to enhance the image of hunts, particularly given how hazardous and dangerous it is to have contamination like that. If public perception is that hunts don’t care about animals, both their own and other peoples, then treating dead bodies like that is yet another nail in the coffin.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, ultimately. Once again the hunts do themselves no favors re their public image, but that's their choice. 🤷‍♀️


----------



## suestowford (3 February 2022)

Cantering Carrot, absolutely. These hunts shown are choosing to carry on like this when they know they are under scrutiny. Now this may not be a true perception but to an outsider they appear to be arrogant and unfeeling, because of what they do and how they behave.
Those hunts who continue to behave like this, will be the ones who engineer the downfall of all hunts.


----------



## ycbm (3 February 2022)

NinjaPony said:



			Regardless of how we feel about death, handling of bodies etc, I think most of us can agree that the above situation (didn’t watch the videos, can’t bring myself to) does nothing to enhance the image of hunts, particularly given how hazardous and dangerous it is to have contamination like that. If public perception is that hunts don’t care about animals, both their own and other peoples, then treating dead bodies like that is yet another nail in the coffin.
		
Click to expand...

Completely agree with this.  
.


----------



## Steerpike (3 February 2022)

I am not sensitive, having worked in a mortuary for many years, but watching that video showed me that a lot of hunts have absolutely no respect for deceased animals yes they may only be dead carcasses but that doesn't mean they get to be run over with a quad or jumped on, they have no respect for laws/health and safety and looks like they have no dignity working in such dumps, yet another nail they themselves have nailed into their coffin.


----------



## Nasicus (3 February 2022)

I'm reminded of the outcry from that trainer who was sat on a dead horse whilst taking a phone call.


----------



## Clodagh (3 February 2022)

Nasicus said:



			I'm reminded of the outcry from that trainer who was sat on a dead horse whilst taking a phone call.
		
Click to expand...

That’s a point, and I was disgusted by that. But the trainer was disrespectful to an animal that died working for him, the kennel staff had no connection to the cow.

When your pony goes to the kennels you know it will be eaten by hounds and the bones disposed of. Unless it’s inedible for any reason in which case it’s straight in the waste. 
Do you think when your pony gets to the crematorium they don’t unload it using a digger or forklift? (I don’t actually know but I’m assuming it’s not ceremonious).

My OH who has worked in kennels said you should always, but always, act as though you are being filmed in any action and behave accordingly. Hunts have let themselves down again.


----------



## milliepops (3 February 2022)

what occurred to me when watching it on the news yesterday, was that this feels waaaay to informal an arrangement for something so fundamental to farming and rural life.
i don't want to give Defra any more power or red tape than the next person, but are these sort of isolated incidents in a normally-well run network of local services, or are they all going rogue? I don't know the answer to that, it's a genuine question.   everyone speaks highly of our local hunt WRT their pts services, sensitive and quiet etc but what happens at the flesh house (if it's still called that) behind the scenes is not something anyone talks about.  I haven't any idea whether the local knacker is any better, for example.  is more regulation needed?


----------



## Chianti (3 February 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			It just shows a lack of respect.   Would people honestly not care if they saw a much loved horse being treated like that?   Thats leaving aside the very serious health and safety risks and the risk to public health.
		
Click to expand...

I think it indicates an attitude towards animals that is not the same as mine. I believe that any living being deserves to be treated with respect when it dies. Doesn't matter if it's a horse, cow, dog or badger. If I asked the hunt to put my pony to sleep and then I knew it had been treated that that I would be heart broken.


----------



## Sandstone1 (5 February 2022)

skinnydipper said:



			Wasn't somebody warbling on about how much the hunts think of the hounds.  Well I don't buy it. 

The casual way those dogs are shot and discarded stinks and quite literally too, I would imagine.

I've never been able to get my head around killing for fun but this was even worse, this was taking lives without thought.

Life is cheap, it seems.

I couldn't bring myself to watch the programme. My opinion is based on the video clips shared above.
		
Click to expand...

The annoying thing is that not long ago I was told I was not a "animal lover" because if "trail hunting"  is banned all those poor hounds would be shot.  The hounds are much valued animals with generations of breeding, much loved by the huntsman and kennel staff.
So well loved and respected that they are shot in the head and thrown in a bin like rubbish!
So well thought of that they are so causally shot by the very staff that are supposed to care for them.
How can people that claim to care for animals treat them like this?

I can sort of accept that once dead it does not matter but people say that they use the hunt for a dignified end for their horses, yes they may be shot quickly and not know any more but would you really like to think of your "Much loved horse"being driven over by a quad bike or used as a seat for a workers coffee break?   Such a dignified way to treat a body.
This is all aside from the very real risk to health by rotting flesh being left in open bins for birds and other animals to get to.
What was wrong with the hounds so causally shot in the head?
They looked pretty young and in good health to me?
Too many hounds?  Stop breeding them.   
How people can be happy for this to go on and yet then blame anti hunt people for the threat of hounds being put down when trail hunting is banned is quite honestly ridiculous and I hope hunters hang their heads in shame.
I know that is unlikely as they have no respect for the animals they abuse in the name of their "sport"  Horses and hounds alike are just tools to be thrown away like rubbish when no longer of use.
Utterly disgusting.


----------



## shortstuff99 (8 February 2022)

Cambridge with Enfield Chase hunt I believe.

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/police-investigating-death-two-dogs-23014982


----------



## scruffyponies (8 February 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			They looked pretty young and in good health to me?
		
Click to expand...

I don't know anything about the case you're referencing, but you know that hounds are culled for behavioural issues too, right?  A young healthy hound which riots should be, and usually is shot before it can do any more harm.  Anything else would be irresponsible.


----------



## Gallop_Away (8 February 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			The annoying thing is that not long ago I was told I was not a "animal lover" because if "trail hunting"  is banned all those poor hounds would be shot.  The hounds are much valued animals with generations of breeding, much loved by the huntsman and kennel staff.
So well loved and respected that they are shot in the head and thrown in a bin like rubbish!
So well thought of that they are so causally shot by the very staff that are supposed to care for them.
How can people that claim to care for animals treat them like this?

I can sort of accept that once dead it does not matter but people say that they use the hunt for a dignified end for their horses, yes they may be shot quickly and not know any more but would you really like to think of your "Much loved horse"being driven over by a quad bike or used as a seat for a workers coffee break?   Such a dignified way to treat a body.
This is all aside from the very real risk to health by rotting flesh being left in open bins for birds and other animals to get to.
What was wrong with the hounds so causally shot in the head?
They looked pretty young and in good health to me?
Too many hounds?  Stop breeding them. 
How people can be happy for this to go on and yet then blame anti hunt people for the threat of hounds being put down when trail hunting is banned is quite honestly ridiculous and I hope hunters hang their heads in shame.
I know that is unlikely as they have no respect for the animals they abuse in the name of their "sport"  Horses and hounds alike are just tools to be thrown away like rubbish when no longer of use.
Utterly disgusting.
		
Click to expand...

I clearly struck a nerve with you Sandstone1, but can you please do me a favour and stop misquoting me.
I did not say you are not an animal lover. I do not know you personally. What I in fact said is that I find it hypocritical when people who say they are animal lovers call for all forms of hunting to be banned, in the exact way I find those who say they love animals that call for racing to be banned. They do not wish to see animals die but they call for the very thing that will cause thousands of animals to be culled. I'm afraid I do find that hypocritical and I stand by that opinion.
I'm not getting drawn into another argument over this as you clearly aren't able to keep things civil in a debate and I do not think admin should need to step in again. Neither of us are ever going to see eye to eye on anything hunting related so I see very little to gain from engaging with you further.

With regards to the hounds, I think people need to keep in mind that these are working animals. They are not pets. There are far worst fates for any animal than a bullet and a quick death. Indeed it is a method many people chose for their horses. I don't see why it is "cruel" to shoot a hound but not a horse?
It is not the method many people chose for their pet dogs but again, hounds are not pets.
Hounds may need to be culled for a number of reasons. Some may show too much interest in chasing livestock, or may go as far as rioting and putting them down is the responsible thing to do.
Some may have a health issue that means they can no longer do their job, or they have become too old. When this happens every effort is made to find hounds suitable retirement homes, but sadly this is not always possible, sometimes due to the hound itself not being suited to retirement, or perhaps there aren't any suitable and knowledgeable homes available.
Needing to destroy hounds where appropriate is part of the reality of hunting, but it does not mean these animals are not cared for and loved.
I realise it may be difficult to understand if you do not work with these animals directly. It's something I have in the past struggled to get my head around. But it is not possible to watch our hunt master interact with his hounds, see how well they look, and how proudly he has paraded them in the previous hunt shows and not think that they are very much cared for.
I can't really say any more on the matter.


----------



## meleeka (8 February 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			There are far worst fates for any animal than a bullet and a quick death. .
		
Click to expand...

Like being chased by a pack of hounds until you get caught and ripped apart.


----------



## Gallop_Away (8 February 2022)

meleeka said:



			Like being chased by a pack of hounds until you get caught and ripped apart.
		
Click to expand...

At what point have i suggested otherwise?


----------



## Koweyka (8 February 2022)

shortstuff99 said:



			Cambridge with Enfield Chase hunt I believe.

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/police-investigating-death-two-dogs-23014982

Click to expand...

It’s a matter of time before the public also lose their lives because of errrrr trail laying across busy roads ….

And the Quorn hunt followed a trail through a primary school playground this week while the kids were out for
playtime ….maybe they just wanted to see the kids…

These four legged ginger pesky trails eh


----------



## paddy555 (8 February 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			way I find those who say they love animals that call for racing to be banned. They do not wish to see animals die but they call for the very thing that will cause thousands of animals to be culled. 

With regards to the hounds, I think people need to keep in mind that these are working animals. They are not pets. There are far worst fates for any animal than a bullet and a quick death. .
		
Click to expand...

if hunting was banned in it's entirety then there would be a certain number of hounds that had to be PTS with a bullet and a quick death. There are worse fates you say. I have no idea of the numbers but lets say 7500 for arguments sake that cannot be rehomed etc etc. 

If hunting continued for say another 5 years then, taking into account illness, uselessness, wear and tear etc etc etc plus old age there would be well in excess of 7500 shot. Those would of course be unborn hounds who if hunting stopped would not need to be born.. 
So I don't see having to kill hounds is a reason as far more (unborn)ones will be killed in future years. 

Same in fact with racehorses. I am not sure racehorses have a very good life after racing.


----------



## Koweyka (8 February 2022)

paddy555 said:



			if hunting was banned in it's entirety then there would be a certain number of hounds that had to be PTS with a bullet and a quick death. There are worse fates you say. I have no idea of the numbers but lets say 7500 for arguments sake that cannot be rehomed etc etc.

If hunting continued for say another 5 years then, taking into account illness, uselessness, wear and tear etc etc etc plus old age there would be well in excess of 7500 shot. Those would of course be unborn hounds who if hunting stopped would not need to be born..
So I don't see having to kill hounds is a reason as far more (unborn)ones will be killed in future years.

Same in fact with racehorses. I am not sure racehorses have a very good life after racing.
		
Click to expand...

Plus its not like “The Avengers” where there will be one click of a finger and they will all be dead in an instant, steps could be taken now …. Far too many hounds are bred just to be shot, same with racehorses bred and sold for peanuts when they can’t run fast enough just to end up on dinner plates, both “Sports” need to get their houses in order.


----------



## Gallop_Away (8 February 2022)

I completely agree that breeding could be reduced. Smaller packs are easier to manage out hunting ime. 
Yes there are worst fates than a bullet but I do think it is a great shame for perfectly healthy young hounds who have no issues that would dictate otherwise to be destroyed. Just as I would be saddened to see hundreds of thousands of healthy thoroughbreds sent to slaughter. I consider myself an animal lover and I wouldn't want to see either of these things happen, no more than I would want to see a fox killed by hounds.


----------



## Dizzy socks (8 February 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			I completely agree that breeding could be reduced. Smaller packs are easier to manage out hunting ime.
Yes there are worst fates than a bullet but I do think it is a great shame for perfectly healthy young hounds who have no issues that would dictate otherwise to be destroyed. Just as I would be saddened to see hundreds of thousands of healthy thoroughbreds sent to slaughter. I consider myself an animal lover and I wouldn't want to see either of these things happen, no more than I would want to see a fox killed by hounds.
		
Click to expand...

Do you not think then that the only way to stop them being killed (whether in the manner they already are, or all at once if hunting is banned) is to stop breeding them entirely? I’m not entirely sure of your point, if I’m honest.


----------



## Gallop_Away (8 February 2022)

No I don't think these beautiful animals deserve to be erased from existence. It is perfectly possible for fox hounds not to be used to hunt foxes, and it angers me that illegal hunting is fuelling the idea that all hunting should be banned which could result in hounds disappearing forever.


----------



## paddy555 (8 February 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			I completely agree that breeding could be reduced. Smaller packs are easier to manage out hunting ime.
Yes there are worst fates than a bullet but I do think it is a great shame for perfectly healthy young hounds who have no issues that would dictate otherwise to be destroyed. Just as I would be saddened to see hundreds of thousands of healthy thoroughbreds sent to slaughter. I consider myself an animal lover and I wouldn't want to see either of these things happen, no more than I would want to see a fox killed by hounds.
		
Click to expand...

so what happens to TBs after racing? they all go on to lovely homes with wonderful living conditions? are some/any PTS or slaughtered.  

. We breed TBs to do a job, job done and  a bullet for some, possibly many. 
how do you reconcile being an animal lover with putting young horses to sleep? Impossible to do so. Many PTS could have long healthy lives. They may not be rideable but then again horses were never put on this planet for the amusement of man. . They could live long lives in fields with company. 

I do find racing and the wastage difficult to reconcile with being an animal lover. 

As an animal lover how do you reconcile breeding anything, lets say hounds, that could be  PTS for any number of reasons whereas in fact they could live long painfree lives just not hunting? I don't know what the natural lifespan of a hound is but probably around 13. How many live to that age? (obviously leaving aside those PTS in pain)


----------



## ycbm (8 February 2022)

paddy555 said:



			They may not be rideable but then again horses were never put on this planet for the amusement of man. .
		
Click to expand...


I do understand this point Paddy, but those particular horses were put on the planet for the amusement of man.  They would never have had any life in the first place I'd they had not been bred to race.  And I think if the choice was possible in an egg and sperm,  they would still choose a short life and a clean death over no life at all.  

I'm not defending wastage rates in racing in any way, though. 
.


----------



## Tiddlypom (8 February 2022)

There would be no compulsion to destroy healthy foxhounds if all hunting is banned. The breed would not be becoming a prohibited breed overnight.

The remaining hounds could be kept on in kennels to live out their natural lifespan. They could perfectly well be kept in the same routine as they always have been every summer - no hunting, but getting taken out daily en masse for hound exercise.

If the hunting community cared as deeply about their hounds as they insist they do, then this would be the way to do it without any need a mass cull. 

A mass cull would be cheaper and less effort, of course.

Hunts cull a number of hounds every year anyway, for a variety of reasons.


----------



## Gallop_Away (8 February 2022)

paddy555 said:



			so what happens to TBs after racing? they all go on to lovely homes with wonderful living conditions? are some/any PTS or slaughtered.

. We breed TBs to do a job, job done and  a bullet for some, possibly many.
how do you reconcile being an animal lover with putting young horses to sleep? Impossible to do so. Many PTS could have long healthy lives. They may not be rideable but then again horses were never put on this planet for the amusement of man. . They could live long lives in fields with company.

I do find racing and the wastage difficult to reconcile with being an animal lover.

As an animal lover how do you reconcile breeding anything, lets say hounds, that could be  PTS for any number of reasons whereas in fact they could live long painfree lives just not hunting? I don't know what the natural lifespan of a hound is but probably around 13. How many live to that age? (obviously leaving aside those PTS in pain)
		
Click to expand...

I'm not for one minute suggesting the racing industry is perfect. I think the amount of horses it churns out the otherside and also the age many thoroughbreds are run is very wrong. But while I think many improvements need to happen, that does not mean I think the whole thing should be banned.
I think thoroughbreds and hounds can still and do still deserve a place doing what they love to do, and we can still have the pleasure of watching them.
I think its better for them to live, even if it is a short life, as long as it is a happy healthy life, than not exist at all.


----------



## paddy555 (8 February 2022)

ycbm said:



			And I think if the choice was possible in an egg and sperm,  they would still choose a short life and a clean death over no life at all. 

I'm not defending wastage rates in racing in any way, though.


.
		
Click to expand...

I find that impossible to understand. We have no way of  knowing. If I personally had had a choice at that stage I would have preferred not be become a foetus.  What if they chose to have a life but preferred to have a normal length one? saying they would still choose a short life simply seems to justify man's right to get rid of them when they have outlived their useful purpose. 

I can't see wastage rates can be defended.


----------



## Gallop_Away (9 February 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			There would be no compulsion to destroy healthy foxhounds if all hunting is banned. The breed would not be becoming a prohibited breed overnight.

The remaining hounds could be kept on in kennels to live out their natural lifespan. They could perfectly well be kept in the same routine as they always have been every summer - no hunting, but getting taken out daily en masse for hound exercise.

If the hunting community cared as deeply about their hounds as they insist they do, then this would be the way to do it without any need a mass cull.

A mass cull would be cheaper and less effort, of course.

Hunts cull a number of hounds every year anyway, for a variety of reasons.
		
Click to expand...

I agree this is what *should* happen if hunting were to be banned, but how would you fund the care for these hounds? The money raised from caps, funrides, p2p, shows etc is what cares for these hounds.
If hunting is banned and hunts are disbanded then they can no longer self fund through hunts and other events.
I realise the stereotype that hunting folk are dripping in money but this is not always the case. Our hunt for example is made up of working class people.
I'm sure there will be some members who would still be happy to contribute but I think the reality is many hunts would struggle.
So I don't think its as simple as "the hunts are choosing to cull them", as if they can not care for them, and can not rehome them, what other choice do they have?


----------



## Fred66 (9 February 2022)

paddy555 said:



			if hunting was banned in it's entirety then there would be a certain number of hounds that had to be PTS with a bullet and a quick death. There are worse fates you say. I have no idea of the numbers but lets say 7500 for arguments sake that cannot be rehomed etc etc.

If hunting continued for say another 5 years then, taking into account illness, uselessness, wear and tear etc etc etc plus old age there would be well in excess of 7500 shot. Those would of course be unborn hounds who if hunting stopped would not need to be born..
So I don't see having to kill hounds is a reason as far more (unborn)ones will be killed in future years.

Same in fact with racehorses. I am not sure racehorses have a very good life after racing.
		
Click to expand...

On that basis let’s eliminate all life on earth as in the long run it will save lives.


----------



## CanteringCarrot (9 February 2022)

Fred66 said:



			On that basis let’s eliminate all life on earth as in the long run it will save lives.
		
Click to expand...

Stretch Armstrong over here 😂


----------



## mariew (9 February 2022)

Fred66 said:



			On that basis let’s eliminate all life on earth as in the long run it will save lives.
		
Click to expand...

This is kind of what I struggle with with veganism (apologies for off topic), if everyone went vegan the same thing would happen to farm animals.


----------



## Miss_Millie (9 February 2022)

mariew said:



			This is kind of what I struggle with with veganism (apologies for off topic), if everyone went vegan the same thing would happen to farm animals.
		
Click to expand...

Well only 1% of the world's population is vegan, so it is extremely unlikely that overnight, all farm animals would have to be culled because suddenly everyone stopped eating animal products. It is more likely that there might be a gradual reduction in the amount of animals bred for meat etc, if the demand goes down. I think that many will be forced to eat less meat in the future, due to climate change. I am not vegan but I care very much about animal welfare and would be happy to see a huge reduction in meat consumption in the future. The intensive farming needed to meet the demand for animal products at the moment means that many animals are kept in horrific conditions and lead miserable lives.


----------



## Steerpike (9 February 2022)

Just saw this on their fb page and a few of the comments aren't complementary.
https://www.farminglife.com/country...efhfJU1Azo7fWOjnM5YaLpVipnhS_4CdQcNxlb88s6Tu0


----------



## Dave's Mam (9 February 2022)

The hounds going into the school playground was on BBC Radio Nottingham this morning.


----------



## Tiddlypom (9 February 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			I agree this is what *should* happen if hunting were to be banned, but how would you fund the care for these hounds? The money raised from caps, funrides, p2p, shows etc is what cares for these hounds.
If hunting is banned and hunts are disbanded then they can no longer self fund through hunts and other events.
I realise the stereotype that hunting folk are dripping in money but this is not always the case. Our hunt for example is made up of working class people.
I'm sure there will be some members who would still be happy to contribute but I think the reality is many hunts would struggle.
So I don't think its as simple as "the hunts are choosing to cull them", as if they can not care for them, and can not rehome them, what other choice do they have?
		
Click to expand...

But that's the point.

The hounds would not need to be culled as long as those who currently contribute to their upkeep were prepared to fund their retirement if hunting was ever fully banned. It would only need to be for a few years.

Don't try and shove the blame for any hypothetical mass hound culls on the antis. Blame the law breaking hunts and those hunting individuals who would have no further interest in what happens to the existing hounds if they get no sport from them.


----------



## Gallop_Away (9 February 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			But that's the point.

The hounds would not need to be culled as long as those who currently contribute to their upkeep were prepared to fund their retirement if hunting was ever fully banned. It would only need to be for a few years.

Don't try and shove the blame for any hypothetical mass hound culls on the antis. Blame the law breaking hunts and those hunting individuals who would have no further interest in what happens to the existing hounds if they get no sport from them.
		
Click to expand...

It's not always a case of whether hunt members are "prepared" to pay for the hounds retirement. Its whether they could actually afford to. If hunting is banned you are cutting off the very source of income that funds the care of the hounds.

I would blame both to be honest. The illegal hunting that is fuelling the fire and those who claim to be animal lovers but who call for a complete ban without thought for the ramifications.


----------



## Tiddlypom (9 February 2022)

I don't buy the 'can't afford it' argument. Hunt members would only need to continue to pay all or part of what they are already paying, albeit with no sport to show for it.

Not all hunts are wealthy, for sure, but a lot of them are.


----------



## Clodagh (9 February 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			I don't buy the 'can't afford it' argument. Hunt members would only need to continue to pay all or part of what they are already paying, albeit with no sport to show for it.

Not all hunts are wealthy, for sure, but a lot of them are.
		
Click to expand...

If they continued to offer a flesh round that would help but you would need a full time person to look after them. And they need a house etc.


----------



## Gallop_Away (9 February 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			I don't buy the 'can't afford it' argument. Hunt members would only need to continue to pay all or part of what they are already paying, albeit with no sport to show for it.

Not all hunts are wealthy, for sure, but a lot of them are.
		
Click to expand...

It's not just subscriptions but also the other activities that also fund the hounds keep that would stop if the hunt was disbanded.
Not to mention someone to look after them which is very much a full time commitment.
I'm sorry but it really isn't as simple as you are trying to portray.


----------



## Miss_Millie (9 February 2022)

Has anyone watched 'The Doghouse' on Channel 4? They had two foxhounds in for re-homing. One sadly had to be PTS as he was old and arthritic, but the other one was re-homed. Before they came into the rescue, they were living with an elderly couple in a house. I think this sort of proves that foxhounds can adapt to a domestic environment, contrary to what some people may say. They both seemed to be sweet and loving dogs.


----------



## Gallop_Away (9 February 2022)

Miss_Millie said:



			Has anyone watched 'The Doghouse' on Channel 4? They had two foxhounds in for re-homing. One sadly had to be PTS as he was old and arthritic, but the other one was re-homed. Before they came into the rescue, they were living with an elderly couple in a house. I think this sort of proves that foxhounds can adapt to a domestic environment, contrary to what some people may say. They both seemed to be sweet and loving dogs.
		
Click to expand...

Some can take very well to domestic life. Our hunt master has his favourite stud dog, now retired, living with him at home. He frequently kicks our hunt master off his own sofa. 

Unfortunately though there are some who just can not be rehomed for various reasons, or sometimes there simply aren't any suitable homes available for all of them.


----------



## GSD Woman (9 February 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			But that's the point.

The hounds would not need to be culled as long as those who currently contribute to their upkeep were prepared to fund their retirement if hunting was ever fully banned. It would only need to be for a few years
		
Click to expand...

But is it realistic to expect working people to spend their hard earned money to provide for unemployed hounds when there is only so much to go around? These are working, kennel kept dogs that may or many not make good house pets. 

I personally would have a hard time spending my hobby money on something that no longer provides a hobby. Especially if that commitment could go on for a decade.


----------



## stangs (9 February 2022)

GSD Woman said:



			I personally would have a hard time spending my hobby money on something that no longer provides a hobby. Especially if that commitment could go on for a decade.
		
Click to expand...

If your hobby brings an animal into this world, you have a duty of care towards them.


----------



## Tiddlypom (9 February 2022)

I am simply pointing out that there would be no absolute need to cull all foxhounds in existing packs if all hunting was banned.

It would be much simpler and cheaper to cull them, of course. Just don't pretend that the hunts had no choice but to cull them. They do have choices, all of which cost more in time, money, effort and commitment than culling.

I am not particularly in favour in trying to rehome any hounds as house pets. I know of a few hunting peeps who have tried to take in a favourite hound when it was honourably retired, but none of the hounds settled into their new life. Maybe it might work with a much younger hound.


----------



## ycbm (9 February 2022)

GSD Woman said:



			But is it realistic to expect working people to spend their hard earned money to provide for unemployed hounds when there is only so much to go around?
		
Click to expand...


No, but it is unreasonable to claim that the loss of your sport means you are forced to kill hounds and that the death of the hounds will therefore be the fault of those who demanded the ban.  

It's also unreasonable to post insisting that hounds are revered,  honoured,  cherished, loved and/or similar words and then say they will be killed as soon as hunting stops. 
.


----------



## Gallop_Away (9 February 2022)

ycbm said:



			No, but it is unreasonable to claim that the loss of your sport means you are forced to kill hounds and that the death of the hounds will therefore be the fault of those who demanded the ban. 

It's also unreasonable to post insisting that hounds are revered,  honoured,  cherished, loved and/or similar words and then say they will be killed as soon as hunting stops.
.
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps in yours and Tiddlypoms opinion. You call it unreasonable. I call it realistic. 
You clearly have a very black and white view. To say hunts would have a "choice" is a bit naive. There is no choice when they can not all be rehomed and the funding and resources to look after them is no longer available.


----------



## ycbm (9 February 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			Perhaps in yours and Tiddlypoms opinion. You call it unreasonable. I call it realistic. 
You clearly have a very black and white view. To say hunts would have a "choice" is a bit naive. There is no choice when they can not all be rehomed and the funding and resources to look after them is no longer available.
		
Click to expand...


But of course there is a choice. Nobody would be forcing anyone to kill hounds.  

I'm not saying you should take that choice,  I'd find it completely unrealistic, myself.  

But you can't have your cake and eat it too. It will not be the fault of people who call for a total ban (which I don't want)  if hunts chose to shoot their healthy hounds rather than pay for them to live out their natural lives.  It's simply an economic decision by people who only value those animals if they can follow them on horseback or on foot. 
.


----------



## AFishOutOfWater (9 February 2022)

Genuine question(s), because I know nothing about hunting: how do hunts fund the hounds upkeep normally? Would/could they technically just let the animals that homes can't be found for live in their current kennels,  if they could find some way of exercising them? 
then when the current generation of non home-able hounds dies of old age, no more hounds that can't live in homes, if they could finance it somehow. 

Even on paper it seems an overly idealistic solution but I'd be the first to admit I'm about as ignorant as a person can be on hunting.


----------



## Gallop_Away (9 February 2022)

ycbm said:



			But of course there is a choice. Nobody would be forcing anyone to kill hounds. 

I'm not saying you should take that choice,  I'd find it completely unrealistic, myself. 

But you can't have your cake and eat it too. It will not be the fault of people who call for a total ban (which I don't want)  if hunts chose to shoot their healthy hounds rather than pay for them to live out their natural lives.  It's simply an economic decision by people who only value those animals if they can follow them on horseback or on foot.
.
		
Click to expand...

I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree yet again ycbm. I do not think it is a "choice" when you are all but forcing someone's hand. Again where is the money and funding going to come from to care for these hounds or to pay a wage to the person caring for them? 
Yes hunt members may contribute but that in itself may not be enough. Not all hunts are rolling in money I'm afraid. 
I'm not saying it is the fault of those calling for a complete ban, but I think it is hypocritical so say you care for animals but show no concern for the future of hounds that will inevitable end up being culled if hunting was to be banned.


----------



## Gallop_Away (9 February 2022)

Snail said:



			Genuine question(s), because I know nothing about hunting: how do hunts fund the hounds upkeep normally? Would/could they technically just let the animals that homes can't be found for live in their current kennels,  if they could find some way of exercising them?
then when the current generation of non home-able hounds dies of old age, no more hounds that can't live in homes, if they could finance it somehow.

Even on paper it seems an overly idealistic solution but I'd be the first to admit I'm about as ignorant as a person can be on hunting.
		
Click to expand...

Field caps and hunt memberships are usually a big part of funding. Hunts may also hold other events outside the hunting season such as fun rides, shows, p2p etc. Also there's the fallen stock services. 
It is not just a case of finding somewhere to house them. Its feeding, vet treatment, general care etc. Then there is also finding someone to care for them which is very much a full time commitment.


----------



## ycbm (9 February 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			. Again where is the money and funding going to come from to care for these hounds or to pay a wage to the person caring for them?
		
Click to expand...


The same place as it does now. 

And if those people won't continue to supply that money, (and I would not, except for fun rides and social events)  then it is proof that the hounds are valued overwhelmingly, arguably solely,   for their ability to be followed while they are tracking a trail.  
.


----------



## Gallop_Away (9 February 2022)

ycbm said:



			The same place as it does now.

And if those people won't continue to supply that money, (and I would not, except for fun rides and social events)  then it is proof that the hounds are valued overwhelmingly, arguably solely,   for their ability to be followed while they are tracking a trail.
.
		
Click to expand...

As I said, sadly that may not be enough. I'm sure many would contribute gladly, but when every other source of income has been removed many hunts would still struggle, and not because they simply don't care enough.
I think to suggest otherwise is at best naive and at worst narrow minded. It is not as black and white as you are painting it to be.


----------



## ycbm (9 February 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			And as I've already said sadly that may not be enough. I'm sure many would contribute gladly, but when every other source of income has been removed many hunts would still struggle, and not because they simply don't care enough.
I think to suggest otherwise is at best naive and at worst narrow minded. It is not as black and white as you are painting it to be.
		
Click to expand...


You seem to be either in denial,  or you have cognitive dissonance. 

There is no reason why each subscriber could not commit to funding part of one  hounds until it reaches a natural end to its life.  

I'm not being narrow minded,  I am freely accepting that is a purely financial decision and one that I would not personally agree to.  

But I wouldn't then blame anyone else that "my" hound had to be killed. 
.


----------



## Gallop_Away (9 February 2022)

ycbm said:



			You seem to be either in denial,  or you have cognitive dissonance.

There is no reason why each subscriber could not commit to funding part of one  hounds until it reaches a natural end to its life.

I'm not being narrow minded,  I am freely accepting that is a purely financial decision and one that I would not personally agree to.

But I wouldn't then blame anyone else that "my" hound had to be killed.
.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think I'm the one in denial here. I think it is far from as simple as you make it out to be, but as I say we are clearly not going to agree on this point.

In any case I hope this is all hypothetical as I hope I will personally not see the day when the sound of hounds dissappears from our countryside for good.


----------



## lannerch (9 February 2022)

ycbm said:



			You seem to be either in denial,  or you have cognitive dissonance.

There is no reason why each subscriber could not commit to funding part of one  hounds until it reaches a natural end to its life. 

I'm not being narrow minded,  I am freely accepting that is a purely financial decision and one that I would not personally agree to. 

But I wouldn't then blame anyone else that "my" hound had to be killed.
.
		
Click to expand...

I think ybm you are the one in denial if you really think that the subscribers would continue to pay. The subscribers I know are not the wealthy elite they work hard to fund their hobbies . 
If all hunting is banned hounds would end up being mass put down  that would be directly because of the hunting ban there is no getting away from the fact.


----------



## ycbm (9 February 2022)

lannerch said:



			I think ybm you are the one in denial if you really think that the subscribers would continue to pay.
		
Click to expand...

I don't know how you can write this when I have written twice myself that I would not pay if it was me. 
.


----------



## paddy555 (9 February 2022)

lannerch said:



			I think ybm you are the one in denial if you really think that the subscribers would continue to pay. The subscribers I know are not the wealthy elite they work hard to fund their hobbies .
If all hunting is banned hounds would end up being mass put down  that would be directly because of the hunting ban there is no getting away from the fact.
		
Click to expand...

yes I entirely agree they would be put down en mass. However they wouldn't have to be. There would be an option that they could be funded by subscribers if they so wished. I guess if people were animal lovers like gallop away who couldn't bear to see a mass cull then they would fund them in recognition of the pleasure they had given. Otherwise if the hunt supporters didn't care that much they would be shot. Entirely up to the hunt supporters really. Shoot them or fund them, the choice is theirs. 
I suspect in reality they wouldn't want to fund them as they would be of no further use so it would be a bullet. 

Like many of the comments from hunt supporters on here this issue is push it back onto those who want a ban and blame them for it. No. They are the hunts and their supporters hounds. Fund them or kill them. The choice is in the hands of hunt supporters. If they don't want to put their hands in their pockets to support them because they are of no further use then fine. Don't blame others for that decision. 

No one thinks the hunt supporters would pay but it is no good moaning if they are culled because supporters don't want to fund them. They have the money now to pay for their hunting hobby. That money will still be there. Just a choice, spend it on your beloved hounds or spend it on your new hobby.


----------



## Gallop_Away (9 February 2022)

But paddy not all the funding comes from hunt subscribers. Many people who attend the other events, fun rides p2p etc or use fallen stock services don't always hunt themselves.
These events and services account for a large portion of hunt funding, but would obviously not be able to continue if hunts were disbanded.
My point is not that hunt subscribers wouldn't pay, but that in some cases even if they did still pay the membership, it may still not be enough, and not everyone who hunts is in a financial position to make up the shortfall.
I think the reality is many hunts would still struggle and this would unavoidably mean they would need to have hounds destroyed. Not because its cheaper, or that they don't care about their hounds, but because they were left with no other option following a ban.


----------



## lannerch (9 February 2022)

ycbm said:



			I don't know how you can write this when I have written twice myself that I would not pay if it was me.
.
		
Click to expand...

Yes I know you said you would not pay, but you still argued the point that hunt supporters should send the hounds to a hound retirement and that gallop was delusional in saying realistically due to financial reasons that would never happen.
If hunting was banned the direct cause of the hounds death would be the ban nothing else.

Surely the best option for real animal lovers , is ensure the current hunts hunt legally. No death to fox or hound. As very much an animal lover myself that is the option that has my support.


----------



## ycbm (9 February 2022)

lannerch said:



			you still argued the point that hunt supporters should send the hounds to a hound retirement
		
Click to expand...

No I didn't.  

I said that if they don't,  then they should accept that means that the only value they see in the hounds is if they can be followed by the hunt supporters. 
.


----------



## moosea (9 February 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			But paddy not all the funding comes from hunt subscribers. Many people who attend the other events, fun rides p2p etc or use fallen stock services don't always hunt themselves.
These events and services account for a large portion of hunt funding, but would obviously not be able to continue if hunts were disbanded.
		
Click to expand...

There would not be any need to disband hunts from running P2P or fun rides. In fact they could run more of them because of all the extra time freed up from trail hunting.
Fallen stock could continue. The hunts would not need as many employees so would be able to save money there.





Gallop_Away said:



			My point is not that hunt subscribers wouldn't pay, but that in some cases even if they did still pay the membership, it may still not be enough, and not everyone who hunts is in a financial position to make up the shortfall.
		
Click to expand...

how would it not be enough when hunting is banned but it is now?



Gallop_Away said:



			I think the reality is many hunts would still struggle and this would unavoidably mean they would need to have hounds destroyed. Not because its cheaper, or that they don't care about their hounds, but because they were left with no other option following a ban.
		
Click to expand...

The hunt supporters who love, cherish and revere these hounds would surely pay a reduced 'cap' to save these hounds?
And the income raised from holding more events and fallen stock would go towards the hounds upkeep.
Hunts could perhaps diversify, like farmers have had to, maybe looking towards becoming more of a riding club type of thing?
There are options - but they cost money and time and I'm sure all those who love these hounds would be prepared to contribute, unless they only love them when they are used for hunting?


----------



## GSD Woman (10 February 2022)

ycbm said:



			And if those people won't continue to supply that money, (and I would not, except for fun rides and social events) then it is proof that the hounds are valued overwhelmingly, arguably solely, for their ability to be followed while they are tracking a trail.
		
Click to expand...

Humanly culling is much nicer than what most of deer, bear and rabbit hunters do around here.  They dump the hounds that run riot or just won't hunt by the side of the road.


----------



## Fred66 (10 February 2022)

moosea said:



			There would not be any need to disband hunts from running P2P or fun rides. In fact they could run more of them because of all the extra time freed up from trail hunting.
Fallen stock could continue. The hunts would not need as many employees so would be able to save money there.
		
Click to expand...

Many hunts only have 1-2 paid employees so to maintain these  services there would be no savings.


moosea said:



			The hunt supporters who love, cherish and revere these hounds would surely pay a reduced 'cap' to save these hounds?
And the income raised from holding more events and fallen stock would go towards the hounds upkeep.
Hunts could perhaps diversify, like farmers have had to, maybe looking towards becoming more of a riding club type of thing?
There are options - but they cost money and time and I'm sure all those who love these hounds would be prepared to contribute, unless they only love them when they are used for hunting?
		
Click to expand...

The issue wouldn’t be around whether the hunts would be willing to continue fund the kennels it would be around the law.
To ban all forms of trail hunting would require the law to be amended to make it a crime to exercise more than a few dogs at a time, otherwise the hunts could just exercise their hounds as a pack. This change would make it impossible to keep the hounds together and provide sufficient exercise as if you were restricted to taking them out 4 at a time and you need to exercise them for a couple of hours a day and you have a pack of 60 then you would be needing 30 hrs of exercise time a day !


----------



## Sandstone1 (10 February 2022)

lannerch said:



			Yes I know you said you would not pay, but you still argued the point that hunt supporters should send the hounds to a hound retirement and that gallop was delusional in saying realistically due to financial reasons that would never happen.
If hunting was banned the direct cause of the hounds death would be the ban nothing else.

Surely the best option for real animal lovers , is ensure the current hunts hunt legally. No death to fox or hound. As very much an animal lover myself that is the option that has my support.
		
Click to expand...

Yes you would think so wouldnt you?   And yet years after the ban hunts are still hunting illegally.  Still using fox sent to supposedly "lay trails"   Still killing foxes and other wildlife very regularly.    So who is to blame here?


----------



## Gallop_Away (10 February 2022)

moosea said:



			There would not be any need to disband hunts from running P2P or fun rides. In fact they could run more of them because of all the extra time freed up from trail hunting.
Fallen stock could continue. The hunts would not need as many employees so would be able to save money there.





how would it not be enough when hunting is banned but it is now?



The hunt supporters who love, cherish and revere these hounds would surely pay a reduced 'cap' to save these hounds?
And the income raised from holding more events and fallen stock would go towards the hounds upkeep.
Hunts could perhaps diversify, like farmers have had to, maybe looking towards becoming more of a riding club type of thing?
There are options - but they cost money and time and I'm sure all those who love these hounds would be prepared to contribute, unless they only love them when they are used for hunting?
		
Click to expand...

I would think if hunting was banned then hunts would be disbanded. Therefore they would no longer be able to run these events under the name of the hunt. 
As I've explained, it isn't just hunt subscribers that fund hounds currently, but also these other events and fallen stock services.
If the hunts could find other ways to survive then I'm sure they could potentially, with support from their subscribers, afford to keep their current hounds into retirement, but I think this is unlikely. 

Ultimately as long as illegal hunts keep doing what they are doing they are fuelling the fire for those who wish to see hunting banned 😔


----------



## ycbm (10 February 2022)

Fred66 said:



			To ban all forms of trail hunting would require the law to be amended to make it a crime to exercise more than a few dogs at a time
		
Click to expand...

Why?  
.


----------



## Clodagh (10 February 2022)

ycbm said:



			Why?  
.
		
Click to expand...

Because legally if I was walking my five on Dartmoor and they chased a squirrel I would be as guilty of illegal hunting as a pack of hounds after a fox. It may be unlikely I would be prosecuted and I know you have more knowledge of the law than I do.


----------



## ycbm (10 February 2022)

Clodagh said:



			Because legally if I was walking my five on Dartmoor and they chased a squirrel I would be as guilty of illegal hunting as a pack of hounds after a fox. It may be unlikely I would be prosecuted and I know you have more knowledge of the law than I do.
		
Click to expand...

Isn't that about the dogs being out of control though,  Clodagh, not about the number being exercised at one time?  And that's illegal now,  hounds or not,  I think? 

ETA it might be that hounds packs would need to be cut some Slack for,  say,  five years until the numbers dropped right off,  but I don't see why Fred thinks it would need banning. 
.


----------



## meleeka (10 February 2022)

Can anyone remember what happened when stag hunting with dogs was banned?  Did they all get culled then?  I don’t remember there being any concern about that at the time.


----------



## Clodagh (10 February 2022)

meleeka said:



			Can anyone remember what happened when stag hunting with dogs was banned?  Did they all get culled then?  I don’t remember there being any concern about that at the time.
		
Click to expand...

I think you can still do it with 2 hounds, so not banned. (Could be wrong).


----------



## Gallop_Away (10 February 2022)

Those hounds may have been diversified into other forms of hunting. But if we are talking a total ban on all forms of hunting, then that wouldn't be possible.

Eta I know nothing about stag hunts so I'm only guessing here.


----------



## rextherobber (10 February 2022)

Clodagh said:



			Because legally if I was walking my five on Dartmoor and they chased a squirrel I would be as guilty of illegal hunting as a pack of hounds after a fox. It may be unlikely I would be prosecuted and I know you have more knowledge of the law than I do.
		
Click to expand...

You would be guilty of having out of control dogs - that's the law, regardless of any issue or connection with hunting. If you cannot control 5 dogs, you shouldn't be walking 5 dogs....


----------



## Koweyka (10 February 2022)

They just hunt and kill stags a different way now, stag hunts are disgusting.  This was 2020, monsters on horseback at the Devon and Somerset Staghounds, if research and observation exemptions mean that the stag can be whipped across his head to keep running and having horns beeped and quads revved and I dont even want to call them humans screeching and screaming so it can be terrified further before they kill him.


----------



## Burnttoast (10 February 2022)

Koweyka said:



			They just hunt and kill stags a different way now, stag hunts are disgusting.  This was 2020, monsters on horseback at the Devon and Somerset Staghounds, if research and observation exemptions mean that the stag can be whipped across his head to keep running and having horns beeped and quads revved and I dont even want to call them humans screeching and screaming so it can be terrified further before they kill him.
		
Click to expand...

That's utterly horrific. Anyone who's comfortable being up that close and personal with a severely distressed animal on its last legs and making it continue in that way and for that purpose is missing something somewhere, tbh.


----------



## Gallop_Away (10 February 2022)

Koweyka said:



			They just hunt and kill stags a different way now, stag hunts are disgusting.  This was 2020, monsters on horseback at the Devon and Somerset Staghounds, if research and observation exemptions mean that the stag can be whipped across his head to keep running and having horns beeped and quads revved and I dont even want to call them humans screeching and screaming so it can be terrified further before they kill him.








Click to expand...

I don't actually have the words......

Utterly horrific 😢


----------



## NinjaPony (10 February 2022)

What is striking to me is how little support there is for hunting as it currently stands, among a group of diverse people who are mainly all horse riders/owners either currently or historically, or dog owners with ties to sport. We must be one of the groups most likely to be sympathetic with hunting, compared to the rest of the country who are removed from horses or countryside sport. So if hunting has lost support from this group, is it any wonder they are in trouble? I think most of us would be supportive of hunts continuing, if only they could stick firmly to the law and regulate their activities so that they behave respectfully to their neighbours and their animals and land. Unless this happens pretty quickly and visibly, they will continue to lose support until their way of life is untenable.


----------



## Tiddlypom (10 February 2022)

But the deer was injured and needed to be pts, so the hunt was doing the humane thing by driving it towards a marksman, apparently 😬. That clip has been shown on HHO before.

Which is complete balls - the animal, if indeed seriously injured, should have been quietly stalked and then dropped instantly by a skilled marksman.

What despicable individuals. Don't anyone pretend that they weren't enjoying that.

The antis who filmed it had to make their escape smartish after the hunt realised that they'd been seen and videoed.


----------



## Nasicus (10 February 2022)

Koweyka said:



			They just hunt and kill stags a different way now, stag hunts are disgusting.  This was 2020, monsters on horseback at the Devon and Somerset Staghounds, if research and observation exemptions mean that the stag can be whipped across his head to keep running and having horns beeped and quads revved and I dont even want to call them humans screeching and screaming so it can be terrified further before they kill him.
		
Click to expand...

That's absolutely disgusting. Humans are the worst.


----------



## Sandstone1 (10 February 2022)

Lets hear all the pro hunters justify that..... Blood lust pure and simple.  In this day and age there is absolutely no justification for treating a animal like that.  Sickening and I would question the mentality of people who enjoy that.


----------



## Fred66 (10 February 2022)

ycbm said:



			Isn't that about the dogs being out of control though,  Clodagh, not about the number being exercised at one time?  And that's illegal now,  hounds or not,  I think?

ETA it might be that hounds packs would need to be cut some Slack for,  say,  five years until the numbers dropped right off,  but I don't see why Fred thinks it would need banning.
.
		
Click to expand...

Because if it wasn’t what would stop them continuing to trail hunt ?


----------



## Clodagh (10 February 2022)

Koweyka said:



			They just hunt and kill stags a different way now, stag hunts are disgusting.  This was 2020, monsters on horseback at the Devon and Somerset Staghounds, if research and observation exemptions mean that the stag can be whipped across his head to keep running and having horns beeped and quads revved and I dont even want to call them humans screeching and screaming so it can be terrified further before they kill him.








Click to expand...

That was disgusting.


----------



## moosea (10 February 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Because if it wasn’t what would stop them continuing to trail hunt ?
		
Click to expand...

Maybe the new law could state number of riders allowed and max number of hounds allowed?


----------



## YorksG (10 February 2022)

moosea said:



			Maybe the new law could state number of riders allowed and max number of hounds allowed?
		
Click to expand...

Can I just remind people again, not all hunts are mounted.


----------



## Clodagh (10 February 2022)

rextherobber said:



			You would be guilty of having out of control dogs - that's the law, regardless of any issue or connection with hunting. If you cannot control 5 dogs, you shouldn't be walking 5 dogs....
		
Click to expand...

So why are hunts not prosecuted on that basis rather than attempting to prove intent to hunt? (Genuine question open to anyone).


----------



## rextherobber (10 February 2022)

Clodagh said:



			So why are hunts not prosecuted on that basis rather than attempting to prove intent to hunt? (Genuin
		
Click to expand...




Clodagh said:



			So why are hunts not prosecuted on that basis rather than attempting to prove intent to hunt? (Genuine question open to anyone).
		
Click to expand...

Good question! But shouldn't it be, "So why are hunts not prosecuted" full stop? There's loads of video and witness evidence of illegal hunting, damage to property, and out of control hounds... It's difficult to imagine any other social group behaving in this way with no repercussions


----------



## GSD Woman (10 February 2022)

I come from a totally different culture so some of this is a bit disturbing. Stag hunts/deer hunting is done with the hunters up in tree stands or chasing the deer out of the thickets and swamps with hounds and shoot them then if they are run by where the hunters are.  Many of these yahoos stand near their trucks drinking and then try and shoot the deer.  Some people stalk the deer which is what accounts for the most hunters being shot by other hunters, IIRC. Blaze orange is mandatory in my state but it still happens.
The white tail deer herd here does need culling so responsible hunting is the best way to do it.  I prefer deer stands with good shots myself.
I've already discussed fox hunts here so I won't go over it again.


----------



## paddy555 (10 February 2022)

NinjaPony said:



			What is striking to me is how little support there is for hunting as it currently stands, among a group of diverse people who are mainly all horse riders/owners either currently or historically, or dog owners with ties to sport. We must be one of the groups most likely to be sympathetic with hunting, compared to the rest of the country who are removed from horses or countryside sport. So if hunting has lost support from this group, is it any wonder they are in trouble? I think most of us would be supportive of hunts continuing, if only they could stick firmly to the law and regulate their activities so that they behave respectfully to their neighbours and their animals and land. Unless this happens pretty quickly and visibly, they will continue to lose support until their way of life is untenable.
		
Click to expand...

interesting post. I didn't look at the hunting forum on here for years after I joined HHO. I thought everyone would be terribly pro so there was no point. I am very surprised at the lack of support by many for both hunting overall,  illegal hunting and hunts behaving badly towards other people and their animals


----------



## Koweyka (10 February 2022)

Then you have this …. This is the Cattistock, this is trail hunting apparently….firstly terrorising an animal sanctuary….then finding a fox….the terrier men dig the fox out, on the huntsman’s  command the hounds are released as is the fox and the fox is turned into the hounds and killed. This is why trail hunting has to be banned. 

https://fb.watch/b53gc3Assp/


----------



## tallyho! (10 February 2022)

If you could all hear yourselves.

The more each side argues for and against, the weirder it all sounds. It’s like a horrible histories episode… yes kids they really do still gad about in costume killing stuff and playing a bad tune on a brass.



Koweyka said:



			They just hunt and kill stags a different way now, stag hunts are disgusting.  This was 2020, monsters on horseback at the Devon and Somerset Staghounds, if research and observation exemptions mean that the stag can be whipped across his head to keep running and having horns beeped and quads revved and I dont even want to call them humans screeching and screaming so it can be terrified further before they kill him.








Click to expand...

Jesus.

Surely this, and all other hunting, all belong way back in the dark ages. If it's about preserving traditions, lets all chope each others heads off after an argument and take it home to show the family.

Seriously - some bloke who kicks a bag of wind with a load of other blokes in a stadium full of drunkards just got done for kicking a cat across his kitchen floor... but all of this stuff............. nothing!!!!!


----------



## Velcrobum (11 February 2022)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-60318408
That does not sound like a trail unless the hounds rioted onto another scent,


----------



## paddy555 (11 February 2022)

Velcrobum said:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-60318408
That does not sound like a trail unless the hounds rioted onto another scent,
		
Click to expand...

another one  these incursions are so frequent they are a bit like buses. You know another one will be along soon. 
I expect the hunting folk will be along to defend this one shortly.


----------



## Clodagh (11 February 2022)

paddy555 said:



			another one  these incursions are so frequent they are a bit like buses. You know another one will be along soon. 
I expect the hunting folk will be along to defend this one shortly. 

Click to expand...

I think everyone saying hunting folk will be along to defend it is a bit unfair. I don’t think any hunting people have supported trespass and damage.


----------



## Koweyka (11 February 2022)

The Ledbury invaded a housing estate today, chased a fox into a garden and the fox went under a shed, (witnessed by residents) hounds everywhere, and quads, the whip all over the estate trying to round them up, the  huntsman blowing his horn, furious residents, quite surreal viewing 🙄


----------



## Gallop_Away (11 February 2022)

Clodagh said:



			I think everyone saying hunting folk will be along to defend it is a bit unfair. I don’t think any hunting people have supported trespass and damage.
		
Click to expand...

I don't know who all these pro illegal hunting, pro tresspass, pro violence, pro damage hunting folk are? I've not seen anyone commenting on this thread say they are in favour of any of these things?


----------



## paddy555 (12 February 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			I don't know who all these pro illegal hunting, pro tresspass, pro violence, pro damage hunting folk are? I've not seen anyone commenting on this thread say they are in favour of any of these things?
		
Click to expand...

fair enough. 

So in post 3052 we have one lot trespassing in Dorset and only 2 posts later another lot post 3055 Ledbury. 
Who sets a trail hunt through a housing estate? 
So illegally hunting or out of control or just trespassing. The only way I can see to stop it is a total ban as the hunts won't take responsibility for themselves. 

What do you see the solution as?


----------



## Gallop_Away (12 February 2022)

I think there needs to be a governing body for hunting that comes down hard on illegal/irresponsible hunts. Hunts who are caught illegally hunting should be immediately disbanded. Hunts who are caught trespassing or causing damage should be severely fined and if it happens on more than one occasion, again should be disbanded. 
This is what I would like to see happening so that legal and responsible hunts can carry on doing what they love. 
Sadly I don't think this will happen. While I really do not want to see a ban, I think that is the way it is heading.


----------



## suestowford (12 February 2022)

I read a report today about another hunt in Cornwall who trespassed into a nature reserve, and on to farmland, mixing with livestock. (I don't think it was the same hunt who killed a cat)
They can't be trail hunting when this happens, really. Either they are illegally hunting, or the hunt staff are a bit rubbish at keeping the hounds under control. Neither is a good option.


----------



## SEL (12 February 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			I think there needs to be a governing body for hunting that comes down hard on illegal/irresponsible hunts. Hunts who are caught illegally hunting should be immediately disbanded. Hunts who are caught trespassing or causing damage should be severely fined and if it happens on more than one occasion, again should be disbanded.
This is what I would like to see happening so that legal and responsible hunts can carry on doing what they love.
Sadly I don't think this will happen. While I really do not want to see a ban, I think that is the way it is heading.
		
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I think should happen too. There are responsible hunts setting trails and maintaining control. 

Unfortunately the ones that trespass, commit criminal damage and fail to set or follow a trail get the negative press - and rightly so.


----------



## Sandstone1 (12 February 2022)

I do get why people who do actually trail hunt legally get annoyed when people call for all hunting to be banned but it seems real trail hunting is pretty rare.
So many hunts are fox hunting years after the ban.
So, so many incidents of kills, trespass, anti social behaviour, cruelty to horses and hounds and killing pets, upsetting livestock and so much more not to mention the webinars.
Hunting has been banned for more than long enough for hunts to get their acts together but no, they just continue.
It has to stop and it will.


----------



## oldie48 (12 February 2022)

I live on the edge of Ledbury "country" and our local town fb page is full of complaints regarding the hunt going through a housing estate. Although I am off "country" I was notified that the hunt might be in the area tbh this is not unusual and I used to see the hunt regularly. Surely, if a hunt is following a laid trail they will stay in their own country? I've never had a problem with my local pack, they let me know when they are about, will even let me know an approx time, it' a real shame that not all hunts are following the letter of the law as it will definitely affect everyone who hunts including those who hunt legally.


----------



## Indy (12 February 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			I think there needs to be a governing body for hunting that comes down hard on illegal/irresponsible hunts. Hunts who are caught illegally hunting should be immediately disbanded. Hunts who are caught trespassing or causing damage should be severely fined and if it happens on more than one occasion, again should be disbanded.
This is what I would like to see happening so that legal and responsible hunts can carry on doing what they love.
Sadly I don't think this will happen. While I really do not want to see a ban, I think that is the way it is heading.
		
Click to expand...

I also think that as well as a hefty fine for trespass they should be also made to pay for any damage and veterinary costs incurred although the loss of a much loved family pet at the hands of hunt I can't imagine there would be enough money in the world


----------



## tallyho! (12 February 2022)

SEL said:



			That's exactly what I think should happen too. There are responsible hunts setting trails and maintaining control. 

Unfortunately the ones that trespass, commit criminal damage and fail to set or follow a trail get the negative press - and rightly so.
		
Click to expand...

It’s all so above the law right now; gallop away has it nailed. The thing is though, for many hunts it’s all about rights and freedoms, which they don’t understand will be much MUCH better if they regulated it all now.


----------



## Gallop_Away (12 February 2022)

Indy said:



			I also think that as well as a hefty fine for trespass they should be also made to pay for any damage and veterinary costs incurred although the loss of a much loved family pet at the hands of hunt I can't imagine there would be enough money in the world
		
Click to expand...

Oh most definitely!


----------



## Sandstone1 (16 February 2022)

Warwickshire hunt have killed yet another fox today.    Why is this allowed to go on?


----------



## Koweyka (16 February 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Warwickshire hunt have killed yet another fox today.    Why is this allowed to go on?
		
Click to expand...

I can’t imagine the accompanying video will be pleasant, they should have been confined to kennels months ago.


----------



## Sandstone1 (16 February 2022)

Koweyka said:



			I can’t imagine the accompanying video will be pleasant, they should have been confined to kennels months ago.
		
Click to expand...

Its just disgusting.   No idea what the police think they are doing.   Its a disgrace.   How many times can they say its a accident.   Trail hunting... My ****.


----------



## Sandstone1 (19 February 2022)

Apparently the Police are investigating this latest kill by the Warwickshire.   I really hope they do.


----------



## YorksG (19 February 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Apparently the Police are investigating this latest kill by the Warwickshire.   I really hope they do.
		
Click to expand...

I agree, due process is the way to go. 
If the sabs were concerned about the law, then I think people would have more respect for them. However Sheffield sabs trespassed to remove and steal mole traps and put up self congratulatory posts about it.  Really you can't shout law breaking, if you then break the law imo


----------



## Sandstone1 (19 February 2022)

YorksG said:



			I agree, due process is the way to go.
If the sabs were concerned about the law, then I think people would have more respect for them. However Sheffield sabs trespassed to remove and steal mole traps and put up self congratulatory posts about it.  Really you can't shout law breaking, if you then break the law imo
		
Click to expand...

I did not mention sabs at all.   The warwickshire killed for the 6th time this season.  That has nothing to do with sabs.   It is illegal fox hunting.   Why does this always have to turn in to pointless " Whataboutry"


----------



## YorksG (19 February 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			I did not mention sabs at all.   The warwickshire killed for the 6th time this season.  That has nothing to do with sabs.   It is illegal fox hunting.   Why does this always have to turn in to pointless " Whataboutry"
		
Click to expand...

I don't see it as whataboutary, who has reported six kills?


----------



## Sandstone1 (19 February 2022)

YorksG said:



			I don't see it as whataboutary, who has reported six kills?
		
Click to expand...

So you would clearly like the kills not to be reported and illegal hunting continue?
That speaks volumes to me.  Despite all the talk of trail hunting and how they stick to the law the very fact that you do not like kills reported tells me a lot.
A hunt kills and you blame sabs for reporting it?


----------



## YorksG (19 February 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			So you would clearly like the kills not to be reported and illegal hunting continue?
That speaks volumes to me.  Despite all the talk of trail hunting and how they stick to the law the very fact that you do not like kills reported tells me a lot.
A hunt kills and you blame sabs for reporting it?
		
Click to expand...

What a ridiculous statement and shows a huge lack of critical thinking. Reports of kills are not necessarily true. If there have been six kills, then hunts have become much more efficient than they were pre ban!
I do not support any law breaking, I hope that any alleged offence is investigated appropriately.
Do you agree that the source of a report could do to be squeaky clean themselves, in terms of offending history?


----------



## palo1 (19 February 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			So you would clearly like the kills not to be reported and illegal hunting continue?
That speaks volumes to me.  Despite all the talk of trail hunting and how they stick to the law the very fact that you do not like kills reported tells me a lot.
A hunt kills and you blame sabs for reporting it?
		
Click to expand...

No, @YorksG simply said that Hunt Sabs emphasise the alleged law breaking in their reporting but themselves then brag about actual law breaking. That isn't whataboutery - it's entirely pertinent.  I am not suggesting that alleged illegal hunting shouldn't be reported or investigated but the way in which Sabs repeatedly report their own law breaking seems not only a tad hypocritical but also discredits most of what they say/write about illegality.


----------



## Sandstone1 (19 February 2022)

YorksG said:



			What a ridiculous statement and shows a huge lack of critical thinking. Reports of kills are not necessarily true. If there have been six kills, then hunts have become much more efficient than they were pre ban!
I do not support any law breaking, I hope that any alleged offence is investigated appropriately.
Do you agree that the source of a report could do to be squeaky clean themselves, in terms of offending history?
		
Click to expand...

Well, in all cases there is video evidence... Guess the sabs killed the fox themselves?


----------



## YorksG (19 February 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Well, in all cases there is video evidence... Guess the sabs killed the fox themselves?
		
Click to expand...

If there is genuine evidence, not edited and can be proven to be in the time and place claimed, then that should be investigated by the police. If the video is taken by people who boast about breaking the law, then that may well cause some difficulties in using their alleged evidence.


----------



## Sandstone1 (19 February 2022)

__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=545573953198454



I am not even going to bother arguing with you 2 as we know you [Inappropriate content removed].  Here is the video but no doubt you will have excuses for the hunt and why the trail is laid on a busy road.  Again.


----------



## YorksG (19 February 2022)

Sandstone1 said:






__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=545573953198454



I am not even going to bother arguing with you 2 as we know you [Inappropriate content removed].  Here is the video but no doubt you will have excuses for the hunt and why the trail is laid on a busy road.  Again.
		
Click to expand...

Please do not suggest that I break the law, or condone others doing so. That is both incorrect and offensive.
An apology is required imo


----------



## palo1 (19 February 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Well, in all cases there is video evidence... Guess the sabs killed the fox themselves?
		
Click to expand...

@Sandstone, you are determined to see any sab evidence as reliable, unedited, untampered with and 'legally obtained'.  That is your position which is fair enough.  BUT a dead fox is NOT necessarily sufficient evidence under the current Hunting Act to prove illegality and you should know that.  That is largely why there are still so many issues around hunting.  You must also know that many alleged hunting offences never come to court or are dismissed because either the evidence is not sufficient, not credible or there is an exemption in place.  I agree that the silly Act is appalling but the police, the CPS and the courts have to deal with it the best they can.  Just because you think, along with many anti-hunters that an offence has been committed; and in fact hounds may have killed a fox, that does NOT mean that it has been illegal or that the Police and the CPS feel they can take it further.   It is pretty dire but we all know that the Hunting Act was not about foxes  or their welfare and was appallingly drafted, deliberately entangled and with all manner of issues.   On the anniversary weekend of the Hunting ban there are still 300 packs of hounds registered and active.  The number of convictions for illegal hunting for those packs is tiny.


----------



## palo1 (19 February 2022)

YorksG said:



			Please do not suggest that I break the law, or condone others doing so. That is both incorrect and offensive.
An apology is required imo
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I would like an apology too; I have never suggested I support illegal hunting.


----------



## Sandstone1 (19 February 2022)

Pleasw watch all of the video and tell me why they think they have a right to stop traffic on a main road?


----------



## Sandstone1 (19 February 2022)

You will certainly not get a apology from me unless you would like to apologise to all the sabs you accuse of law breaking.   I will be putting you all back on UI.


----------



## YorksG (19 February 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Pleasw watch all of the video and tell me why they think they have a right to stop traffic on a main road?
		
Click to expand...

You are conflating far too many issues at once. Stopping traffic is annoying and does not endear the hunt to the general public, just as any large number of none car road users annoy motorists. However, stopping the traffic is not evidence, by and of itself, if any other law breaking. You accuse others of whataboutery, but then post about blocking roads?


----------



## YorksG (19 February 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			You will certainly not get a apology from me unless you would like to apologise to all the sabs you accuse of law breaking.   I will be putting you all back on UI.
		
Click to expand...

I accused the sabs, who boast about their law breaking, of, law breaking?!


----------



## Sandstone1 (19 February 2022)

YorksG said:



			I accused the sabs, who boast about their law breaking, of, law breaking?!
		
Click to expand...

And I accuse hunters who clearly are hunting of killing foxes..


----------



## palo1 (19 February 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Pleasw watch all of the video and tell me why they think they have a right to stop traffic on a main road?
		
Click to expand...

A horse rider or pedestrian does have the right to ask traffic to slow down or stop, in order to make safe progress.  It's sometimes inconvenient but it is the Highway Code. There is no law to prevent a group of horses or dogs from proceeding down the road or crossing a road.


----------



## palo1 (19 February 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			And I accuse hunters who clearly are hunting of killing foxes..
		
Click to expand...

But you cannot know that hunters are actually hunting illegally; that has proven incredibly difficult to prove in law over the last 2 decades (nearly).  How can you possibly 'know' this?.  That statement is ridiculous frankly.


----------



## Clodagh (19 February 2022)

I know that sabs have presented edited videos at times but the idea that they never record a kill is equally nonsensical.
Propaganda regarding hunting is rife on both sides, I have to say mainly on the pros. 

I actually came on this thread for info… how long is it before you find out if someone has been charged with animal cruelty, and how long is it likely to take for the case to come to court? I’m thinking specifically of Paul O’Shea skewering and bagging the fox. Koweyka do you know?


----------



## Clodagh (19 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			But you cannot know that hunters are actually hunting illegally; that has proven incredibly difficult to prove in law over the last 2 decades (nearly).  How can you possibly 'know' this?.  That statement is ridiculous frankly.
		
Click to expand...

Sandstone actually said hunters are killing foxes. The videos do prove that. I’m off now, this thread is irritating!


----------



## Forum Admin Team (19 February 2022)

*One user has been barred from this thread for seven days.

You were all advised about your conduct here, tread carefully or access will be removed.*


----------



## palo1 (19 February 2022)

Clodagh said:



			Sandstone actually said hunters are killing foxes. The videos do prove that. I’m off now, this thread is irritating!
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I get that some videos prove that hunters are killing foxes.  Unfortunately that isn't always either the same as illegal hunting nor is it always possible to take that to court.; there are all manner of reasons why.   It is a mess. I agree the thread is irritating and is not remotely constructive on the issue of hunting/illegal hunting/trail hunting.


----------



## Tiddlypom (19 February 2022)

This thread is not remotely constructive on the issue of hunting/illegal hunting/trail hunting???

I must be reading a different thread, then. There have been numerous constructive discussions on how hunting with hounds is to survive, and the airing of a lot of points by both pro and anti hunt. Most contributors do not wish all hunting to stop altogether, but agree that it can't limp on as it is in such a fractured fashion.

Clodagh, I was also coming on here today to ask if anyone knew why there is such long delay in charging the Essex fox stabber. The incident allegedly happened on 2/12/21, and the man had been arrested by the police by 23/12/21.

There can be little doubt from the CCTV video that the fox stabber must have broken the law in some way in his handling of the fox. How long is reasonable before he gets charged?


----------



## Clodagh (19 February 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Clodagh, I was also coming on here today to ask if anyone knew why there is such long delay in charging the Essex fox stabber. The incident allegedly happened on 2/12/21, and the man had been arrested by the police by 23/12/21.

There can be little doubt from the CCTV video that the fox stabber must have broken the law in some way in his handling of the fox. How long is reasonable before he gets charged?
		
Click to expand...

I don’t know anything about how the law works. I would have thought it was fairly clear cut, as you say. As someone who hunted for many years it was one of the worst things I have ever seen.


----------



## stangs (19 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			BUT a dead fox is NOT necessarily sufficient evidence under the current Hunting Act to prove illegality and you should know that.
		
Click to expand...

Where would a sab find a corpse of a fox to use to make a fake video?


----------



## Tiddlypom (19 February 2022)

Scoop up a road kill then stash it in a freezer until needed.

Allegedly.

(Don't know if that is just a myth, mind).


----------



## Regandal (19 February 2022)

stangs said:



			Where would a sab find a corpse of a fox to use to make a fake video?
		
Click to expand...

Roadkill.


----------



## palo1 (19 February 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			This thread is not remotely constructive on the issue of hunting/illegal hunting/trail hunting???

I must be reading a different thread, then. There have been numerous constructive discussions on how hunting with hounds is to survive, and the airing of a lot of points by both pro and anti hunt. Most contributors do not wish all hunting to stop altogether, but agree that it can't limp on as it is in such a fractured fashion.

Clodagh, I was also coming on here today to ask if anyone knew why there is such long delay in charging the Essex fox stabber. The incident allegedly happened on 2/12/21, and the man had been arrested by the police by 23/12/21.

There can be little doubt from the CCTV video that the fox stabber must have broken the law in some way in his handling of the fox. How long is reasonable before he gets charged?
		
Click to expand...

Ok - I do agree that there has been constructive discussion in places on this thread though the to-ing and fro-ing over points that have been made repeatedly isn't useful I don't think.  I have also wondered about the vile fox stabber - no idea why there hasn't been more coverage of that incident and I would have thought that was an entirely clear cut case of animal cruelty. Grim.


----------



## Clodagh (19 February 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Scoop up a road kill then stash it in a freezer until needed.

Allegedly.

(Don't know if that is just a myth, mind).
		
Click to expand...

However if it’s steaming when broken up it’s kind of unlikely, unless the sabs ran it over themselves at exactly the right moment?


----------



## Gallop_Away (19 February 2022)

What did I miss 👀😂


----------



## Koweyka (19 February 2022)

Do people honestly believe we have freezers full of road kill foxes that we defrost in the morning of a hunt and strategically place exactly where the hunt are going to be …. some serious head wobbling needs to happen.

With regards to the Warwickshire they have been repeatedly filmed clearly killing foxes and deer this season, yes the in hunting act its the chase that is illegal, but a hunt that is repeatedly ”having an accident” has no business even leaving kennels as the hunt staff are clearly not fit for purpose and are demonstrating a total lack of control of the hounds.

I saw the South Durham hunt chased deer today across a road and one of the deer was hit by a car, the monitors had to call a police firearms officer to come and end her suffering after moving her out of the middle of the road, more wildlife killed dying for a “hobby” the Public have already been injured this hunt season after collisions with hounds and we are aware a hunt horse has also been killed. It will take a member of the public to killed before this issue of hounds spilling onto roads usually chasing an animal is properly addressed.

But while you have a hunting act full of loopholes wildlife will continue to die and we will continue to monitor and sab and you will have hunts like the Warwickshire helping hammer more nails into the trail hunt coffin of lies.


----------



## YorksG (19 February 2022)

I think we can all agree that the hunting act is a dire piece of legislation. The local pirate pack out with approx 15 couple of hounds and 15 people with shotguns shoes just how ridiculous it is.


----------



## ycbm (19 February 2022)

YorksG said:



			I think we can all agree that the hunting act is a dire piece of legislation. The local pirate pack out with approx 15 couple of hounds and 15 people with shotguns shoes just how ridiculous it is.
		
Click to expand...

The problem there sounds as if it's the reluctance of various people to complain,  investigate and prosecute.  I believe the law allows for 2 dogs to flush towards guns.  It doesn’t, as far as I  know,  allow for 15 pairs of hounds to flush towards 15 guns.  It's pretty clear whether 30 hounds are hunting as a pack or not. 

The problem with hunts with mounted followers is a refusal to accept the spirit of the law,  and hiding behind the letter of the law to knowingly continue to  kill foxes. 
.


----------



## YorksG (19 February 2022)

I'm quite sure that each man with a gun would say that he had two dogs flushing to his gun and the fact that there were 15 others doing the same was mere coincidence, or that there is nothing in the law to prevent them all going at once, which I believe is probably absolutely true.


----------



## palo1 (19 February 2022)

ycbm said:



			The problem there sounds as if it's the reluctance of various people to complain,  investigate and prosecute.  I believe the law allows for 2 dogs to flush towards guns.  It doesn’t, as far as I  know,  allow for 15 pairs of hounds to flush towards 15 guns.  It's pretty clear whether 30 hounds are hunting as a pack or not.

The problem with hunts with mounted followers is a refusal to accept the spirit of the law,  and hiding behind the letter of the law to knowingly continue to  kill foxes.
.
		
Click to expand...

There is a huge problem with any law where the spirit and the letter of which are not utterly coherent and unified.  In any situation, if there is room for interpretation or taking advantage of loopholes, people will use them to suit themselves.  That is why legislation always needs very careful drafting.  It IS a problem with hunting/the Hunting Act - not just hunting with mounted followers.   I don't personally understand why there is not more discomfort with the number of foxes shot by gun packs tbh but there it is.


----------



## ycbm (20 February 2022)

I wonder how many more foxes need to be killed by hounds before all pro-hunting folk  will condemn hunts deliberately, cynically, using the letter of the law to evade the spirit of the law.

Tax avoidance is legal,  tax evasion is not.  In the right context both are morally repugnant.





palo1 said:



			I don't personally understand why there is not more discomfort with the number of foxes shot by gun packs tbh but there it is.
		
Click to expand...

I can answer for me, and that is that I don't have a problem with any fox being cleanly shot after being driven out of cover by hounds over a distance that a person can follow on foot.  

While we are talking about foot packs,  I have huge respect for whoever used to run the local beagle harrier pack.  The ban came in,  the pack was disbanded.


----------



## Koweyka (20 February 2022)

“I don't personally understand why there is not more discomfort with the number of foxes shot by gun packs tbh but there it is.”

I don’t understand where you get this sentiment from Palo, how do you know there isn’t ? 

I know a foot pack was stopped a few weeks ago and if the Intel is there then I know people will go.


----------



## Tiddlypom (20 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			I don't personally understand why there is not more discomfort with the number of foxes shot by gun packs tbh but there it is.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what sort of hunting this refers to? Can you explain, please?


----------



## palo1 (20 February 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			I'm not sure what sort of hunting this refers to? Can you explain, please?
		
Click to expand...

As described above; a number of people with guns and a pack of hounds - often surrounding a covert with hounds flushing foxes (often many, many foxes) to the waiting guns.  It is pest control using hounds and I don't necessarily have any problem with pest control but the number of foxes killed in this way is not insignificant.  Under Scottish hunting regs hounds can flush to a gun but pirate packs are often made up of many guns.   The use of many hounds is via use of a loophole where you can hunt a fox with 2 hounds...if you have enough people each 'gun' can be technically claiming to use 2 hounds.  Death by gun is not a problem but the number of foxes killed seems unfortunate to me and the foxes don't stand a chance.  I don't know how many are not killed but injured in this way as I have never seen this kind of gun pack hunting myself.


----------



## Tiddlypom (20 February 2022)

Pirate packs rather than registered packs, then?


----------



## palo1 (20 February 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Pirate packs rather than registered packs, then?
		
Click to expand...

I guess so; I have never seen or heard of a registered pack doing this.


----------



## moosea (20 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			As described above; a number of people with guns and a pack of hounds - often surrounding a covert with hounds flushing foxes (often many, many foxes) to the waiting guns.  It is pest control using hounds and I don't necessarily have any problem with pest control but the number of foxes killed in this way is not insignificant.  Under Scottish hunting regs hounds can flush to a gun but pirate packs are often made up of many guns.   The use of many hounds is via use of a loophole where you can hunt a fox with 2 hounds...if you have enough people each 'gun' can be technically claiming to use 2 hounds.  Death by gun is not a problem but the number of foxes killed seems unfortunate to me and the foxes don't stand a chance.  I don't know how many are not killed but injured in this way as I have never seen this kind of gun pack hunting myself.
		
Click to expand...


You confuse me greatly Palo.

I understand from your post that you would support a return to traditional fox hunting with a mounted field and a pack of hounds and you would support the law being changed to make this possible? 

One of the reasons for this is to control fox numbers?

But flushing with hounds to guns and killing many foxes offends you?
Why?


----------



## palo1 (20 February 2022)

moosea said:



			You confuse me greatly Palo.

I understand from your post that you would support a return to traditional fox hunting with a mounted field and a pack of hounds and you would support the law being changed to make this possible?

One of the reasons for this is to control fox numbers?

But flushing with hounds to guns and killing many foxes offends you?
Why?
		
Click to expand...

I don't imagine the law will be changed at all.  I would have preferred a better Hunting Act 17 years ago but I would not have wanted to see the end of hunting.  I am happy to own the fact that I felt that traditional fox hunting was a reasonable way to manage both the fox population and hunted countryside.  Traditional hunting did not kill huge numbers of foxes but had a more subtle impact on their numbers and behaviour.  Along with many people and all of the independent reports I was never convinced by the cruelty argument against hunting but I entirely understand why the death of a fox, the moment of death, when hunted by hounds was brutal and unpalatable to people, even though that death was something a fox is superbly evolved and equipped to deal with in it's own territory.  That argument has been repeated many times.  Hunting with hounds is now illegal though so hunts should not be hunting foxes.   What I find difficult with flushing to guns is the number of foxes killed, the lack of selection and the lack of opportunity for a fox to naturally evade a 'predator'.  Many more foxes would be killed this way than ever would be in a traditional fox hunt.  It has more impact on fox numbers and has very little, if any, benefit at all to the fox population or health or the management of the countryside.  It does not help foxes either that shooting foxes all year round has become a sport; including the shooting of in-cub vixens and nursing vixens.  I understand about pest control and farmers should be entitled to deal with pests but shooting foxes in large numbers in this way doesn't sit well with me at all.  I know that my views are contrary to others.  I don't support illegal hunting.


----------



## Quigleyandme (21 February 2022)

I wouldn’t normally post on this thread but I support Palo1 in this. When foxes are pursued by hounds they are either caught and killed or get away. The vast majority get away and older and less healthy foxes were more likely to succumb very possibly saving them from months of slow starvation. Foxes that are shot are often only wounded to die a slow and agonising death. An eerie noise coming from behind a pile of jumps at my yard in Devon came from a lactating vixen with her lower jaw shot away. My neighbour was trapping foxes year round and shooting them in the cages he only visited once every few days. Longer in bad weather. Many were lactating, in cub or cubs. Dog foxes without a litter to feed were more canny it would appear. There has been a lot of illegal or just plain rude, arrogant and stupid behaviour by hunt servants and fields and woefully poor control of hounds reported and certainly the governance of hunts needs radical reform.


----------



## Tiddlypom (21 February 2022)

Quigley, there are a number of regular posters on here, me included, who agree that the overall health of the fox population is poorer now since the introduction of the Hunting Act.

Foxes were encouraged and protected out of the hunting season in order to provide sport in season.

But those times have gone.


----------



## Fred66 (21 February 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Quigley, there are a number of regular posters on here, me included, who agree that the overall health of the fox population is poorer now since the introduction of the Hunting Act.

Foxes were encouraged and protected out of the hunting season in order to provide sport in season.

But those times have gone.
		
Click to expand...

Could someone enlighten me then as to why people who profess to care about animals fought so hard for this law which appears to have no benefit whatsoever ?


----------



## marmalade76 (21 February 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Could someone enlighten me then as to why people who profess to care about animals fought so hard for this law which appears to have no benefit whatsoever ?
		
Click to expand...

Because for a lot of antis, it's a class thing, for the rest, it's ignorance.


----------



## Koweyka (21 February 2022)

marmalade76 said:



			Because for a lot of antis, it's a class thing, for the rest, it's ignorance.
		
Click to expand...

What a ridiculous comment, it’s nothing to do with class, frankly anyone who hunts and kills animals for sport and fun doesn’t possess announce of class. The class war is peddled by the Pro Hunt maybe it makes you feel better about yourselves who knows …


----------



## Gallop_Away (21 February 2022)

It may not be about "class" but I have certainly seen behaviour from sabs and anti hunt that make me believe it doesn't have anything to do with animal welfare.....


----------



## Koweyka (21 February 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Could someone enlighten me then as to why people who profess to care about animals fought so hard for this law which appears to have no benefit whatsoever ?
		
Click to expand...

Well it’s well known that hunts used to feed foxes and keep them in certain areas so they has something to chase, many hunts still do, so it was in the hunts interest to make sure the foxes in their area were all well fed and healthy, then they could pop them in a bag to be released before the hounds or the cubs dug out by the terrier men, to feed to them hounds take your pick as to why it became illegal. It was and is horrendously cruel.


----------



## Koweyka (21 February 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			It may not be about "class" but I have certainly seen behaviour from sabs and anti hunt that make me believe it doesn't have anything to do with animal welfare.....
		
Click to expand...

And I have seen behaviour from the riders to the hunt masters to the support to the terrier boys that shows they aren’t out for a days trail hunting. It’s all about the killing and the assaults and giving abuse even to innocent bystanders.


----------



## Gallop_Away (21 February 2022)

Koweyka said:



			And I have seen behaviour from the riders to the hunt masters to the support to the terrier boys that shows they aren’t out for a days trail hunting. It’s all about the killing and the assaults and giving abuse even to innocent bystanders.
		
Click to expand...

Ok.....
Again I think it's very clear that there are sadly many hunts that are continually flouting the law, but that doesn't take away from my point that not all antis actually care about animal welfare either. 
My reply was aimed at your previous point that it wasn't about a class war, which it may not be, but neither is it always about animal welfare either ime.....


----------



## Fred66 (21 February 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			Ok.....
Again I think it's very clear that there are sadly many hunts that are continually flouting the law, but that doesn't take away from my point that not all antis actually care about animal welfare either.
My reply was aimed at your previous point that it wasn't about a class war, which it may not be, but neither is it always about animal welfare either ime.....
		
Click to expand...

I would go so far as to say it has absolutely nothing to do with animal welfare. The fox population is far less healthy and therefore suffers more now. I get that some antis may well believe that animals should not be used by humans in anyway and that an animals life should be equal to a humans, however they follow this to extremes to the point where animals suffer and then try to make us out to be the bad guys.

Edit - can I also point out that whilst some hunts might flout the law, the antis are out there week in week out demonstrably breaking the law and then have the temerity to say that the police favour those that hunt.


----------



## YorksG (21 February 2022)

Perhaps the sab groups who post on Facebook didn't get the memo about it not being a class war? You only need to read a very small number of posts and comments to see that it is indeed nothing to do with animal welfare.


----------



## Nasicus (21 February 2022)

YorksG said:



			Perhaps the sab groups who post on Facebook didn't get the memo about it not being a class war? You only need to read a very small number of posts and comments to see that it is indeed nothing to do with animal welfare.
		
Click to expand...

I have to agree here. Almost every sab facebook post is filled with comments screeching about tories, toffs, pigs, scum, wishing harm or death upon people etc etc. From an outsiders perspective, it doesn't endear me to their cause at all and makes it harder to sympathize with people coming out with some of the vile things being said on such public forums.


----------



## YorksG (21 February 2022)

The latest I've seen from the Nottinghamshire sabs is also virulently homophobic, thoroughly unpleasant


----------



## Tiddlypom (21 February 2022)

It's too simplistic to dismiss the antis as waging a class war and being uninterested in animal welfare.

Many antis care deeply about wildlife. They have plenty of unpleasant nutters in their ranks, of course, but then so do pro hunt.

As for the class war, please don't let's pretend that there are not a good number of very well connected and educated types out there deliberately flouting the law to get their hunting fix.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (21 February 2022)

Have there been any studies done on the overall health of the UK fox population these days compared to before the hunting act was brought in? Presumably the hypothesis is that it's poorer now but has that actually been confirmed anywhere?


----------



## Gallop_Away (21 February 2022)

I personally try to keep away from sabs social media pages. The level of nastiness is just too unpleasant


----------



## Gallop_Away (21 February 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			It's too simplistic to dismiss the antis as waging a class war and being uninterested in animal welfare.

Many antis care deeply about wildlife. They have plenty of unpleasant nutters in their ranks, of course, but then so do pro hunt.

As for the class war, please don't let's pretend that there are not a good number of very well connected and educated types out there deliberately flouting the law to get their hunting fix.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think it's the case with all sabs/monitors, but I think people are kidding themselves if they think all are in it out of a genuine love for animals. The behaviour I have myself witnessed directed at horses and hounds is certainly not behaviour I would associate with people who are concerned with animal welfare.


----------



## palo1 (21 February 2022)

CrunchieBoi said:



			Have there been any studies done on the overall health of the UK fox population these days compared to before the hunting act was brought in? Presumably the hypothesis is that it's poorer now but has that actually been confirmed anywhere?
		
Click to expand...

There are considerable sources that are entirely independent of either hunting or anti-hunting that have monitored fox health and fox populations.  The anti-hunt lobby have never, to my knowledge, carried out any research around this.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (21 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			There are considerable sources that are entirely independent of either hunting or anti-hunting that have monitored fox health and fox populations.  The anti-hunt lobby have never, to my knowledge, carried out any research around this.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe I should have made it clearer that I'd be interested in reading these if they are readily available.


----------



## palo1 (21 February 2022)

CrunchieBoi said:



			Maybe I should have made it clearer that I'd be interested in reading these if they are readily available.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, there is plenty of information in the public domain if you are interested.  For example: https://www.bto.org/our-science/projects/bbs/latest-results/mammal-monitoring

If you just search for the information, there is plenty out there.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (21 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			Yes, there is plenty of information in the public domain if you are interested.  For example: https://www.bto.org/our-science/projects/bbs/latest-results/mammal-monitoring

If you just search for the information, there is plenty out there.
		
Click to expand...

Cheers, nothing really that different to what I've seen already. I was wondering if anyone had actually investigated the reasons behind population changes rather than conducting a simple count.


----------



## Chianti (21 February 2022)

Quigleyandme said:



			I wouldn’t normally post on this thread but I support Palo1 in this. When foxes are pursued by hounds they are either caught and killed or get away. The vast majority get away and older and less healthy foxes were more likely to succumb very possibly saving them from months of slow starvation. Foxes that are shot are often only wounded to die a slow and agonising death. An eerie noise coming from behind a pile of jumps at my yard in Devon came from a lactating vixen with her lower jaw shot away. My neighbour was trapping foxes year round and shooting them in the cages he only visited once every few days. Longer in bad weather. Many were lactating, in cub or cubs. Dog foxes without a litter to feed were more canny it would appear. There has been a lot of illegal or just plain rude, arrogant and stupid behaviour by hunt servants and fields and woefully poor control of hounds reported and certainly the governance of hunts needs radical reform.
		
Click to expand...

I think for a lot of people the problem was that if they did get away - say into an earth- then the huntsmen could dig them out and they would be killed.  I know that all the methods used now to control foxes aren't perfect but I don't think hunting with hounds was without its negative points as far as fox control was concerned.


----------



## palo1 (21 February 2022)

CrunchieBoi said:



			Cheers, nothing really that different to what I've seen already. I was wondering if anyone had actually investigated the reasons behind population changes rather than conducting a simple count.
		
Click to expand...

There are some ideas in this article (and further leads to follow up) https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-more-urban-foxes-in-england-than-we-thought/


----------



## ycbm (21 February 2022)

CrunchieBoi said:



			Cheers, nothing really that different to what I've seen already. I was wondering if anyone had actually investigated the reasons behind population changes rather than conducting a simple count.
		
Click to expand...

Good question. The report says this




			Two mammals have declined significantly: Rabbit (64%) and Red Fox (44%).
		
Click to expand...

Since rabbits are a primary food source for country living red fox,  it's not surprising if fox numbers have declined due to the haemorrhagic fever which has decimated rabbit populations. 

I understand that country fox populations are also believed to have declined because foxes have realised how much more cushy a life it is to live in urban areas.  



There seems to be previous little evidence that stopping hunting has reduced fox numbers,  and even if it has it would lead to a possible conclusion that foxes were being artificially supported so that they could be chased for fun. 
.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (21 February 2022)

ycbm said:



			Good question. The report says this

Since rabbits are a primary food source for country living red fox,  it's not surprising if fox numbers have declined due to the haemorrhagic fever which has decimated rabbit populations. 

I understand that country fox populations are also believed to have declined because foxes have realised how much more cushy a life it is to live in urban areas.  

There seems to be previous little evidence that stopping hunting has reduced fox numbers,  and even if it has it would lead to a possible conclusion that foxes were being artificially supported so that they could be chased for fun. 
.
		
Click to expand...

Thousands of species have steeply declined or even vanished completely over the past decade. It's a worrying trend and certainly not one unique to the red fox.


----------



## palo1 (21 February 2022)

ycbm said:



			Good question. The report says this



Since rabbits are a primary food source for country living red fox,  it's not surprising if fox numbers have declined due to the haemorrhagic fever which has decimated rabbit populations.

I understand that country fox populations are also believed to have declined because foxes have realised how much more cushy a life it is to live in urban areas. 



There seems to be previous little evidence that stopping hunting has reduced fox numbers,  and even if it has it would lead to a possible conclusion that foxes were being artificially supported so that they could be chased for fun.
.
		
Click to expand...

The New Scientist article does address this if you read it.  It says ''
“I’d say that the most likely causes were declines in prey or increases in shooting pressure,” says Stephens.

Rabbit numbers have fallen over this period, possibly because of disease, and changing farming practices are also likely to have reduced potential prey in rural areas. “Earthworms make up a large proportion of the fox’s diet, especially for their young, in many areas and are known to be strongly adversely affected by pesticides,” says Stephens.

There is also anecdotal evidence that “*since the hunting with dogs ban came into force, gamekeepers have felt a particular obligation to hammer foxes as hard as they can”*, he says.  (Stephens: Durham University).  I think it is very worrying that foxes don't have enough people on their side/interested in their welfare to have merited specific research in relation to their decline/spread. 

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...xes-in-england-than-we-thought/#ixzz7LY3EnsK3


----------



## palo1 (21 February 2022)

CrunchieBoi said:



			Thousands of species have steeply declined or even vanished completely over the past decade. It's a worrying trend and certainly not one unique to the red fox.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed.  It is very worrying but there is little doubt that when fox hunting was legal, aspects of countryside management were specifically directed at providing habitat for foxes (and thus other species).  It isn't really a live issue in the UK but it is very much a live issue in other places and whilst hunting may be very unpalatable to some people only very recently the issue of hunting and conservation was raised by a number of scientists.  It has been discussed in the mainstream media here: https://www.theguardian.com/environ...fforts-scientists-warn-trophy-hunting-dispute  And here: https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-puts-wildlife-at-risk-uk-government-told-aoe

I have no desire to go trophy hunting myself but there is absolutely no consensus that banning hunting would help wildlife or conservation.  It may be unpalatable to people but there are scientific perspectives which really should be considered.

ETA - I have said that this is not a live issue in the UK in relation to the fact that hunting foxes has been banned, not that the discussion isn't pertinent - which I think it is.


----------



## ycbm (21 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			I think it is very worrying that foxes don't have enough people on their side/interested in their welfare to have merited specific research in relation to their decline/spread.
		
Click to expand...

They seem to be spectacularly well adapted to finding other ways to live than in the country and there's no shortage of huge,  bold and healthy urban foxes.  I would have thought that unless people want to chase them as entertainment, there are far more important things to spend money on.  
.


----------



## palo1 (21 February 2022)

ycbm said:



			They seem to be spectacularly well adapted to finding other ways to live than in the country and there's no shortage of huge,  bold and healthy urban foxes.  I would have thought that unless people want to chase them as entertainment, there are far more important things to spend money on. 
.
		
Click to expand...

I am genuinely horrified that you would dismiss the significance of the fox and it's habitat in the UK countryside.   This is an iconic animal that should be thriving in a habitat that supports not only foxes but so many other things too.  If foxes are not doing well in the countryside many of our less adaptable species will be struggling far more and that will put pressure on rural foxes to predate on more vulnerable species again (as they are in relation to ground nesting birds for example).  This attitude that as there are plenty of urban foxes so we don't need to worry about rural foxes is genuinely both baffling and infuriating.  What do you want the countryside to be like?


----------



## AFishOutOfWater (21 February 2022)

Hunting really isn't the boost to rural fox populations you seem to think it is.


----------



## palo1 (21 February 2022)

Snail said:



			Hunting really isn't the boost to rural fox populations you seem to think it is.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think I have suggested that hunting would now boost the fox population.  I do believe and understand though that where fox habitats were maintained for hunting foxes were more widespread, less likely to be taken by fox shooting enthusiasts and generally healthier.  There are a number of reasons why foxes may be struggling - loss of habitat in part due to the ban on fox hunting is one of those.


----------



## meleeka (21 February 2022)

Where I live countryside foxes have had to turn into urban foxes because there’s very little countryside left


----------



## stangs (21 February 2022)

Foxes belong in the countryside. But, as the article posted demonstrated, the way to solve that isn't making hunting legal, but rather changing farming practices, maintaining green areas and making sure that all countryside species' populations are being supported/maintained.

Additionally - and I appreciate that this is an awful generalisation - pro-hunt people tend to be rural folk, and rural folk tend to oppose rewilding practices that would be more important (and much healthier) for rural fox populations, and indeed most wildlife. Of course, not all rewilding techniques are practical/effective/advantageous, but, generally speaking, they're going to better for ecosystems than hunting. You can't just have hunting to 'save' the fox population; you have to be protecting the whole ecosystem.

What does sadden me though is the implication that some hunting people only care about foxes if they get the chance to kill them a few times a year.



palo1 said:



			I think it is very worrying that foxes don't have enough people on their side/interested in their welfare to have merited specific research in relation to their decline/spread.
		
Click to expand...

I agree, but it's also a shame that there aren't people on the side of the rabbits, or the earthworms, etc.


----------



## palo1 (21 February 2022)

stangs said:



			Foxes belong in the countryside. But, as the article posted demonstrated, the way to solve that isn't making hunting legal, but rather changing farming practices, maintaining green areas and making sure that all countryside species' populations are being supported/maintained.

Additionally - and I appreciate that this is an awful generalisation - pro-hunt people tend to be rural folk, and rural folk tend to oppose rewilding practices that would be more important (and much healthier) for rural fox populations, and indeed most wildlife. Of course, not all rewilding techniques are practical/effective/advantageous, but, generally speaking, they're going to better for ecosystems than hunting. You can't just have hunting to 'save' the fox population; you have to be protecting the whole ecosystem.

What does sadden me though is the implication that some hunting people only care about foxes if they get the chance to kill them a few times a year.


I agree, but it's also a shame that there aren't people on the side of the rabbits, or the earthworms, etc.
		
Click to expand...

I know a number of rural and pro hunting people that would support rewilding practices; there is far more recognition of that than the media conveys tbh.  Rewilding and hunting generally are not at odds with each other.  Most pro hunting people I know feel passionately about the need to repair ecosystems and of course, a fox is just one part of that.  Most rural people and pro hunting people absolutely understand the complexity of the rural ecosystem.  It is much harder for the UK's largely urban population.  Especially when they are busy tarmacking their gardens for parking and using astroturf for convenience instead of a lawn.  I am not trying to stereotype people - those are just examples of things that urban people feel the need to do to enjoy their homes.


----------



## GSD Woman (21 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			“Earthworms make up a large proportion of the fox’s diet, especially for their young, in many areas and are known to be strongly adversely affected by pesticides,” says Stephens.
		
Click to expand...

I know I'm getting waaay off topic but earthworms are so important to soil health.  I have no idea of the earthworm population on farms in the USA but I protect them in my yard/garden.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (21 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			Indeed.  It is very worrying but there is little doubt that when fox hunting was legal, aspects of countryside management were specifically directed at providing habitat for foxes (and thus other species).
		
Click to expand...

In all honesty I only really see that we've made an absolute pigs ear of habitat management in the UK. The same argument is made for the rearing of game birds yet it doesn't really happen in reality.

I can go for a walk near my home and see plenty of examples of ecologically destructive practices relating to hunting. The release of millions of non-native game birds is an act of ecocide in itself, yet it's in no way frowned upon.


----------



## AFishOutOfWater (21 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			I don't think I have suggested that hunting would now boost the fox population.  I do believe and understand though that where fox habitats were maintained for hunting foxes were more widespread, less likely to be taken by fox shooting enthusiasts and generally healthier.  There are a number of reasons why foxes may be struggling - loss of habitat in part due to the ban on fox hunting is one of those.
		
Click to expand...

habitat maintenance will be better achieved by less building and a change in agriculture away from monocultures and intensive animal production than hunting. Pheasant hunting/rearing is not good for foxes either.


----------



## Tiddlypom (21 February 2022)

Managing the countryside so as to encourage a healthy fox population is a win/win situation - it has many beneficial spin offs, and not just for the fox.

But many people only did this when they had a vested interest in having healthy foxes to hunts. No hunting = they have no more interest in foxes.

The mass raising of birds to be targeted for amusement by idiots with guns is vile, and does beggar all positive for countryside management. Shooting is a big money industry.


----------



## skinnydipper (21 February 2022)

The idea that people who enjoy terrorising old and sick foxes, chasing them about the countryside until they are torn apart by hounds, are doing it in the best interests of the fox would be laughable if it wasn't so abhorrent.


----------



## Fred66 (21 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			I don't think I have suggested that hunting would now boost the fox population.  I do believe and understand though that where fox habitats were maintained for hunting foxes were more widespread, less likely to be taken by fox shooting enthusiasts and generally healthier.  There are a number of reasons why foxes may be struggling - loss of habitat in part due to the ban on fox hunting is one of those.
		
Click to expand...

This is what I fail to understand, trail hunting from a hunting perspective is easier, less need to walk all the land as the trail is set and even on a poor scenting day means hounds are less likely to stray. As long as the hunt continue to offer the same services as before, fallen stock, fence maintenance, digging out, etc then the farmers will still welcome them, especially as there will be less straying and if they diversify into shooting them. Some hunts were slow to move over and the odd one is still recalcitrant but in the main most are now hunting within the law.
So why do most hunting folk want to see a return to fox hunting? It’s not a desire to spill blood most prefer not to see this aspect, probably much as most of us avoid abattoirs. You know it happens but prefer not to dwell on it. The reason is that most who hunt appreciate the symbiotic relationships within the countryside, that maintaining the balance is important that maintaining healthy numbers keeps the balance.
Antis largely don’t acknowledge this they just like to throw out names such as psychopath , scum, and other such abuse. They attempt to identify and intimidate people via social media and generally stalk, harass and intimidate people into stopping trail hunting as they  rarely provide any evidence to support their allegations. 
I have pretty much lost any level of tolerance of their activities, whether they believe the hunt is breaking the law or not, this does not give them the right to proactively break the law first, they dress in paramilitary style, they generally mask up so that it makes identification difficult. The hunt I follow has previously been quite happy to have monitors but this is no longer the case, not because we have started to hunt fox again but because we genuinely fear for our safety.


----------



## palo1 (21 February 2022)

GSD Woman said:



			I know I'm getting waaay off topic but earthworms are so important to soil health.  I have no idea of the earthworm population on farms in the USA but I protect them in my yard/garden.
		
Click to expand...

Earthworms are massively important!!  Most farmers know that I think; we certainly look at our earthworm population (as far as we can) as one indicator or soil health.  We do everything we can to encourage them too as they do so much work for us!  Earthworms also form a significant part of a foxes diet.


----------



## palo1 (21 February 2022)

CrunchieBoi said:



			In all honesty I only really see that we've made an absolute pigs ear of habitat management in the UK. The same argument is made for the rearing of game birds yet it doesn't really happen in reality.

I can go for a walk near my home and see plenty of examples of ecologically destructive practices relating to hunting. The release of millions of non-native game birds is an act of ecocide in itself, yet it's in no way frowned upon.
		
Click to expand...

I think there are people who understand this.  For those that believe that hunting has a place in contemporary culture some would prefer to see large numbers of healthy native birds rather than millions of non-native game birds.  That is a discussion however that is incredibly difficult to open as there is already so much polarised debate about any and all kinds of hunting/sport shooting.  I am not a shooter/gunsports person but I would far rather take up that kind of field sport to see native species 'supported'  in healthy habitats to be shot than the millions of pheasants that are a Victorian sporting hangover.  As a pro-hunting person I don't want to snark at other fieldsports and very much hope they put their house in order and learn from where hunting post ban has failed (ie bad practices, illegality and anti-social behaviour).  I do feel that hunting should have a place in our culture; I think it has a fundamental significance for us and provides an essential connection with nature and our ecosystem.  I also accept that hunting could be adapted in lots of ways for a new 21st century context.


----------



## palo1 (21 February 2022)

skinnydipper said:



			The idea that people who enjoy terrorising old and sick foxes, chasing them about the countryside until they are torn apart by hounds, are doing it in the best interests of the fox would be laughable if it wasn't so abhorrent.
		
Click to expand...

Although you have put a very particular spin on this, you are still wrong; that is exactly how nature facilitates healthy populations.  In the case of pre-ban fox hunting the people following hounds had nothing to do with the death of the fox in large part; that was the job of hounds.


----------



## skinnydipper (21 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			Although you have put a very particular spin on this, you are still wrong; that is exactly how* nature facilitates healthy populations. * In the case of pre-ban fox hunting *the people following hounds had nothing to do with the death of the fox in large part; that was the job of hounds*.
		
Click to expand...

Of course they have something to do with the death of the fox - somebody must be in charge of the hounds.

I wouldn't say that death by hounds is a natural death for a fox nearing the end of its life.


----------



## Fred66 (21 February 2022)

skinnydipper said:



			The idea that people who enjoy terrorising old and sick foxes, chasing them about the countryside until they are torn apart by hounds, are doing it in the best interests of the fox would be laughable if it wasn't so abhorrent.
		
Click to expand...

The alternative to hunting with hounds is currently shooting or trapping. Both are totally indiscriminate and therefore healthy foxes as well as old will be killed. Some instantly some slowly, the old and ill that aren’t shot will still die but slowly by starvation.
The idea that people think this slow torture is better is to me both laughable and abhorrent.


----------



## skinnydipper (21 February 2022)

Fred66 said:



			The alternative to hunting with hounds is currently shooting or trapping. Both are totally indiscriminate and therefore healthy foxes as well as old will be killed. Some instantly some slowly, the old and ill that aren’t shot will still die but slowly by starvation.
The idea that people think this slow torture is better is to me both laughable and abhorrent.
		
Click to expand...

So are you one of those people that gets their kicks from chasing round the countryside after a terrified animal running for its life?


----------



## Fred66 (21 February 2022)

skinnydipper said:



			So are you one of those people that gets their kicks from chasing round the countryside after a terrified animal running for its life?
		
Click to expand...

I am long past being able to chase anywhere even if fox hunting with a pack of hounds was still legal.
🤣🤣


----------



## skinnydipper (21 February 2022)

Fred66 said:



			I am long past being able to chase anywhere even if fox hunting with a pack of hounds was still legal.
🤣🤣
		
Click to expand...

You are right about one thing - it isn't legal.

There seems to be a number of hunts who don't appear to let that get in their way.


----------



## stangs (21 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			I know a number of rural and pro hunting people that would support rewilding practices; there is far more recognition of that than the media conveys tbh.  Rewilding and hunting generally are not at odds with each other.  Most pro hunting people I know feel passionately about the need to repair ecosystems and of course, a fox is just one part of that.  Most rural people and pro hunting people absolutely understand the complexity of the rural ecosystem.  It is much harder for the UK's largely urban population.  Especially when they are busy tarmacking their gardens for parking and using astroturf for convenience instead of a lawn.  I am not trying to stereotype people - those are just examples of things that urban people feel the need to do to enjoy their homes.
		
Click to expand...

I stand corrected then. And I agree that the tarmacking of gardens and similar practices are awful (though I've found them more common in suburban areas than in the most urban of areas), but these 'gardens' presumably take up much less land than the thousands of acres dedicated to agricultural monocultures.


----------



## AFishOutOfWater (21 February 2022)

Sorry but I don't buy that hunting benefits fox populations. If they care so much about the health of the countryside and Britain's wildlife, why do you never see hunts worming foxes, despite a huge rise in both heart and lungworm infections? Why do you never see them supporting charities that rehabilitate and release injured wild foxes? Why would they show such poor biosecurity practices in their fallen stock services, despite the fact that this has the potential to spready toxoplasmosis and other diseases which would potentially infect foxes? Or supporting habitat building for animals important to foxes' diets (because bottom-up conservation works so much better than top-down)?
Additionally, targeting old or sick animals and chasing them is hardly humane, and, arguably, pointless because these individuals are on their way out anyway.


----------



## ycbm (21 February 2022)

Fred66 said:



			The alternative to hunting with hounds is currently shooting or trapping. Both are totally indiscriminate.
		
Click to expand...

This is not correct for the area in which I live., The foxes which are shot are those which are causing issues for farmers with their livestock.  Any others are left in peace.  
.


----------



## ycbm (21 February 2022)

Snail said:



			Additionally, targeting old or sick animals and chasing them is hardly humane, and, arguably, pointless because these individuals are on their way out anyway
		
Click to expand...


I agree with this and I also think the argument is disingenuous. If hunts stopped hunting when the sick and old were gone then it might stand up.  But they don't,  they continue to hunt increasingly young fit and healthy foxes until the season is finished and their "sport" is over because the land is needed for farming.  
.


----------



## palo1 (21 February 2022)

Snail said:



			Sorry but I don't buy that hunting benefits fox populations. If they care so much about the health of the countryside and Britain's wildlife, why do you never see hunts worming foxes, despite a huge rise in both heart and lungworm infections? Why do you never see them supporting charities that rehabilitate and release injured wild foxes? Why would they show such poor biosecurity practices in their fallen stock services, despite the fact that this has the potential to spready toxoplasmosis and other diseases which would potentially infect foxes? Or supporting habitat building for animals important to foxes' diets (because bottom-up conservation works so much better than top-down)?
Additionally, targeting old or sick animals and chasing them is hardly humane, and, arguably, pointless because these individuals are on their way out anyway.
		
Click to expand...

I think that veterinary interventions in wild animal populations are really tricky philosophically and from a welfare point of view.  I am not sure how feasible it would be to even try to worm native wild foxes - they haven't had that kind of intervention before though it possibly could be managed in urban fox populations.  I am still wary of the idea though; its not generally something that supports a wild population of anything and I think for a number of environmental and species level reasons it would not be desirable.  As for the toxoplasmosis and toxicara issue, that hasn't been associated with foxes - far more so with farm dogs according to various herd health information services.   Hunting definitely did support habitat protection though that is far less so with trail hunting as the need to have fox populated areas has gone.   Undoubtedly bottom up conservation works much better than top down - that is one of the reasons why the UK became a fox hunters paradise, because habitats were created that encouraged foxes (and thus everything else in their ecosystem).  I think there is a problem for most of us too that environmentally sound policies and practices are not always mutually compatible with individual animal welfare practices.

In my view, one issue is that our animal welfare laws prioritise individual animals which works well for domestic animals but far, far less well for our native wildlife.  I don't think that is contested but the idealisation for the individual wild animal has done populations that need a degree of big picture thinking, a real and potentially very long term disservice.


----------



## ycbm (21 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			I am genuinely horrified that you would dismiss the significance of the fox and it's habitat in the UK countryside.   This is an iconic animal that should be thriving in a habitat that supports not only foxes but so many other things too.  If foxes are not doing well in the countryside many of our less adaptable species will be struggling far more and that will put pressure on rural foxes to predate on more vulnerable species again (as they are in relation to ground nesting birds for example).  This attitude that as there are plenty of urban foxes so we don't need to worry about rural foxes is genuinely both baffling and infuriating.  What do you want the countryside to be like?
		
Click to expand...


I think you need to reread the quote of what you wrote Palo. 




			I think it is very worrying that foxes don't have enough people on their side/interested in their welfare to have merited specific research in relation to their decline/spread.
		
Click to expand...

As you can see,  the point I answered was about why nobody was "on the foxes side" or "interested in their welfare" and I answered that. 

It's perfectly clear that foxes in general do not need that concern,  they are absolutely thriving as a species,  just not necessarily in areas where people can have fun chasing them.  
.


----------



## Fred66 (22 February 2022)

ycbm said:



			I agree with this and I also think the argument is disingenuous. If hunts stopped hunting when the sick and old were gone then it might stand up.  But they don't,  they continue to hunt increasingly young fit and healthy foxes until the season is finished and their "sport" is over because the land is needed for farming.
.
		
Click to expand...

I think the posts refer to mainly the sick and old not only.
The hunts meet move largely hunting one area 3-4 times per year, albeit sometimes there would have been some overlap.

So I would argue that you are being disingenuous as you are implying that we hunt the same area week in week out, whereas we probably have 10+ separate hunting areas.


----------



## ycbm (22 February 2022)

Fred66 said:



			I think the posts refer to mainly the sick and old not only.
The hunts meet move largely hunting one area 3-4 times per year, albeit sometimes there would have been some overlap.

So I would argue that you are being disingenuous as you are implying that we hunt the same area week in week out, whereas we probably have 10+ separate hunting areas.
		
Click to expand...

I am not in any way implying that you hunt the same area week in week out but I am definitely stating that you will not shorten your season just because none of the remaining foxes are old,  ill,  or bothering farmers. 

In fact I'd go as far as to state that if you are hunting fox then you are happier if the foxes you are chasing are young enough and fit enough to give you a long, hard,  fast run across country. This is absolutely  obvious from pre-ban H&H  reports celebrating such runs.
.


----------



## ycbm (22 February 2022)

Fred66 said:



			So I would argue that you are being disingenuous as you are implying that we hunt the same area week in week out, whereas we probably have 10+ separate hunting areas.
		
Click to expand...

F66 I have always been struck by how similar your way of writing and use of grammar is to mine,  and you might even remember people accusing us of being the same poster,  and me  writing a PM to you shortly after you joined the forum because of it. (You ignored it).

You wrote this in response to a post of mine about chasing healthy foxes. 

I have to say that your use of grammar in this post seems to me to be an absolute giveaway. I don't believe there is anyone with the precision with which you use grammar who would have written this paragraph without being a current day fox hunter.  
.


----------



## Fred66 (22 February 2022)

ycbm said:



			F66 I have always been struck by how similar your way of writing and use of grammar is to mine,  and you might even remember people accusing us of being the same poster,  and me  writing a PM to you shortly after you joined the forum because of it. (You ignored it).

You wrote this in response to a post of mine about chasing healthy foxes.

I have to say that your use of grammar in this post seems to me to be an absolute giveaway. I don't believe there is anyone with the precision with which you use grammar who would have written this paragraph without being a current day fox hunter.
.
		
Click to expand...

If you caught my post before I edited it I did say that there were bits of terminology that applied pre ban and some both pre and post then decided to edit it out as it was superfluous.

When we went fox HUNTING we had probably in the region of 12 distinct hunting areas now we go trail HUNTING we have approximately 10 hunting areas, both are covered under the term hunting.

The hunt I follow, as I have repeatedly said, follows a trail and you are trying to read something into my grammar that simply isn’t there.


----------



## Fred66 (22 February 2022)

ycbm said:



			I am not in any way implying that you hunt the same area week in week out but I am definitely stating that you will not shorten your season just because none of the remaining foxes are old,  ill,  or bothering farmers.

In fact I'd go as far as to state that if you are hunting fox then you are happier if the foxes you are chasing are young enough and fit enough to give you a long, hard,  fast run across country. This is absolutely  obvious from pre-ban H&H  reports celebrating such runs.
.
		
Click to expand...

Many of those runs were on good scenting days and where the fox was likely well ahead and quite probably got away.

Yes such runs would be celebrated, the hounds doing an excellent job of following their noses and the fox being strong and wily enough to get away.


----------



## ycbm (23 February 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Yes such runs would be celebrated  .... the fox being strong and wily enough to get away.
		
Click to expand...


Exactly,  it is disengenuous to suggest that fox hunting is done to cull the old and ill,  for the benefit of foxes.  If anything the old and ill are culled in order to provide better sport with the younger and fitter. 

I see the "but they get away if they're strong enough" argument used a lot, as if that somehow makes it OK to chase a wild animal for fun.  
.


----------



## ycbm (23 February 2022)

Fred66 said:



			The hunt I follow, as I have repeatedly said, follows a trail and you are trying to read something into my grammar that simply isn’t there.
		
Click to expand...

I'm only reading what you wrote 🤷‍♂️.  To read it any other way _would_ have been reading into it something you didn't write, and assuming that you meant a past tense which you didn't use.    
.


----------



## Gallop_Away (23 February 2022)

What are people's thoughts on how troublesome foxes should be managed? 
I'm not saying I agree with traditional hunting but I do understand farmers wanting to protect livestock and I have been witness to the damage foxes can do. 
Shooting is not always the quick and clean death people would like to believe it is. 
Trapping can cause an animal a great deal of distress before it is eventually dispatched.
As much as I'm sure people don't like the thought of foxes being killed at all, I think it is a necessary evil in some cases where farmers need to protect livestock.


----------



## ycbm (23 February 2022)

I don't have any issue with killing foxes as humanely as possible. 

As far as i recollect, Burns said shooting and hunting with hounds were equal in welfare and I don't think he included cubbing to teach hounds to kill fox (as opposed to cubbing to distribute the fox population) or any of the nasty practices that go on behind the scenes in the worst (only the worst?) hunts. 

So shooting is the choice for me,  and that's how fox in this area have been controlled for the 31 years I've lived here.   I tell a lie,  there was one fox hunt on horseback in about 1992 and they caused so much trouble that they were subsequently banned from the area.  

I think snares should be illegal. 


.


----------



## Gallop_Away (23 February 2022)

Snares are bloody evil things!!

I'm inclined to agree that shooting is probably the "best" method, but it needs to be carried out by someone who knows what they are doing. A badly aimed shot could leave the poor animal to suffer for days.


----------



## palo1 (23 February 2022)

The ideal control for a predator like a fox would be another predator; that is proven to have many benefits both ecologically and in species health terms.   That is how a fox inhabits it's 'place' in the natural order.  That understanding also totally underpins environmental/nature restoration.   That could be a predator that was not 'managed' (like a pack of hounds is) but it would require very different conditions in the UK countryside to those that exist.   The problem with guns is, in part that they are 'instant' (there is no other benefit to their use other than the death of single or multiple animals) and have no additional subtle impact on species or habitat in the way that a top predator does.   The benefit of top predators to the health of wider ecosystems has become totally mainstream and is largely now uncontested.  The other problem with shooting/guns is that they cannot really be selective without far greater cost to shooters, farmers etc.  There are potentially serious issues with shooting that have been seen in other places/populations too; to do with the spread of disease and other unintended consequences.  In the current situation in the UK shooting is the way that fox (and other) pest control works but I don't think it is necessarily the best or most sustainable.  

As has been said many times before, what is best from an environmental or species perspective is not always the most desirable from an individual animal welfare point of view.


----------



## GoldenWillow (23 February 2022)

Because of this thread, a few months ago I asked our neighbouring farmer if there had been any change in the number/behaviour of foxes since the hunt had no longer had permission to hunt in our area. He has noticed no difference at all and if there is a problem a local, very experienced neighbour shoots them, I think he said he's needed it done twice.

Nothing else has changed either as the hunt did nothing other than hunt.



palo1 said:



			The other problem with shooting/guns is that they cannot really be selective without far greater cost to shooters, farmers etc.  There are potentially serious issues with shooting that have been seen in other places/populations too; to do with the spread of disease and other unintended consequences.  In the current situation in the UK shooting is the way that fox (and other) pest control works but I don't think it is necessarily the best or most sustainable.

As has been said many times before, what is best from an environmental or species perspective is not always the most desirable from an individual animal welfare point of view.
		
Click to expand...

Genuine question, how is shooting not selective without far greater cost and how does shooting a fox contribute to the spread of disease?

Eta, please ignore any typos, post is jumping around as I'm typing.


----------



## palo1 (23 February 2022)

GoldenWillow said:



			Because of this thread, a few months ago I asked our neighbouring farmer if there had been any change in the number/behaviour of foxes since the hunt had no longer had permission to hunt in our area. He has noticed no difference at all and if there is a problem a local, very experienced neighbour shoots them, I think he said he's needed it done twice.

Nothing else has changed either as the hunt did nothing other than hunt.



Genuine question, how is shooting not selective without far greater cost and how does shooting a fox contribute to the spread of disease?

Eta, please ignore any typos, post is jumping around as I'm typing.
		
Click to expand...

Briefly (just dashing out!) - Shooting is done on sight generally and at a distance so it is impossible to identify whether any particular individual is old/young/nursing/in-cub/blind etc.  It is possible to identify generally wounded or mangy foxes from a distance.  With predator control it is almost necessarily older, sicker, weaker, less wily animals that are predated.  Shooting happens in 'static' locations so habitats don't benefit from the effect of predator stress where predators move through areas on occasion.  This has been demonstrated to be very beneficial to other animals and the ecosystem as a whole and they are well adapted to deal with predator stress.  Shooting has no 'predator stress' effect but can make animals 'nervous and evasive' where this happens regularly in the same location; that area is then more likely to be damaged and 'denatured' in ecological terms.

In terms of disease spread, dead foxes are usually just left to rot; insects/maggots etc thrive but it is very unnatural to have say 5-20 corpses in one place and that doesn't happen in a predatory system of control (of foxes.  Foxes themselves do leave a large number of corpses if they can as they will return to them - but then they eat them!).  There has also been interesting research (not related to foxes) about the impact of shooting on disease as other animals are more likely to come into contact with disease via blood transmission than when a predator either eats or 'destroys' a single carcass.


----------



## GSD Woman (23 February 2022)

Just out of curiosity, did England ever have any apex predators?

The worst way that I know to hunt/run foxes is in a "fox pen." This is an area, I think 300-500 acres that is fenced in such a way that it is very hard for foxes to get out.  Then, hounds are taught to flush and run foxes by being turned loose in the area.  The foxes aren't shot but there is nothing to stop the hounds from killing.  Piss me off that it is allowed in my state.

I wish the hunts that are illegal there would just straighten up and trail hunt like they should.


----------



## littleshetland (23 February 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Many of those runs were on good scenting days and where the fox was likely well ahead and quite probably got away.

Yes such runs would be celebrated, the hounds doing an excellent job of following their noses and the fox being strong and wily enough to get away.
		
Click to expand...

'Wily and strong enough get away'....  I appreciate that it's natures way that a prey animal will sometimes avoid the jaws of its predator and avoid being eaten, but what exactly is there to celebrate when you've just caused an incredible amount of terror and fear to a fox for your own amusement?


----------



## palo1 (23 February 2022)

GSD Woman said:



			Just out of curiosity, did England ever have any apex predators?

The worst way that I know to hunt/run foxes is in a "fox pen." This is an area, I think 300-500 acres that is fenced in such a way that it is very hard for foxes to get out.  Then, hounds are taught to flush and run foxes by being turned loose in the area.  The foxes aren't shot but there is nothing to stop the hounds from killing.  Piss me off that it is allowed in my state.

I wish the hunts that are illegal there would just straighten up and trail hunt like they should.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, penning foxes sounds grim 

ETA - no, we don't have any apex predators; the last wolves were killed here in the UK in the 18th century I think.  But we did used to have wolves and other things that would take foxes and the red fox is so widely established it is fairly simple to understand it's place in a system that would have worked here.


----------



## palo1 (23 February 2022)

littleshetland said:



			'Wily and strong enough get away'....  I appreciate that it's natures way that a prey animal will sometimes avoid the jaws of its predator and avoid being eaten, but what exactly is there to celebrate when you've just caused an incredible amount of terror and fear to a fox for your own amusement?
		
Click to expand...

But it wasn't for people's own amusement; the hunting of foxes was for pest control through the use of a controlled predator.  The amusement if you like for those following was to see if they could follow the predator or predict the direction taken and cross that country.  The deliberate misunderstanding/misinterpretation of hunting by anti-hunters is a feature that does them no favours; it just reinforces the idea that anti-hunters *don't* understand the subject.  The fact that you have admitted that it is 'nature's way' is sensible though.


----------



## skinnydipper (23 February 2022)

palo1 said:



*The problem with guns is,* in part that they are 'instant' (there is no other benefit to their use other than the death of single or multiple animals) *and have no additional subtle impact on species or habitat* in the way that a top predator does.
		
Click to expand...

Advantage of a person shooting a fox would be that the person would not riot onto livestock or kill people's pets.

I would be interested to know the subtle impact on species or habitat provided by a pack of hounds.


----------



## palo1 (23 February 2022)

skinnydipper said:



			Advantage of a person shooting a fox would be that the person would not riot onto livestock or kill peoples pets.

I would be interested to know the subtle impact on species or habitat provided by a pack of hounds.
		
Click to expand...

There is quite a lot of information about this available (in relation to the benefits of predator stress). Rioting onto livestock or killing people's pets is simply never acceptable and it is absolutely unnecessary.


----------



## littleshetland (23 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			But it wasn't for people's own amusement; the hunting of foxes was for pest control through the use of a controlled predator.  The amusement if you like for those following was to see if they could follow the predator or predict the direction taken and cross that country.  The deliberate misunderstanding/misinterpretation of hunting by anti-hunters is a feature that does them no favours; it just reinforces the idea that anti-hunters *don't* understand the subject.  The fact that you have admitted that it is 'nature's way' is sensible though.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you for being so patronising.  Sorry Palo, Fox hunting exists for the hunters amusement and entertainment - no deliberate misunderstanding/misinterpretation at all.  Perhaps in it's origins it served a practical and necessary purpose, but not any more.


----------



## ycbm (23 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			Shooting is done on sight generally and at a distance so it is impossible to identify whether any particular individual is old/young/nursing/in-cub/blind etc.
		
Click to expand...

I would love to see the reaction on a shooting forum to this statement.  The guy who usually shoots foxes here has telescopic sights, he can distinguishing which fox to shoot far better than a pack of hounds can. 

I'd also love to hear how a hunt using a pack of hounds distinguishes between the scent of a nursing female and a blind male. 
.


----------



## skinnydipper (23 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			There is quite a lot of information about this available (in relation to the benefits of predator stress)
		
Click to expand...

Having now read that predator stress causes anxiety, sustained psychological stress and predator induced fear causes PTSD in wild animals, I think I've read as much as I want to on the subject.


----------



## Dizzy socks (23 February 2022)

I have a few questions. Apologies if these have already been answered, but I don’t think so.

1. A lot has been made of the need for an apex predator. Wolves have come up often as a historic predator - I’ve looked this up, and it seems that wolves really do not predate on foxes, and would only ever do so/have done so if they were starving? Nor are they in competition for food. Why are we trying to replace wolves with hounds if wolves don’t hunt foxes?

2. Why are hounds being assumed to have an effect like wolves/apex predators? It seems a pretty big leap to me. Pretty much none of the impacts that large predators may have are transferable to a pack of hounds situation. Nor, from the studies that I’ve read, are the effects on other non-hunted populations, e.g deer, especially beneficial.

3. I think natural on this thread has perhaps often been conflated with humane. This is perhaps more a statement, but I’m not sure why just because things may happen in nature, that is encouraging them in a man made setting is at all humane? I.e. we can choose do better, this is not a matter of life or death survival for us.


----------



## littleshetland (23 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			There is quite a lot of information about this available (in relation to the benefits of predator stress). Rioting onto livestock or killing people's pets is simply never acceptable and it is absolutely unnecessary.
		
Click to expand...

But rioting happens over and over and over again....


----------



## GoldenWillow (23 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			Briefly (just dashing out!) - Shooting is done on sight generally and at a distance so it is impossible to identify whether any particular individual is old/young/nursing/in-cub/blind etc.  It is possible to identify generally wounded or mangy foxes from a distance.  With predator control it is almost necessarily older, sicker, weaker, less wily animals that are predated.  Shooting happens in 'static' locations so habitats don't benefit from the effect of predator stress where predators move through areas on occasion.  This has been demonstrated to be very beneficial to other animals and the ecosystem as a whole and they are well adapted to deal with predator stress.  Shooting has no 'predator stress' effect but can make animals 'nervous and evasive' where this happens regularly in the same location; that area is then more likely to be damaged and 'denatured' in ecological terms.

In terms of disease spread, dead foxes are usually just left to rot; insects/maggots etc thrive but it is very unnatural to have say 5-20 corpses in one place and that doesn't happen in a predatory system of control (of foxes.  Foxes themselves do leave a large number of corpses if they can as they will return to them - but then they eat them!).  There has also been interesting research (not related to foxes) about the impact of shooting on disease as other animals are more likely to come into contact with disease via blood transmission than when a predator either eats or 'destroys' a single carcass.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you for this.

The only experience I have with foxes being shot is local and here an experienced person shoots a specific fox that is causing the farmer problems. He uses sights, has a very strict code of conduct and the carcass is never left lying to rot. I have such faith in him after years of living in this area that he has permission to shoot in my field for rabbits and that is not something I give lightly. 

The possibility of 5-20 fox corpses being left to rot after being shot is something that I would never come across and surely it would be very, very unusual for this to happen in one place? I'm also not sure how disease transmission via blood is more likely with a shot then carcase collected, whether fox or rabbit, than a kill and carcase eaten? I'm obviously very lucky in the way the people allowed to shoot on neighbouring land behave so you can understand why I would far prefer this to the way our particular hunt behaves.


----------



## stangs (23 February 2022)

GSD Woman said:



			Just out of curiosity, did England ever have any apex predators?
		
Click to expand...

Wolves (with bounties on their heads) until the 18th century
Lynx, at least, up to the 7th century in England - they died out a little later in Scotland
Brown bears until around 500 AD (most common in Southern England)
If you go ever further back, we had polar bears, Ice Age leopards, and cave lions and cave hyenas too.

The fox still does have one predator - the golden eagle - though they're not a common source of food for them, and golden eagles are only found in parts of Scotland and N.Ireland. Badger numbers can also influence fox numbers, as they compete for resources, though neither preys on the other.



Dizzy socks said:



			1. A lot has been made of the need for an apex predator. Wolves have come up often as a historic predator - I’ve looked this up, and it seems that wolves really do not predate on foxes, and would only ever do so/have done so if they were starving? Nor are they in competition for food. Why are we trying to replace wolves with hounds if wolves don’t hunt foxes?
		
Click to expand...

To give some reasons:
- apex predators will kill species they don't prey on when needing to secure resources
- foxes and wolves/lynx can compete over resources -  water, space, some food sources (bears also share some of their favourite foods with foxes, but don't seem to be bothered by the presence of foxes, unlike wolves from whom foxes stay away)
- wolf kills are a key source of food for foxes (granted, this conclusion has come from US studies where there's more mammals that foxes simply couldn't kill, but that the UK doesn't have)
- Swedish and Canadian studies have shown that lynx tend to kill a fair few foxes, though they don't eat them

Now, it's possible that reintroducing one of the above species will just result in increased migration by foxes into urban areas, where as they're more confident around people than the others are. However, the general argument on this thread seems to be that it's rural foxes who are sicker than urban foxes, so the introduction of animals from whom they can scavenge, and who will kill the weaker ones, could be beneficial. Urban fox populations will need to be managed differently.

That said, the main and most important reason, by far, as to why we should reintroduce wolves/lynx is to manage deer populations. Personally, I'm a huge supporter of the reintroduction of lynx for this very reason (wolves are a bit trickier as likely to harm humans and livestock). Any benefits for the fox population gained from this would just be an added bonus.

I'm also wondering whether reintroducing golden eagles to England could have improve our fox population. I don't suppose anyone here knows of any good studies on the species' impact on foxes in Scotland?


----------



## ycbm (23 February 2022)

Let's be realistic here.  There will be no widespread reintroduction of wolf into the UK, neither farmers nor the rural population will allow it.  
.


----------



## marmalade76 (23 February 2022)

skinnydipper said:



			Having now read that predator stress causes anxiety, sustained psychological stress and predator induced fear causes PTSD in wild animals, I think I've read as much as I want to on the subject.
		
Click to expand...

I expect my hens suffer from predator stress too.


----------



## skinnydipper (23 February 2022)

marmalade76 said:



			I expect my hens suffer from predator stress too.
		
Click to expand...

I don't doubt it.

How do you currently manage the situation?

Would shooting the fox be an option?



ycbm said:



			The guy who usually shoots foxes here has telescopic sights, he can distinguishing which fox to shoot far better than a pack of hounds can.
		
Click to expand...




GoldenWillow said:



			The only experience I have with foxes being shot is local and here an experienced person shoots a specific fox that is causing the farmer problems.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## palo1 (23 February 2022)

ycbm said:



			I would love to see the reaction on a shooting forum to this statement.  The guy who usually shoots foxes here has telescopic sights, he can distinguishing which fox to shoot far better than a pack of hounds can.

I'd also love to hear how a hunt using a pack of hounds distinguishes between the scent of a nursing female and a blind male.
.
		
Click to expand...

I quite agree that guns who have the right kit and firearms licences are very well placed to identify specific characteristics of any prey and take them out very effiiciently.  I would never suggest otherwise.  You seem to think though that everyone who shoots foxes has a HVR which is the right tool for the job. In fact that is not the case and HVRs need very specific licence conditions to be met; many more foxes would be shot with a 22 by someone who is not necessarily an expert or even particularly concerned shot.   A gun is not just a gun...

As for hounds and nursing vixens, you know that hunting was seasonal so the likelihood of hounds catching a nursing vixen were very unlikely.  Hounds could, when they were hunting fox regularly, distinguish between those animals that were going to be effectively 'easy' and those that were not. I think you know that as you have hunted previously.


----------



## GSD Woman (23 February 2022)

As far as reintroducing apex predators goes, not a good idea.  Wolves will hunt deer but will also hunt chickens, sheep, goats and the occasional horse. Lynx are animals of the far north due to their special conformation and feet.  They're not as big as mountain lions but my guess is they could still do some damage to a human if needed. 

A lot of the people seem to be any sort of hunting/shooting.  The East Coast of the USA has a huge white tailed deer populations, estimated to be larger than when the original Europeans first come to the continent.  The deer are hunted in season.  In some suburban areas the deer are so common that they eat the plants in gardens.  I live in the suburbs and one evening I looked up and there was a large deer standing just outside my back garden.  I'm surprised my dogs didn't jump the fence and chase it.  There is a local botanical garden and one night I was walking Rudy and suddenly he started acting like a wild man.  This was when I worked overnights and he was about a year old. Looked over to the garden and there was a deer.  I see them where we walk, grazing in front gardens from busy roads.  You name it, they're there.  So, controlled deer seasons requiring licensing.


----------



## marmalade76 (23 February 2022)

skinnydipper said:



			I don't doubt it.

How do you currently manage the situation?

Would shooting the fox be an option?
		
Click to expand...

It's only really a problem in the summer when they get desperate (I'm assuming), I allow my hens to free range when I'm there to supervise (they're in an electric fenced run the rest of the time but there's usually one or two that fly out, wing clipping makes no difference) and my children & I have physically chased away foxes on several occasions (sadly the dog is totally useless with foxes but will chase cats 🙄). If they've managed to grab one, they tend to drop them when they see me coming. I've had one nearly run into me as it was following the hens along the path to the yard. Some hens will hide for a while after a fox has had a go. One poor hen was grabbed then dropped by a fox, then had a buzzard have a go at her a couple of weeks later, she died not long after  one of our favourites.

 The neighbour shoots but seems to be pretty useless and a few others shoot nearby.


----------



## ycbm (23 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			You seem to think though that everyone who shoots foxes has a HVR which is the right tool for the job.
		
Click to expand...

I did not say that.  I responded only to your comment which suggested that nobody did.  
.


----------



## ycbm (23 February 2022)

Deleted, question is not worth it.
.


----------



## ycbm (23 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			Hounds could, when they were hunting fox regularly, distinguish between those animals that were going to be effectively 'easy' and those that were not. I think you know that as you have hunted previously.
		
Click to expand...

No I didn't know that.  Like almost all the field I was out for a good gallop across country,  the longer the better.  You're actually one of the few people I've ever had a "conversation" with who gave a damn about how the hounds worked  the rest couldn't care less as long as they found a scent to chase and could be followed.  

Can you point me to some evidence that hounds will choose to chase a fox that will be easier to catch based on its scent,  rather that just following the strongest scent?  I would be genuinely interested to read it. 
.


----------



## coblets (23 February 2022)

Last time I was on this forum was November-ish, how is this thread still getting so many posts??


----------



## ycbm (23 February 2022)

coblets said:



			Last time I was on this forum was November-ish, how is this thread still getting so many posts??
		
Click to expand...

Why did _you_ read it 🙃 ?
.


----------



## Caol Ila (23 February 2022)

GSD Woman said:



			As far as reintroducing apex predators goes, not a good idea.  Wolves will hunt deer but will also hunt chickens, sheep, goats and the occasional horse. Lynx are animals of the far north due to their special conformation and feet.  They're not as big as mountain lions but my guess is they could still do some damage to a human if needed.
		
Click to expand...

Debateable. There is also evidence that reintroducing an apex predator rebalances an entire ecosystem, for the better. I think there have been some studies done on the Yellowstone wolf reintroductions. I can find them if you're interested. In any case, there is zero evidence of lynx attacking humans. I'm sure if you cornered one, it would do what it had to do, but they are shy kitties, and not aggressive. They are not fuzzy mountain lions, which are bigger and more aggressive. Nonetheless, mountain lion attacks remain rare, surprisingly so, given the proximity of significant human population to mountain lion territory.

I also think wolves and bears should be reintroduced to Scotland. The monoculture ecosystems in many upland areas is depressing, and it would have the added benefit of discouraging people from camping like twa*ts.


----------



## stangs (24 February 2022)

GSD Woman said:



			As far as reintroducing apex predators goes, not a good idea. Wolves will hunt deer but will also hunt chickens, sheep, goats and the occasional horse. Lynx are animals of the far north due to their special conformation and feet. They're not as big as mountain lions but my guess is they could still do some damage to a human if needed.
		
Click to expand...

I’m not going to argue for wolves because, considering the population density of even the most remote parts of Scotland, I don’t think it’d be possible. And, as you said, there is a genuine risk that they’ll prey on livestock. But we really need lynx.

Our issue with deer is that, because they have no predator, the way they graze has changed. So rather than a few bites and then you move on, they will stay and keep eating, damaging the plants because they’re not afraid of anything. Lynx are the ideal predator for the UK because they’re very shy (as CI said, they’ve never attacked a human) and they don’t like leaving forested areas. Now, there are concerns as to whether they can sometimes prey on sheep, but not wanting to leave forests means deer will be their preferred choice by far, therefore keeping the deer vigilance, and benefiting the overall ecosystem. 

As a result, lynx are the only apex predator being seriously considered for rewilding. Wolves are off the table as would upset anyone with livestock. I haven’t seen anything to suggest work is being done around bears.


----------



## Tiddlypom (24 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			Hounds could, when they were hunting fox regularly, distinguish between those animals that were going to be effectively 'easy' and those that were not. I think you know that as you have hunted previously.
		
Click to expand...

They could? As in hounds would actively choose to follow the scent of one over the other?

That's news to me, and as you know I had many days hunting pre ban. A sick fox will be much more vulnerable than a healthy one if hounds are about, for obvious reasons, so hunting a sick or injured fox is more likely to result in a kill. A healthy fox might also have picked on the hunt being about much earlier and have exited the area.

The big posh hunts wouldn't want hounds that seek out sick foxes, though, as the hunt would soon be over. Where's the fun in that? The hunts want(ed) hounds to pick up on strong healthy foxes which would run for many miles and give their paying subscribers a good whack for their money.


----------



## palo1 (24 February 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			They could? As in hounds would actively choose to follow the scent of one over the other?

That's news to me, and as you know I had many days hunting pre ban. A sick fox will be much more vulnerable than a healthy one if hounds are about, for obvious reasons, so hunting a sick or injured fox is more likely to result in a kill. A healthy fox might also have picked on the hunt being about much earlier and have exited the area.

The big posh hunts wouldn't want hounds that seek out sick foxes, though, as the hunt would soon be over. Where's the fun in that? The hunts want(ed) hounds to pick up on strong healthy foxes which would run for many miles and give their paying subscribers a good whack for their money.
		
Click to expand...

Hmm, well that is not strictly true; some subscribers wanted a long run/hunt but they wouldn't have known or cared if that was due to 1 or several foxes being tracked.  In other places where hunting has not been fashionable there possibly was more emphasis on the quality of hound work rather than a long run.  In upland places (as opposed to vale country) long runs were much slower in any case due to the terrrain and difficult conditions for hounds.


----------



## palo1 (24 February 2022)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...-fox-hunting-unjustified-attack-warn-farmers/

It seems bizarre that the Scottish government are considering legislating against advice from their own review.


----------



## ycbm (24 February 2022)

palo1 said:



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...-fox-hunting-unjustified-attack-warn-farmers/

It seems bizarre that the Scottish government are considering legislating against advice from their own review.
		
Click to expand...

I can't read the article but this is democracy,  it's a vote winner because the majority of people no longer believe in having clubs of people getting together to use a pack of dogs to chase a wild animal.  

Like the Blair law,  this will be being changed in the expectation of votes.  
.


----------



## Chianti (24 February 2022)

I'd like to know if there is any hard evidence that hunts only hunted and killed older, sick animals? Was data collected on kills or is this purely anecdotal?


----------



## palo1 (24 February 2022)

Chianti said:



			I'd like to know if there is any hard evidence that hunts only hunted and killed older, sick animals? Was data collected on kills or is this purely anecdotal?
		
Click to expand...

Anti hunters will say that this is not the case.  Hard evidence is virtually impossible now as there could be no research around foxes killed by hounds in the UK  (that is happening but untampered with evidence would be very difficult to prove by either hunters or anti-hunters potentially thus making any research activity deeply compromised).  The other issue is that generally if and when hounds catch a fox, there would be very little left of that carcass so it would be extremely difficult to know what, if any injuries or ailments existed prior to death.   Personally speaking, the experience of hunters using dogs worldwide and the existing knowledge and understanding of their ability to track the 'right' prey seems relevant but I understand that this would be contested by anti-hunters.  How they would convince indigenous people that their carefully selected and bred hunting dogs are not doing this would be interesting!!  The English foxhound is widely admired for this reason too and not just by privileged Western hunters but by those still using hunting for subsistence.  That is a side issue however. 

There is much more evidence around how scenting predators target their prey generally.  Fascinatingly, weasels for example, prefer to target mice that are not ovulating!   Some experiments have also suggested that 'patchy' scents have a better success rate for predators than a uniform scent.   In relation to canine scenting abilities, this is interesting (though not exactly news) :- 

''However, distance is only one aspect of olfaction. The domestic dog’s greater olfactory capacity lies not just in their ability to detect low concentrations of odour; it is also their ability to recognise and discriminate between different odours which make them far superior olfactory detectors to humans (Adrian 1953; Moulton et al. 1960; Ewer 1973). Dogs are able to recognise individual humans purely by scent (Brisbin and Austad 1991; Settle et al. 1994) even to the point of being able to discriminate between identical twins, if presented with the odours of both twins (Kalmus 1955; Hepper 1988). It is because of this ability to recognise and differentiate between a vast range of odours that has led to them being used by humans as chemical detectors in an ever increasing number of situations (Furton and Myers 2001; Lorenzo et al. 2003). Dogs, like many other mammalian species, use these abilities to deduce information from conspecific scent marks about territory, identity, sex, and reproductive state (Gorman and Trowbridge 1989).  From Russell (2005). 

Dogs are just amazing!!


----------



## stangs (24 February 2022)

I'm sure hounds can recognise whether a fox is sick/ovulating/older from the smell, the question is just whether they receive reinforcement (either natural or from people) to go target particular smells. Surely, naturally, any predator would want to avoid prey that smells sick? 

Would be interesting to find out what reinforced weasels staying away from ovulating mice, maybe they fight back more?


----------



## palo1 (24 February 2022)

stangs said:



			I'm sure hounds can recognise whether a fox is sick/ovulating/older from the smell, the question is just whether they receive reinforcement (either natural or from people) to go target particular smells. Surely, naturally, any predator would want to avoid prey that smells sick?

Would be interesting to find out what reinforced weasels staying away from ovulating mice, maybe they fight back more?
		
Click to expand...

Maybe they just don't taste nice?!  It is fascinating isn't it? It's possible I suppose that dear old Mother Nature has equipped mice with an upleasant taste/smell during ovulation so that they have more chance to breed. (not sure they need that chance but...) It would be interesting to know if the same is true of other mouse predators (including foxes) and owls though ambush and sight predators would not get that info in time possibly.  The world of olfactory predators is really quite astonishing.


----------



## Gallop_Away (24 February 2022)

Ok can I just point out that I know NOTHING about predator/prey behaviours (although I do  love a David Attenborough nature show as much as the next person). I have some thoughts.....
1) do predators such as wolves/lions etc frequently scan their prey for signs of weakness/injury, because they make for an easier target? It's why prey animals tend not to show signs of illness or injury unless more serious.
2) dogs are able to detect some forms of cancer through scent, so it would make sense that they could also detect other signs of illness, and that they may also pick up on this when hunting their "prey"


----------



## Millionwords (24 February 2022)

So there is no evidence that hounds do this in the hunting scenario....there is also no way of proving either way, so it can't be assumed that this is the case or we could assume anything without evidence and use it to support an argument. So the "killing only sick foxes" is a moot point in the welfare of the species and an argument in favour of hunting them with hounds. Whether you agree with it or not. It's not a useful argument.

Quoting @palo1 here sorry I can't do it on my phone.


----------



## palo1 (24 February 2022)

Millionwords said:



			So there is no evidence that hounds do this in the hunting scenario....there is also no way of proving either way, so it can't be assumed that this is the case or we could assume anything without evidence and use it to support an argument. So the "killing only sick foxes" is a moot point in the welfare of the species and an argument in favour of hunting them with hounds. Whether you agree with it or not. It's not a useful argument.

Quoting @palo1 here sorry I can't do it on my phone.
		
Click to expand...

Yes I can see this; it is difficult as hunting for pest control reasons generally targets weak, sick or old of a species and always has but with hunting the lack of specific 'hounds in a UK fox hunting scenario' based evidence means that it is a moot point and could now not be proven or disproven.  Personally I am confident that this is the case as much as anti hunters will assert that it is not so the idea can be used pejoritively either way.


----------



## GSD Woman (24 February 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			1) do predators such as wolves/lions etc frequently scan their prey for signs of weakness/injury, because they make for an easier target? It's why prey animals tend not to show signs of illness or injury unless more serious.
		
Click to expand...

I apologize for my mistaken idea of not introducing lynx to the UK. But, I do know from reading some studies on the behavior of wolf packs that they do want to bring down the slower and/or weaker animals because it is uses less energy/calories.  Since this isn't a sport saving energy and calories is the idea.  As with our recent ancestors, there isn't an overabundance of food so minimum exertion for maximum gain is the idea.


----------



## ycbm (24 February 2022)

I would be very uncertain that it was possible to extrapolate wild hunters wanting to expend least energy to obtain food with kennels kept hounds who not only might be crying out for a good hard run,  but have also been bred for a couple of centuries to provide a good run for people on horseback.  I read a lot of old fiction,  and I don't recall ever seeing fox hunting written about as a means of pest control, only as a means of having fun.  



palo1 said:



			Personally I am confident that this is the case as much as anti hunters will assert that it is not so the idea can be used pejoritively either way.
		
Click to expand...

I don't see any anti hunters using this pejoratively, I only see people saying that if you are going to use that argument then you really need to provide evidence.  
.


----------



## Gallop_Away (24 February 2022)

Like I say it was only some ramblings based on my (admittedly) limited knowledge of predator/prey behaviour  

I do find it all quite fascinating


----------



## palo1 (24 February 2022)

ycbm said:



			I would be very uncertain that it was possible to extrapolate wild hunters wanting to expend least energy to obtain food with kennels kept hounds who not only might be crying out for a good hard run,  but have also been bred for a couple of centuries to provide a good run for people on horseback.  I read a lot of old fiction,  and I don't recall ever seeing fox hunting written about as a means of pest control, only as a means of having fun. 



I don't see any anti hunters using this pejoratively, I only see people saying that if you are going to use that argument then you really need to provide evidence. 
.
		
Click to expand...

I get that but I also think that there is plenty of evidence of how olfactory predatory animals select their prey and hounds in a fox hunting scenario are doing that.  They are bred for scenting ability, voice, stamina and determination because that is what is needed to catch almost any fox.  A healthy fox in it's own territory (as opposed to bagged foxes which are repellent) has far greater chance of getting away from a visting predator than getting caught by it; I don't think that is contested about any predator/prey relationship.   There is also plenty of evidence that prey animals do everything they can not to get caught out; Darwin's law of evolution applies both ways and that isn't really contested.  It is fascinating too that it seems that many prey animals carry out behaviours that bring them nearer to predators so that they can identify appropriate escape/evasion strategies.   If a strong healthy fox makes a misjudgement and gets caught out, is that the best specimen for breeding?  For me, it wouldn't be as wild animals need to be as successful as they possibly can be.  I am not trying to convince you that I have seen the evidence you think is necessary but I am saying that there is very, very little reason to believe that hounds are not selecting or hunting weaker animals; it is hard to escape the weight of evidence in every other predator/prey scenario though I know that anti-hunters will disagree.


----------



## palo1 (24 February 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			Ok can I just point out that I know NOTHING about predator/prey behaviours (although I do  love a David Attenborough nature show as much as the next person). I have some thoughts.....
1) do predators such as wolves/lions etc frequently scan their prey for signs of weakness/injury, because they make for an easier target? It's why prey animals tend not to show signs of illness or injury unless more serious.
2) dogs are able to detect some forms of cancer through scent, so it would make sense that they could also detect other signs of illness, and that they may also pick up on this when hunting their "prey"
		
Click to expand...

All of this is true - pretty much established and not contested.  The success rate of most predators when hunting is quite low so they really need to give themselves the best chance and the best chance is with the old, weak, slow, young or sick.  The balance of stress on both to both hunt to survive and evade to survive is really alien to us humans but I am always in awe of the fact that for most animals they have to work really, really hard to survive until the day they die; there is no retirement for a wild animal.  Starvation for old animals is a difficult death too.


----------



## Clodagh (24 February 2022)

Well I have never lead such a lot of complete… well I’m gobsmacked! Not aimed solely at you Palo, I like you. 😃
When fox hunting was legal I certainly never saw hounds turn their nose up at one fox and hunt another that might be poorly. If two got up in front of the pack the pack would probably split. If the fox broke cover a well trained pack would gather on the fox they were hollaed and blown away on. The only reason an ill fox would be more likely to die is it would not have the strength to keep going.
Milky and lactating vixens are supposed to have less scent, so possibly they might be less likely to be hunted, but a mangey or lame fox I am sure it’s just pot (bad) luck for the individual.

But fox hunting is banned, yes? So this is all exceedingly irrelevant


----------



## Clodagh (24 February 2022)

Hounds do not lie in wait and watch their prey for signs of weakness. Lions do. Completely incomparable hunting styles.


----------



## palo1 (24 February 2022)

Clodagh said:



			Well I have never lead such a lot of complete… well I’m gobsmacked! Not aimed solely at you Palo, I like you. 😃
When fox hunting was legal I certainly never saw hounds turn their nose up at one fox and hunt another that might be poorly. If two got up in front of the pack the pack would probably split. If the fox broke cover a well trained pack would gather on the fox they were hollaed and blown away on. The only reason an ill fox would be more likely to die is it would not have the strength to keep going.
Milky and lactating vixens are supposed to have less scent, so possibly they might be less likely to be hunted, but a mangey or lame fox I am sure it’s just pot (bad) luck for the individual.

But fox hunting is banned, yes? So this is all exceedingly irrelevant
		
Click to expand...

Which bits are you gobsmacked by @Clodagh?  I get what you are saying about your experience of hunting and yes, it is irrelevant now but it is interesting and the research around animal hunting behaviours is fascinating.  It isn't provable how hunting dogs choose which scents to follow or ignore because I guess that would be extremely difficult and expensive research even with a really valuable predator species.


----------



## palo1 (24 February 2022)

Clodagh said:



			Hounds do not lie in wait and watch their prey for signs of weakness. Lions do. Completely incomparable hunting styles.
		
Click to expand...

This is true. Did I miss a bit where someone was talking about lions?!


----------



## Chianti (24 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			I get that but I also think that there is plenty of evidence of how olfactory predatory animals select their prey and hounds in a fox hunting scenario are doing that.  They are bred for scenting ability, voice, stamina and determination because that is what is needed to catch almost any fox.  A healthy fox in it's own territory (as opposed to bagged foxes which are repellent) has far greater chance of getting away from a visting predator than getting caught by it; I don't think that is contested about any predator/prey relationship.   There is also plenty of evidence that prey animals do everything they can not to get caught out; Darwin's law of evolution applies both ways and that isn't really contested.  It is fascinating too that it seems that many prey animals carry out behaviours that bring them nearer to predators so that they can identify appropriate escape/evasion strategies.   If a strong healthy fox makes a misjudgement and gets caught out, is that the best specimen for breeding?  For me, it wouldn't be as wild animals need to be as successful as they possibly can be.  I am not trying to convince you that I have seen the evidence you think is necessary but I am saying that there is very, very little reason to believe that hounds are not selecting or hunting weaker animals; it is hard to escape the weight of evidence in every other predator/prey scenario though I know that anti-hunters will disagree.
		
Click to expand...

But if the healthy fox did get away and went to ground wasn't it dug out and then given to the hounds to finish off? At any point did the huntsman look at the fox that had been dragged out of the hole and say ' Sorry chaps - this looks like a young, healthy fox so I'm going to let it go back in it's hole and call off the dogs?'


----------



## palo1 (24 February 2022)

Chianti said:



			But if the healthy fox did get away and went to ground wasn't it dug out and then given to the hounds to finish off? At any point did the huntsman look at the fox that had been dragged out of the hole and say ' Sorry chaps - this looks like a young, healthy fox so I'm going to let it go back in it's hole and call off the dogs?'
		
Click to expand...

I quite agree with this anomaly and whilst I understand and respect the landowner's wish to have foxes on their land killed, it doesn't in any way allow for the natural selection of hunting/predation.  Ironically this bit is still legal (as in digging foxes out). I find that difficult in a number of ways.   It is a separate activity/form of pest control entirely but obviously with pre-ban hunting, it was all tied in with the hunting element.


----------



## Koweyka (24 February 2022)

Every fox I have seen hounds kill hasn’t been a mangy old sick fox, the post mortems that were done by the police proved that. 

To be frank hounds don’t really give a monkey what sort of fox they chase, it could have red nail varnish and wear a wig and they will still chase it, that’s what they are bred for still trained to do ….hunt and chase and kill foxes. 

I have heard huntsman say that pregnant vixens don’t produce as much scent, I don’t know if that’s true or not, but if a lightly weighted gently scented rag wafting and dragging across miles of countryside can hold a hound I am sure a less smelly fox could be a lovely temptation if they came across it.


----------



## Clodagh (24 February 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			Ok can I just point out that I know NOTHING about predator/prey behaviours (although I do  love a David Attenborough nature show as much as the next person). I have some thoughts.....
1) do predators such as wolves/lions etc frequently scan their prey for signs of weakness/injury, because they make for an easier target? It's why prey animals tend not to show signs of illness or injury unless more serious.
"
		
Click to expand...

Here you go, Palo, lions! And wolves.


----------



## Clodagh (24 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			Which bits are you gobsmacked by @Clodagh?  I get what you are saying about your experience of hunting and yes, it is irrelevant now but it is interesting and the research around animal hunting behaviours is fascinating.  It isn't provable how hunting dogs choose which scents to follow or ignore because I guess that would be extremely difficult and expensive research even with a really valuable predator species.
		
Click to expand...

I’m gobsmacked by you thinking that hounds choose which fox to hunt, it’s not as though foxes live in packs. They hunted what they found. 
It was always satisfying, BITD, when they did dispatch an ill, toothless or lame one, imo.


----------



## palo1 (24 February 2022)

Clodagh said:



			I’m gobsmacked by you thinking that hounds choose which fox to hunt, it’s not as though foxes live in packs. They hunted what they found.
It was always satisfying, BITD, when they did dispatch an ill, toothless or lame one, imo.
		
Click to expand...

Well I get why you say that but it is impossible to know how many fox scents/trails hounds dismissed/never spoke to isn't it?  I think we all assumed they hunted whatever fox they found but we cannot know that. Research around other olfactory predators suggests that this might not be as simple as that.  It is kind of irrelevant but the whole hunting behaviour of predators is not as basic as it might seem.


----------



## ycbm (24 February 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Every fox I have seen hounds kill hasn’t been a mangy old sick fox,
		
Click to expand...

The only fox I ever saw while out hunting did look old, and also looked very frightened as it knew it was not going to escape those dogs.  I struggle now to remember whether it was that fox or a cubbing meet that finally made me decide that fox hunting was indefensible, but I do remember feeling sick when I saw the creature try and run for its life.  
.


----------



## ycbm (24 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			Research around other olfactory predators suggests that this might not be as simple as that. It is kind of irrelevant but the whole hunting behaviour of predators is not as basic as it might seem.
		
Click to expand...

Especially when said predators have been bred in kennels for centuries. 
.


----------



## Gallop_Away (24 February 2022)

Clodagh said:



			Here you go, Palo, lions! And wolves.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry 🙈 

What I was trying to say, albeit badly, was the argument that hounds might hunt an injured/sick animal over a healthy one. I know there are predators that prefer to single out injured animals to hunt over healthy ones. Then someone said would a hound be able to tell from scent. There are illnesses that dogs can detect through smell so I was wondering if it was possible for hounds to apply this when hunting? 

Like I said I know nothing about it really but I do find it interesting.


----------



## Clodagh (24 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			Well I get why you say that but it is impossible to know how many fox scents/trails hounds dismissed/never spoke to isn't it?  I think we all assumed they hunted whatever fox they found but we cannot know that. Research around other olfactory predators suggests that this might not be as simple as that.  It is kind of irrelevant but the whole hunting behaviour of predators is not as basic as it might seem.
		
Click to expand...

No but if you whip in or go on point you get a fair idea what’s going on, certainly in the generally small covers where I hunted. Probably not so easy to tell in forestry.


----------



## ycbm (24 February 2022)

I suspect there is a very big diffirence in behaviour when a predator is hunting another predator which is also smaller than it is,  than a predator hunting either an animal which is not a predator itself or any animal which does not want to eat what it wants to eat. 

In that situation,  then in evolutionary terms it would make a great deal of sense to take out the biggest and the strongest you can catch,  in order that it does not take your own  food supply.  
.


----------



## palo1 (24 February 2022)

ycbm said:



			I suspect there is a very big diffirence in behaviour when a predator is hunting another predator which is also smaller than it is,  than a predator hunting either an animal which is not a predator itself or any animal which does not want to eat what it wants to eat.

In that situation,  then in evolutionary terms it would make a great deal of sense to take out the biggest and the strongest you can catch,  in order that it does not take your own  food supply. 
.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, that is a very valid point.  The whole animal behaviour world and their senses is really so alien to us I think it would be much better if we focussed research on that than trying to get to Mars frankly but that is a whole other conversation!!  Whenever I see a bird of prey or other predator actually I wonder what stage of life it is at and how hard is it for it to hunt, feed and maintain life.


----------



## Indy (24 February 2022)

If hounds can distinguish scents between a mangy old fox and a healthy fox how can they not distinguish between fox scent and cat scent?


----------



## palo1 (24 February 2022)

Indy said:



			If hounds can distinguish scents between a mangy old fox and a healthy fox how can they not distinguish between fox scent and cat scent?
		
Click to expand...

They can - the issue of riot is one of training not scent.


----------



## Millionwords (24 February 2022)

I'm honestly perplexed why it's still in discussion as it cannot be proved either way so assuming that hounds do distinguish is ridiculous assumption to try and support hunting and frankly makes a mockery of any other argument in support. It feels and will be read as making stuff up to suit the pro agenda. Hunts already struggle to justify it to the public, let alone making wild claims that are unproveable and anecdotally can't always be the case (following any fox come upon, a long chase and digging out).
Evolution and breeding cannot be equated either (for a start evolution removes traits, and breeding keeps traits), breeding may and does (look at the Kennel club) breed for a handful of specific traits whilst having a knock on and detrimental effect to so many others, the likelihood of retaining anything which gives a whole pack the ability to differentiate sick foxes is a preposterous assumption.
That's not what hunting needs if we're to survive to trail as folk struggle to believe anything Hunts say already.

ETA that evolution works differently to breeding in trait selection


----------



## Koweyka (24 February 2022)

ycbm said:



			The only fox I ever saw while out hunting did look old, and also looked very frightened as it knew it was not going to escape those dogs.  I struggle now to remember whether it was that fox or a cubbing meet that finally made me decide that fox hunting was indefensible, but I do remember feeling sick when I saw the creature try and run for its life.  
.
		
Click to expand...

I haven’t forgotten any of the ones I have seen killed, they stay with you, for every fox I have been unable to prevent being killed it makes me feel like I failed it in someway, that I could have or should have done something different, run faster, shouted louder even though the reality is it’s the hunt that killed them, the guilt is there. When I have picked them up their eyes tell you everything. The fear and the pain they endured. Nothing will ever convince me it’s not cruel.

Hunting with hounds is indefensible and illegal a total ban is the only way forward.


----------



## Koweyka (25 February 2022)

Scotland is leading the way in banning trail hunting and closing the loopholes, I hope it goes far enough to ensure no animal loses its life to provide entertainment and cynical ways to get around the ban aren’t invented …... Let’s hope England and Wales follow their example.

https://www.parliament.scot/bills-a...hpC_v-7zA-dTa-rw70an0vMuV10ySKxDi1WydLKXJmQ2Y


----------



## GSD Woman (25 February 2022)

Will there still be the type of hunting where a human lays a trail and the hounds follow that?


----------



## palo1 (25 February 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Scotland is leading the way in banning trail hunting and closing the loopholes, I hope it goes far enough to ensure no animal loses its life to provide entertainment and cynical ways to get around the ban aren’t invented …... Let’s hope England and Wales follow their example.

https://www.parliament.scot/bills-a...hpC_v-7zA-dTa-rw70an0vMuV10ySKxDi1WydLKXJmQ2Y

Click to expand...

How do you feel about this bill going against the Bonomy review which was commissioned by the Scottish Government but identified that limiting the number of hounds for pest control would impact negatively on both the effectiveness of pest control for farmers and the humane killing of foxes?


----------



## CrunchieBoi (25 February 2022)

GSD Woman said:



			Will there still be the type of hunting where a human lays a trail and the hounds follow that?
		
Click to expand...

No, but then "trail" hunting was never a thing in Scotland. Our previous law meant that hunts were still able to use a full pack of dogs to flush a fox from cover to be shot whereas in England, legally, only two dogs could be used. Trail hunting was specifically invented as a means to allow hunts to carry on as before.

I strongly suspect this updated bill won't actually make a huge amount of difference to the tiny number of hunts still present in Scotland. They'll just apply for a licence and carry on as normal until they finally die a death. 

It is interesting that a policy of "don't even go there" is being adopted where trail hunting is concerned though. Those leaked webinars are still doing an absolute number on hunts across the UK.


----------



## ycbm (25 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			How do you feel about this bill going against the Bonomy review which was commissioned by the Scottish Government but identified that limiting the number of hounds for pest control would impact negatively on both the effectiveness of pest control for farmers and the humane killing of foxes?
		
Click to expand...

As far as I can see he only said that would be an issue on forested land and allowance has been made for licensed packs to deal with that if necessary.

How do you feel about this:

From the Yougov site,  my bold

[QUOTE ]Overview
We recognised concerns about whether the legislation that governs the use of dogs to hunt for mammals in Scotland is working properly. That is why we asked the Right Honourable Lord Bonomy to undertake a review to ascertain whether the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 provided a sufficient level of protection for wild mammals, while at the same time allowing effective and humane control of mammals, such as foxes, where necessary.

Lord Bonomy’s report was an important milestone and gave a considered, objective and comprehensive examination of the issues. He outlined a significant number of potential improvements for the conduct of operations under the 2002 Act, and to the Act itself.

On 9 January 2019, following a consultation on Lord Bonomy's recommendations, that ran from October 2017 to January 2018, the then Minister for Rural Affairs and the Natural Environment set out to Parliament proposals for reform, including the *implementation of the majority of Lord Bonomy’s recommendations *  and announced the following further measures:

A new general limit of no more than two dogs to be used to flush foxes or other wild mammals from cover

Consideration of a licensing scheme permitting more than two dogs to flush foxes or other wild mammals from cover in certain limited circumstances

*Banning the practice known as “trail hunting” as this poses significant risks for wild mammals*

[ end quote] 


.[


----------



## Koweyka (25 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			How do you feel about this bill going against the Bonomy review which was commissioned by the Scottish Government but identified that limiting the number of hounds for pest control would impact negatively on both the effectiveness of pest control for farmers and the humane killing of foxes?
		
Click to expand...

What he said was ….

I am persuaded by the submissions and such other evidence as there is, in particular that of the experience of those who work with packs, the scientific study paper by Naylor and Knott [53] (taking full account of its limitations and the criticisms made of it [54] ) , and the fact that in England and Wales hunts do not generally flush to guns using two dogs, not only that searching and flushing by two dogs would not be as effective as that done by a full pack of hounds, but also that imposing such a restriction could seriously compromise effective pest control in the country, particularly on rough and hilly ground and in extensive areas of dense cover such as conifer woodlands.

So basically he is saying that two hounds aren’t as effective as 35 plus when looking for a fox for “pest control” which is hardly rocket science assertions is it, if you are lost in the middle of the ocean then 35 ships looking is better than two …. I believe he was acknowledging the point. Also hounds in Scotland shouldn’t be killing foxes as that’s illegal and I haven’t read where he says having less hounds out is less humane in killing a fox, given they are supposed to be flushed to guns and shot immediately …. Do you think a fox dying in the jaws of hounds is humane ?


----------



## palo1 (25 February 2022)

Koweyka said:



			What he said was ….

I am persuaded by the submissions and such other evidence as there is, in particular that of the experience of those who work with packs, the scientific study paper by Naylor and Knott [53] (taking full account of its limitations and the criticisms made of it [54] ) , and the fact that in England and Wales hunts do not generally flush to guns using two dogs, not only that searching and flushing by two dogs would not be as effective as that done by a full pack of hounds, but also that imposing such a restriction could seriously compromise effective pest control in the country, particularly on rough and hilly ground and in extensive areas of dense cover such as conifer woodlands.

So basically he is saying that two hounds aren’t as effective as 35 plus when looking for a fox for “pest control” which is hardly rocket science assertions is it, if you are lost in the middle of the ocean then 35 ships looking is better than two …. I believe he was acknowledging the point. Also hounds in Scotland shouldn’t be killing foxes as that’s illegal and I haven’t read where he says having less hounds out is less humane in killing a fox, given they are supposed to be flushed to guns and shot immediately …. Do you think a fox dying in the jaws of hounds is humane ?
		
Click to expand...

The Bonomy Review is considered to be independent, scientific and designed to find the best way forward.  I am sure you are aware of Bonomy's statement:-

*Indeed it was observed in the Burns Report [43] that the banning of hunting could have an adverse effect on the welfare of foxes in upland areas unless dogs could be used at least to flush foxes from cover. (6.28)*

He earlier advised re: the use of terriers:- -

5.36 ... The practice of using dogs or a single dog to dispatch another injured animal or orphaned cubs may seem to many distasteful. The same may be said of the sight of the breaking up of the carcass of a fox. However, the weight of the evidence, as noted in the Burns Report at paragraph 6.48, is that in the vast majority of cases the time to insensibility and death in these situations is no more than a few seconds. These provisions were enacted in the knowledge of the terms of the Burns Report. No evidence has been presented to this Review to indicate the abuse of these provisions by using dogs to despatch seriously injured or orphaned wild mammals.

6.27 The material presented to the Review is persuasive of the need for the use of terriers to ensure the despatch of a fox gone to ground. The principal issue is ensuring that the practice is used humanely and not abused. The rules of the MFHA require that the huntmaster or someone of authority personally appointed by him should supervise the terrierman's operation.

6.28 Parliament legislated to allow flushing from below ground in the full knowledge of the possibility that the digging-out process, combined with the fact that the fox is prevented from escaping may cause serious distress to the fox [42] . As was the case at that time, there is no firm scientific evidence of the extent of the impact on the fox...

Bonomy also makes it clear that it is difficult to compare the Scottish and English situations.  I know you and others feel certain that any killing of a wild animal with dogs is cruel but in spite of best efforts no amount of research has proven that.  In some circumstances it IS humane.  I am not talking about illegal hunting; I am talking about the Bonomy review and the Scottish Act that has been introduced.  

For me, this is politicking of the worst, most cynical kind and both wild animals and farmers will suffer.


----------



## Koweyka (25 February 2022)

Forget the legal or illegal side of things how can you not see that killing a fox with hounds is not cruel, I don’t care a hoot when Burns says that there is no firm evidence on the impact on the fox, it is cruel to the fox, perhaps if he had come and witnessed it himself he would have got off the fence.

Have you ever seen a fox hunted and then killed by the hounds up close ? 

All of it is cruel and stating it takes seconds to insensibility to death is seconds too long in mine and many peoples books.


----------



## palo1 (25 February 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Forget the legal or illegal side of things how can you not see that killing a fox with hounds is not cruel, I don’t care a hoot when Burns says that there is no firm evidence on the impact on the fox, it is cruel to the fox, perhaps if he had come and witnessed it himself he would have got off the fence.

Have you ever seen a fox hunted and then killed by the hounds up close ?

All of it is cruel and stating it takes seconds to insensibility to death is seconds too long in mine and many peoples books.
		
Click to expand...

I do understand how you feel about this but at the same time I simply cannot understand how or why a government would commission an independent report to identify the *facts* about something that is very contentious and then just steam ahead in the opposite direction.  Not only is that a huge waste of taxpayers money but refutes any purported interest in the 'best way forward'.  Hunting of any kind may only be supported by a minority of people and it is a polarising subject but playing popularity games in politics is just wrong.   If it is in the best interests of animal welfare and pest control to do something then why would *that* not be the way forward?  People do sometimes have to accept unpalatable facts; opinions are just not enough to make good and sustainable policy.


----------



## palo1 (25 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			I do understand how you feel about this but at the same time I simply cannot understand how or why a government would commission an independent report to identify the *facts* about something that is very contentious and then just steam ahead in the opposite direction.  Not only is that a huge waste of taxpayers money but refutes any purported interest in the 'best way forward'.  Hunting of any kind may only be supported by a minority of people and it is a polarising subject but playing popularity games in politics is just wrong.   If it is in the best interests of animal welfare and pest control to do something then why would *that* not be the way forward?  People do sometimes have to accept unpalatable facts; opinions are just not enough to make good and sustainable policy.
		
Click to expand...

ETA 'Forget the legal or illegal side of things...' (Your words) Now there is a statement...is that instructional? If so, who are you aiming this at?


----------



## Koweyka (25 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			ETA 'Forget the legal or illegal side of things...' (Your words) Now there is a statement...is that instructional? If so, who are you aiming this at?
		
Click to expand...

I am asking you personally if you have seen a fox killed by hounds. You just come across as very keen as seeing hounds killing foxes as an acceptable form of “pest control” I am trying to understand your point of view and why you constantly quote Burns like some kind of mantra of justification 

I am not starting the whole legal illegal argument with you again because it’s just a totally pointless exercise because you say you dont support illegal hunting “woohoo” but at the same time seem rather keen on hounds being used as “pest control” so I am genuinely not sure what your true position is on hunting with hounds is even after all this time. This is why I ask have you ever seen a fox killed by hounds up close and personal ?


----------



## ycbm (25 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			I simply cannot understand how or why a government would commission an independent report to identify the *facts* about something that is very contentious and then just steam ahead in the opposite direction.
		
Click to expand...

From what I am reading,  they haven't. 

They have left open the possibility of licensing packs of more than 2 dogs IF it proves to be necessary to control fox in difficult areas. 
.


----------



## ycbm (25 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			People do sometimes have to accept unpalatable facts; opinions are just not enough to make good and sustainable policy.
		
Click to expand...


Have you accepted that Bonomy recommended banning trail hunting because of the damage it causes?  
.


----------



## palo1 (25 February 2022)

I haven't seen a fox killed by hounds 'up close and personal' as you put it for over 17 years.  Quoting Burns or Bonomy seems a reasonable thing for me to do because they are both substantive, independent reviews commissioned to identify what the best way forward for hunting with hounds would be in terms of both animal welfare (foxes) and pest control.  I have read as much as I can from independent sources, scientists, ecologists, vets etc too but always get slated on here for quoting from scientific or publicly accessible reports/research.  That simply says to me that the anti-hunters that post frequently here really don't care about facts, evidence or reason.  That is much as I have always thought though tbh.


----------



## ycbm (25 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			Burns or Bonomy seems a reasonable thing for me to do because they are both substantive, independent reviews commissioned to identify what the best way forward for hunting with hounds would be in terms of both animal welfare (foxes) and pest control.
		
Click to expand...


Burns said shooting was equally humane,  and I'm not sure he included either cubbing to teach hounds to kill or the other dubious practices that many hunts indulge(d) in when coming to that conclusion. 
.


----------



## Koweyka (25 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			I haven't seen a fox killed by hounds 'up close and personal' as you put it for over 17 years.  Quoting Burns or Bonomy seems a reasonable thing for me to do because they are both substantive, independent reviews commissioned to identify what the best way forward for hunting with hounds would be in terms of both animal welfare (foxes) and pest control.  I have read as much as I can from independent sources, scientists, ecologists, vets etc too but always get slated on here for quoting from scientific or publicly accessible reports/research.  That simply says to me that the anti-hunters that post frequently here really don't care about facts, evidence or reason.  That is much as I have always thought though tbh.
		
Click to expand...

Well I have seen foxes killed up close and personal by hounds so I would say that gives me the facts and evidence and reason and I don’t need a report to tell me that it’s cruel.


----------



## GSD Woman (25 February 2022)

Digging out a fox so that the hounds could kill it is so strange.  Why not let a fox go to ground and appreciate the good run and let the fox live?


----------



## Koweyka (25 February 2022)

And to be honest if you have seen it and it doesn’t effect you and you think there is no cruelty aspect in it at all an animal fleeing for its life before a horrific death when “fox hunting” was done for fun then wow is all I can say.


----------



## Clodagh (25 February 2022)

GSD Woman said:



			Digging out a fox so that the hounds could kill it is so strange.  Why not let a fox go to ground and appreciate the good run and let the fox live?
		
Click to expand...

BITD farmers would sometimes (often) stipulate that if the fox went to ground it was to be dispatched.


----------



## moosea (25 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			Hunting of any kind may only be supported by a minority of people and it is a polarising subject but playing popularity games in politics is just wrong.
		
Click to expand...

Isn't a democracy majority rule? therefore bending to the will of the majority is not playing pouplarity games.
I know you are going to say the majority are not anit or dont care so I'll just point out that the majority of posters on this thread seem to be against fox hunting in its pre ban state and against illegal fox hunting and the only way to stop that is to ban hunting totaly.




palo1 said:



			If it is in the best interests of animal welfare and pest control to do something then why would *that* not be the way forward?
		
Click to expand...

Please can we stop the ' pest control' rubbish - if it was pest control you would want to significantly reduce the number of foxes in an area. Where as pre ban hunting actually managed land to encourage foxes. And yes before you start we all know that the only reason hunts did that was to protect the countryside they adore and keep the fox population healthy blah blah blah.

Funny isn't it that when pest controllers go out to a rat problem they never suggest 'managing' the population to keep the rest of the animals healthy?

Hunting is not the way forwards. It's dead ... it just dosen't know it yet. Even stranger is that it was killed by internal parasites who couldn't stick inside the law.

It's the year 2022. Chasing an animal to exhaustion then letting a gang of out of control dogs tear it to bits is not acceptable, it will never be acceptable and it is not a humane death. Only a fool would believe that.


----------



## GSD Woman (26 February 2022)

Clodagh said:



			BITD farmers would sometimes (often) stipulate that if the fox went to ground it was to be dispatched.
		
Click to expand...

That is just wrong.


----------



## palo1 (26 February 2022)

moosea said:



			Isn't a democracy majority rule? therefore bending to the will of the majority is not playing pouplarity games.


I know you are going to say the majority are not anit or dont care so I'll just point out that the majority of posters on this thread seem to be against fox hunting in its pre ban state and against illegal fox hunting and the only way to stop that is to ban hunting totaly.




Please can we stop the ' pest control' rubbish - if it was pest control you would want to significantly reduce the number of foxes in an area. Where as pre ban hunting actually managed land to encourage foxes. And yes before you start we all know that the only reason hunts did that was to protect the countryside they adore and keep the fox population healthy blah blah blah.

Funny isn't it that when pest controllers go out to a rat problem they never suggest 'managing' the population to keep the rest of the animals healthy?

Hunting is not the way forwards. It's dead ... it just dosen't know it yet. Even stranger is that it was killed by internal parasites who couldn't stick inside the law.

It's the year 2022. Chasing an animal to exhaustion then letting a gang of out of control dogs tear it to bits is not acceptable, it will never be acceptable and it is not a humane death. Only a fool would believe that.
		
Click to expand...


I don't think you understand how democracy works.  The basic tenets of democracy include:-

Majority rule is a means for organizing government and deciding public issues; it is not another road to oppression. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual.

Minorities -- whether as a result of ethnic background, religious belief, geographic location, income level, or simply as the losers in elections or political debate -- enjoy guaranteed basic human rights that no government, and no majority, elected or not, should remove. (https://www.principlesofdemocracy.org/majority)  

As a side issue, the way that rats are treated by pest controllers is utterly abhorrent; their deaths when poisoned are lengthy and tortuous.


----------



## palo1 (26 February 2022)

GSD Woman said:



			That is just wrong.
		
Click to expand...

You may feel that but it is still entirely legal to dig out a fox with a dog. In fact the Burns and Bonomy reviews are both clear that this is an appropriate way to deal with a fox.  Many people do not agree but it is not yet, and not likely to become a crime to do that.


----------



## ycbm (26 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			I don't think you understand how democracy works.  The basic tenets of democracy include:-

Majority rule is a means for organizing government and deciding public issues; it is not another road to oppression. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual.

Minorities -- whether as a result of ethnic background, religious belief, geographic location, income level, or simply as the losers in elections or political debate -- enjoy guaranteed basic human rights that no government, and no majority, elected or not, should remove. (https://www.principlesofdemocracy.org/majority)
		
Click to expand...


Are you really suggesting that hunting fox with hounds is a basic human right of an oppressed minority?
.


----------



## Clodagh (26 February 2022)

GSD Woman said:



			That is just wrong.
		
Click to expand...

Fox hunting was both pest control and sport. A blood sport or a field sport, depending on your POV. The farmer is hugely inconvenienced by the hunt, it made sense to offer a service in return.


----------



## Chianti (26 February 2022)

GSD Woman said:



			Digging out a fox so that the hounds could kill it is so strange.  Why not let a fox go to ground and appreciate the good run and let the fox live?
		
Click to expand...

Yes. It's amazing how often those old and injured foxes that we're told the hounds had deliberately chosen to hunt seemed to find enough energy to get away and hide where they thought they'd be safe.


----------



## moosea (26 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			I don't think you understand how democracy works.  The basic tenets of democracy include:-

Majority rule is a means for organizing government and deciding public issues; it is not another road to oppression. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual.

Minorities -- whether as a result of ethnic background, religious belief, geographic location, income level, or simply as the losers in elections or political debate -- enjoy guaranteed basic human rights that no government, and no majority, elected or not, should remove. (https://www.principlesofdemocracy.org/majority)
		
Click to expand...

Chasing an animal with a pack of dogs until it is too exhausted to run, then letting the dogs tear that animal to bits is not a human right.
 It's ridiculous that anyone would think it was.



palo1 said:



			As a side issue, the way that rats are treated by pest controllers is utterly abhorrent; their deaths when poisoned are lengthy and tortuous.
		
Click to expand...

But they need to be controled?


----------



## GSD Woman (26 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			You may feel that but it is still entirely legal to dig out a fox with a dog. In fact the Burns and Bonomy reviews are both clear that this is an appropriate way to deal with a fox. Many people do not agree but it is not yet, and not likely to become a crime to do that.
		
Click to expand...

Rather than let the hounds kill it, why not just shoot it?  Though if the hunting is truly for pest control I know that it has to go one way or another.


----------



## marmalade76 (26 February 2022)

GSD Woman said:



			Digging out a fox so that the hounds could kill it is so strange.  Why not let a fox go to ground and appreciate the good run and let the fox live?
		
Click to expand...

I agree with you. But if it is a problem fox, that may well be what the landowner wants.


----------



## Tiddlypom (26 February 2022)

Fecking heck, hounds have just been on my land, not by much, but defo on my land, just where the black cat likes to hang out.

I clean forgot to shut her in. Just hoping that she's ok. Hounds weren't speaking, but looked very excited .

There is NO permission for any part of the hunt to be on my land.

They had no damn control of where hounds were, it's p1ss poor.

ETA Phew, the cat's just strolled in, wondering what all the fuss is about.

If you can't or won't control hounds at all times, then don't take them out. If they are out of sight, then you don't know what they are up to, such as trespassing on land where they are not expected or welcome .


----------



## palo1 (26 February 2022)

ycbm said:



			Are you really suggesting that hunting fox with hounds is a basic human right of an oppressed minority?
.
		
Click to expand...

No I am not suggesting that @ycbm; I was just trying to explain that minority interests (whatever they are) have a degree of protection built in to democracy.  That is why we have people able to express views and opinions that are very difficult for most people within a wider society: including around, for example, far right politics and pornography. (neither of which remotely interest me!!).


----------



## ycbm (26 February 2022)

palo1 said:



			No I am not suggesting that @ycbm; I was just trying to explain that minority interests (whatever they are) have a degree of protection built in to democracy.  That is why we have people able to express views and opinions that are very difficult for most people within a wider society: including around, for example, far right politics and pornography. (neither of which remotely interest me!!).
		
Click to expand...

What has that got to do with the desire to kill foxes using a pack of dogs when the majority of voters don't want you to?  
.


----------



## ycbm (26 February 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Fecking heck, hounds have just been on my land, not by much, but defo on my land, just where the black cat likes to hang out.

I clean forgot to shut her in. Just hoping that she's ok. Hounds weren't speaking, but looked very excited .

There is NO permission for any part of the hunt to be on my land.

They had no damn control of where hounds were, it's p1ss poor.

ETA Phew, the cat's just strolled in, wondering what all the fuss is about.

If you can't or won't control hounds at all times, then don't take them out. If they are out of sight, then you don't know what they are up to, such as trespassing on land where they are not expected or welcome .
		
Click to expand...

This has to stop and if hunts can't stop it then trail hunting has to be made illegal like Scotland are going to do.  It's not a rare occurrence and it's not acceptable.  
.


----------



## GSD Woman (26 February 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			If you can't or won't control hounds at all times, then don't take them out. If they are out of sight, then you don't know what they are up to, such as trespassing on land where they are not expected or welcome .
		
Click to expand...

Where are the whipper ins? Totally appalling. I understand hounds might run riot...


----------



## Tiddlypom (27 February 2022)

GSD Woman said:



			Where are the whipper ins? Totally appalling. I understand hounds might run riot...
		
Click to expand...

The hunt was not actively hunting. They were hacking back up the road, but hounds were allowed to barrel through into the adjacent field, where they do have permission to be. But then hounds crossed through another hedge line onto my land, with whoever was up front with them (less than 50 yards away) oblivious of what they were up to.

It's poor hound control. Again. No actual harm done yesterday, but this simply should not happen.


----------



## GSD Woman (27 February 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			The hunt was not actively hunting. They were hacking back up the road, but hounds were allowed to barrel through into the adjacent field, where they do have permission to be. But then hounds crossed through another hedge line onto my land, with whoever was up front with them (less than 50 yards away) oblivious of what they were up to.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't realize that hunts had as much control over their hounds as the general public has of their off lead dogs.


----------



## Koweyka (3 March 2022)

The webinars really are the gift that keeps on giving and long may it continue. The hunt itself admitted after the webinars nobody would believe they weren’t fox hunting…. 

Huge news! The Banwen Miners Hunt are leaving the MFHA and are instead becoming a bloodhound pack under the Masters of Draghounds and Bloodhounds Association!

This means that the hunt will no longer chase wildlife.

This is as a direct result of our exposé of the Hunting Office webinars which led to MFHA Director Mark Hankinson being found guilty of encouraging huntsmen to illegally hunt foxes and other wildlife.


----------



## paddy555 (3 March 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Fecking heck, hounds have just been on my land, not by much, but defo on my land, just where the black cat likes to hang out.

I clean forgot to shut her in. Just hoping that she's ok. Hounds weren't speaking, but looked very excited .

There is NO permission for any part of the hunt to be on my land.

They had no damn control of where hounds were, it's p1ss poor.

ETA Phew, the cat's just strolled in, wondering what all the fuss is about.

If you can't or won't control hounds at all times, then don't take them out. If they are out of sight, then you don't know what they are up to, such as trespassing on land where they are not expected or welcome .
		
Click to expand...

I think it was you that used to hunt with the pack local to me ie the SD? is my memory correct?


----------



## ester (3 March 2022)

Anyone know what happened that the Avon and Somerset police are investigating from the weekend?

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=322742233210964&set=a.306170291534825&type=3


----------



## Koweyka (3 March 2022)

ester said:



			Anyone know what happened that the Avon and Somerset police are investigating from the weekend?

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=322742233210964&set=a.306170291534825&type=3

Click to expand...

I suspect it’s BSV hunt chasing a fox up the A30 on blind bends, clearly having his hounds run over by a train wasn’t enough carnage for him.

Have a look on Mendip Hunt Sabs page there is footage of it.


----------



## Tiddlypom (3 March 2022)

GSD Woman said:



			I didn't realize that hunts had as much control over their hounds as the general public has of their off lead dogs.
		
Click to expand...

Pretty much, and that is not a compliment. This was an offence at the lower end of the scale, though, and much more of a case of simply not paying attention. Once aware, hounds were recalled pretty quickly.

If my senior mare had been turned out, she would probably have charged at the hounds to get them off her land . Then the IDx with the wonky pelvis would have joined in...

Just as well that my horses were safely in their stables, wasn't it.



paddy555 said:



			I think it was you that used to hunt with the pack local to me ie the SD? is my memory correct?
		
Click to expand...

Yes, that's me . I had many a day out with them when I was a teenager. That was back when H&H listed all the meets, and we Pony Club members could rock up to any meet that we could hack to or blag a lift to. No prior notification to the hunt secretary was ever expected or needed. We handed over our day's cap and were good to go.


----------



## Tiddlypom (3 March 2022)

Koweyka said:



			I suspect it’s BSV hunt chasing a fox up the A30 on blind bends, clearly having his hounds run over by a train wasn’t enough carnage for him.

Have a look on Mendip Hunt Sabs page there is footage of it.
		
Click to expand...

No idea what led up to this, but having hounds hunt along a busy road (the A30 ) which has not been shut to through traffic is fecking stupid.

https://fb.watch/bwEnODTWP9/

screen shots


----------



## Anon1357 (3 March 2022)

Koweyka said:



			The webinars really are the gift that keeps on giving and long may it continue. The hunt itself admitted after the webinars nobody would believe they weren’t fox hunting…. 

Huge news! The Banwen Miners Hunt are leaving the MFHA and are instead becoming a bloodhound pack under the Masters of Draghounds and Bloodhounds Association!

This means that the hunt will no longer chase wildlife.

This is as a direct result of our exposé of the Hunting Office webinars which led to MFHA Director Mark Hankinson being found guilty of encouraging huntsmen to illegally hunt foxes and other wildlife.
		
Click to expand...

I think there will be a few switchers, I know of one other but it hasn’t been formally announced yet


----------



## paddy555 (3 March 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Fecking heck, hounds have just been on my land, not by much, but defo on my land, just where the black cat likes to hang out.

I clean forgot to shut her in. Just hoping that she's ok. Hounds weren't speaking, but looked very excited .

There is NO permission for any part of the hunt to be on my land.

They had no damn control of where hounds were, it's p1ss poor.

ETA Phew, the cat's just strolled in, wondering what all the fuss is about.

If you can't or won't control hounds at all times, then don't take them out. If they are out of sight, then you don't know what they are up to, such as trespassing on land where they are not expected or welcome .
		
Click to expand...

 As someone who used to follow a hunt that was very disruptive to locals especially when their hounds frequently strayed onto their land, clearly trespassing and out of control I find your comments a bit surprising that you are unhappy when it happens on your land..


----------



## Koweyka (3 March 2022)

Anon1357 said:



			I think there will be a few switchers, I know of one other but it hasn’t been formally announced yet
		
Click to expand...

Interesting, I think it will be the only way some hunts survive and really is the only way forward as trail hunting in its current form can’t continue.

There is another expose due out tomorrow, that dispels yet another lie around trail hunting.


----------



## Tiddlypom (3 March 2022)

paddy555 said:



			As someone who used to follow a hunt that was very disruptive to locals especially when their hounds frequently strayed onto their land, clearly trespassing and out of control I find your comments a bit surprising that you are unhappy when it happens on your land..
		
Click to expand...

The SD were well behaved back when I followed them 50 years ago . No trespassing, misbehaving or other antisocial behaviour. I would not have ridden out with them if they did.

Have you mistaken me for someone else? I am no hunt apologist 🤷‍♀️. If I was, I wouldn't have started this thread...


----------



## Clodagh (3 March 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			The SD were well behaved back when I followed them 50 years ago . No trespassing, misbehaving or other antisocial behaviour. I would not have ridden out with them if they did.

Have you mistaken me for someone else? I am no hunt apologist 🤷‍♀️. If I was, I wouldn't have started this thread...
		
Click to expand...

I think Paddy555 that TP , like me, hunted back when it was legal and stopped when it was banned. She’s not the bad guy.


----------



## Anon1357 (3 March 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Interesting, I think it will be the only way some hunts survive and really is the only way forward as trail hunting in its current form can’t continue.

There is another expose due out tomorrow, that dispels yet another lie around trail hunting.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed, I think lessons have to be learnt, adapt to the current climate or 
get dragged down by the ones that don’t conform.  I have no issue with true trail laying and many packs stick to the rules (I’m a trail layer so I know my hunt stick to the rules as I see them hunting my line) however they will unfortunately get swept in with the non conformist. 

Drag hunting (non animal scent) or bloodhounds is the future of hunting


----------



## Koweyka (3 March 2022)

Anon1357 said:



			Agreed, I think lessons have to be learnt, adapt to the current climate or 
get dragged down by the ones that don’t conform.  I have no issue with true trail laying and many packs stick to the rules (I’m a trail layer so I know my hunt stick to the rules as I see them hunting my line) however they will unfortunately get swept in with the non conformist. 

Drag hunting (non animal scent) or bloodhounds is the future of hunting
		
Click to expand...

Yes, the hunts that are acting within the law, are all tarred with the same brush as the hunts that are cocking two fingers at the law and killing foxes, it was always going to catch up with hunting eventually, the webinars just helped it along.


----------



## GSD Woman (4 March 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Pretty much, and that is not a compliment. This was an offence at the lower end of the scale, though, and much more of a case of simply not paying attention. Once aware, hounds were recalled pretty quickly.
.
		
Click to expand...

Haha! I didn't mean it as compliment, glad you realized my sense of humor.


----------



## ycbm (4 March 2022)

Koweyka said:



			The webinars really are the gift that keeps on giving and long may it continue. The hunt itself admitted after the webinars nobody would believe they weren’t fox hunting…. 

Huge news! The Banwen Miners Hunt are leaving the MFHA and are instead becoming a bloodhound pack under the Masters of Draghounds and Bloodhounds Association!

This means that the hunt will no longer chase wildlife.

This is as a direct result of our exposé of the Hunting Office webinars which led to MFHA Director Mark Hankinson being found guilty of encouraging huntsmen to illegally hunt foxes and other wildlife.
		
Click to expand...


That's a good result,  and hopefully the first of many prompted by the webinars conviction and the lack of change in the people and methods at the top.  It's interesting that they seemed to feel that a change to drag hunting isn't enough,  and that the use of fox hounds is now so tainted that they need to swap to bloodhounds. I may be making assumptions there,  but that's how it looks. 
.


----------



## Koweyka (4 March 2022)

ycbm said:



			That's a good result,  and hopefully the first of many prompted by the webinars conviction and the lack of change in the people and methods at the top.  It's interesting that they seemed to feel that a change to drag hunting isn't enough,  and that the use of fox hounds is now so tainted that they need to swap to bloodhounds. I may be making assumptions there,  but that's how it looks. 
.
		
Click to expand...

I had heard they have rehomed the fox hounds, but whether that rumour is true I can’t be sure. There is also another rumour that another pack changing to drag, actually shot the hounds that’s a tragedy if true…. Victims of hunts not changing scents away from a fox scent.


----------



## Koweyka (4 March 2022)

I don’t know who is the most revolting, the hunt, the terrier boys or the landowner….. this isn’t a one off and this is why trail hunting must be banned.


----------



## Sandstone1 (4 March 2022)

Disgusting,   So thats trail hunting is it.


----------



## Tiddlypom (4 March 2022)

Covert cctv strikes again...


----------



## ycbm (4 March 2022)

Koweyka said:



			I don’t know who is the most revolting, the hunt, the terrier boys or the landowner….. this isn’t a one off and this is why trail hunting must be banned.








Click to expand...


This is so pointless.  That fox  living in that yard and will have had regular habits.  All it needed was for someone to sit,  probably at night,  and wait for it and shoot it. Those people were definitely enjoying hunting it for the sake of it.  
.


----------



## GSD Woman (4 March 2022)

Why not just do real trail hunting and let someone shoot the fox. 

I think I've mentioned before that my friends who hunt very rarely see a kill.


----------



## Koweyka (4 March 2022)

ycbm said:



			This is so pointless.  That fox  living in that yard and will have had regular habits.  All it needed was for someone to sit,  probably at night,  and wait for it and shoot it. Those people were definitely enjoying hunting it for the sake of it.  
.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, it wouldn’t surprise me if it was encouraged to stay in the barn for the purpose of hunting. I just hope it’s not another police whitewash as there is clear intent there.


----------



## Tiddlypom (5 March 2022)

ycbm said:



			This is so pointless.  That fox  living in that yard and will have had regular habits.  All it needed was for someone to sit,  probably at night,  and wait for it and shoot it. Those people were definitely enjoying hunting it for the sake of it. 
.
		
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the fox hadn't been specifically encouraged to live on the farm, all the while with the later intention of getting the hunt onto it.

Hopefully there is enough incriminating footage there to secure a conviction(s).


----------



## Koweyka (8 March 2022)

Another example of hounds running riot in an animal sanctuary, scattering pregnant ewes and lambs, one hound left hanging on a fence, clearly not a trail.

https://www.eveshamjournal.co.uk/ne...OVRHjNRSh6VZNUZOnC3W0iM7ehRBx4HImsyYySyHjD6IM


----------



## suestowford (15 March 2022)

If you have facebook you might want to take a look at the post from Jamaica Inn, on the subject of hunt meets at the pub. It seems the local hunt have upset the landlord by inviting in the Beaufort. Now there will be no more hunt meets at the pub.
Hunts in Cornwall seem to be particularly talented at shooting themselves in the foot. 

https://www.facebook.com/JamaicaInnCornwall


----------



## GSD Woman (16 March 2022)

So is the Beaufort one of the known offenders?


----------



## ycbm (16 March 2022)

GSD Woman said:



			So is the Beaufort one of the known offenders?
		
Click to expand...

I think they self define by accepting an invitation from a pack which is. The Beaufort is  the hunt based around the Badminton estate. I've been out with them as a guest in the distant past.  
.


----------



## ycbm (16 March 2022)

On the subject of hunting,  and eventually all blood sports,  dying out,  we've noticed that the new Duke of Devonshire, who owns Chatsworth (in Derbyshire, but go figure)  has not shot the moors between Macclesfield and Buxton since he inherited in 2019.  Is he against blood sports,  seeing the writing on the wall for blood sports,  or is something else going on?  Anyone know? 
.


----------



## GSD Woman (16 March 2022)

I follow a few hunts on Instagram. I enjoy seeing the horses and hounds.  of course they never show a kill on Instagram.


----------



## Tiddlypom (16 March 2022)

Looks like the Jamaica Inn was prepared, under some sufferance, to host a small meet of the local hunt. Local hunt in its wisdom decides to invite one of the largest and best known packs in the country to gate crash the meet. Permission from hostelry understandably revoked.

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/c...UEGtRJWJ9uDK2udwXNK2Tz0FiiboTTYYRMlcrCtvQmZ9Q

_The Jamaica Inn's statement reads: "In the past the Inn’s position on hunting has always been clear – not supported other than to allow hunts to start from the inn because of the one hundred year tradition of doing so. It was something the current owner, Allen Jackson, was not comfortable breaking as he saw himself as a ‘temporary custodian’ and not for him to make such a decision. He has never personally hunted or even shot before._

_"However, last Saturday the local hunt invited the Beaufort Hunt to join their usual modest gathering which the owner sees as extremely ill advised. Taking this fully into account and the passionate views of some of the inn’s customers the owner has decided to no longer allow any future hunt at Jamaica Inn."_


----------



## dotty1 (16 March 2022)

Master and whipper in of Beaufort both in court in April for their activities …..


----------



## Wishfilly (16 March 2022)

GSD Woman said:



			So is the Beaufort one of the known offenders?
		
Click to expand...

In my head they were involved with some previous prosecutions, but google isn't turning up much. 

https://www.itv.com/news/westcountr...shire-hunt-accused-of-illegally-killing-foxes This is recent, though, and I believe a member of hunt staff has been charged over it (yet to stand trial?)

This https://www.itv.com/news/2021-10-08/secret-filming-shows-hunting-hounds-being-shot-dead-at-kennels (note there's a video of a man shooting dogs at this link, it's doesn't autoplay)  though technically legal means a lot of people are not keen on the Beaufort hunt. 

There was a campaign by one of the monitoring organisations in Cornwall around this, and I think a lot of people contacted the landlord to express their views.

I think the local population in Cornwall has changed a lot in even the last 10 years, and people are not so tolerant of hunts absolutely running roughshod over everyone else and openly disregarding the law (before someone says there hasn't been a successful prosecution of the hunts for hunting fox, I mean people locally will happily admit they hunt fox with hounds). I think the hunts locally will need to get with the times quickly or they will have incredibly limited land to meet on.


----------



## Clodagh (16 March 2022)

I think it’s a shame that the landlord bowed to an organised anti hate fest. I do see it is entirely up to him. It seems unlikely or ill advised that the local hunt didn’t check he was ok with more people to start with.


----------



## Wishfilly (16 March 2022)

Clodagh said:



			I think it’s a shame that the landlord bowed to an organised anti hate fest. I do see it is entirely up to him. It seems unlikely or ill advised that the local hunt didn’t check he was ok with more people to start with.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think that's entirely fair- I think it's more the case that certain hunts in Cornwall have run through people's patience by hunting in residential areas, causing disruption on roads which are already pretty dangerous, allegedly trespassing, chasing and in some cases killing pets, and generally just not accepting how the county has changed even in the last 10 years. There are a lot more cars on the roads now, there are a lot of houses springing up everywhere, and a lot of the people who live here now are what might be called "incomers".

TBF to the East Cornwall (which I believe was the hunt hosting the Beaufort) most/all of the poor behaviour I am aware of doesn't relate to them. But over the last couple of seasons, I think some of the hunts have lost a LOT of the land they used to hunt on. It just doesn't make the news because "Farmer refuses Western Hunt permission to use his land" isn't that exciting! Whereas the tenuous Royal connection, and the famous Pub make this a bit more newsworthy.

I do think "antis" obviously made people aware that the Beaufort were there, but the impression I get is that a lot of people who contacted the inn aren't associated with any anti hunting organisations. Ultimately, I think the landlord was worried about losing business over this, and that has to be his first priority.


----------



## ycbm (16 March 2022)

Clodagh said:



			I think it’s a shame that the landlord bowed to an organised anti hate fest. I do see it is entirely up to him. It seems unlikely or ill advised that the local hunt didn’t check he was ok with more people to start with.
		
Click to expand...


I don't tonk that's fair either.  Even as a drag hunter I was very aware of how my excited,  boisterous,  noisy and numorous fellow hunters upset regulars by the mass invasion of their local pub before and after the meet.
.


----------



## Tiddlypom (17 March 2022)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-60761938

"_Owner Allen Jackson said after the hunts _(East Cornwall and Beaufort)_ met on Saturday "hundreds and hundreds of people, seemingly reasonable and rational, were telling us they were anti the hunt"._

_"These were not extreme views but reasonable views," he said._

_"We have always lost money because some people won't come here because of the association with hunts. *There are no pluses, all we get is minuses. They never spent any money here - they never came in.*_

_"The hunting fraternity want to make it seem we have been browbeaten and bullied into this decision but it is nothing like that whatsoever."_


----------



## Anon1357 (31 March 2022)

New Forest Hounds have announced they are switching to a bloodhound pack.  All current fox hounds have been placed in other packs or retirement with supporters.


----------



## ycbm (31 March 2022)

Anon1357 said:



			New Forest Hounds have announced they are switching to a bloodhound pack.  All current fox hounds have been placed in other packs or retirement with supporters.
		
Click to expand...


It seems that the good legal hunts have realised that the only way to distance themselves from the packs hunting illegally is to change the breed of dog. 

I congratulate them on their decisive action and wish them a very happy hunting future.
.


----------



## Anon1357 (31 March 2022)

ycbm said:



			It seems that the good legal hunts have realised that the only way to distance themselves from the packs hunting illegally is to change the breed of dog. 

I congratulate them on their decisive action and wish them a very happy hunting future.
.
		
Click to expand...

In part I agree, there does need to be some wholesale change and respect to public perception and the law, however equally I would hate to see the fox hounds extinct.  My personal view is trail hunting in untenable long term and drag hunting is the way forward to keep the fox hound tradition moving with the current climate.  I hunted pre ban and have been a trail layer but I equally respect that not everyone tows the line but also have witnessed personally some pretty questionable behaviour from both sides ( I have had antis watch my trail line, see the hounds follow it and still make violent threats towards me, but equally I’ve seen supporters make unnecessary aggressive comments towards peaceful monitors).  At some point there needs to be a common ground/respect that the hunts doing the right thing are monitored peacefully and hunt supporters allow the peaceful monitoring.


----------



## Wishfilly (31 March 2022)

Anon1357 said:



			In part I agree, there does need to be some wholesale change and respect to public perception and the law, however equally I would hate to see the fox hounds extinct.  My personal view is trail hunting in untenable long term and drag hunting is the way forward to keep the fox hound tradition moving with the current climate.  I hunted pre ban and have been a trail layer but I equally respect that not everyone tows the line but also have witnessed personally some pretty questionable behaviour from both sides ( I have had antis watch my trail line, see the hounds follow it and still make violent threats towards me, but equally I’ve seen supporters make unnecessary aggressive comments towards peaceful monitors).  At some point there needs to be a common ground/respect that the hunts doing the right thing are monitored peacefully and hunt supporters allow the peaceful monitoring.
		
Click to expand...

There are plenty of breeds of dog which no longer have a working use who have not gone extinct. I don't think anyone wants to see foxhounds as a breed become extinct. Many people do manage to give good lives to breeds of dog who traditionally hunted in some way without them actively being involved in hunting. 

FWIW, a hunt local to me sometimes nominally has trail layers out, but they still sometimes also have hounds behave in a way that is dangerous to members of the public or their pets. (This is not just my opinion, a member of hunt staff was actually prosecuted for having the hounds dangerously out of control in a residential area last year) So I don't think just having trail layers present means a hunt is doing the right thing. Unfortunately, I think it's hunts like this who let everyone down and cause problems for all hunts/all hunts in the local area. 

Increasingly, we're seeing local landowners refusing the hunt access to their land due to some pretty major incidents in the 2020/21 season, which could equally cause the death of trail hunting.

If the law was clear, and only drag hunting was allowed, and those breaking the law were actively prosecuted, I think it would help. But I also think hunts have to consider changing land use in some areas, and if all hunts are still viable and have enough suitable land to safely operate, particularly when this land needs to be shared with other members of the public.


----------



## Sandstone1 (1 April 2022)

I do not think Otter hounds are extinct.  Hunting otter has been illegal for some time.   There are show foxhounds, there are beagles and quite a few other breeds of dog that were originally breed for hunting or killing things that are now kept as pets.
Banning hunting does not mean a breed of dog will go extinct.


----------



## rabatsa (1 April 2022)

Wishfilly said:



			There are plenty of breeds of dog which no longer have a working use who have not gone extinct.
		
Click to expand...

There are also many breeds of dogs which now do not resemble the breed that they were, due to not working.


----------



## GSD Woman (1 April 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			I do not think Otter hounds are extinct. Hunting otter has been illegal for some time. There are show foxhounds, there are beagles and quite a few other breeds of dog that were originally breed for hunting or killing things that are now kept as pets
		
Click to expand...

Are Otterhounds not extremely rare in the UK?  They are in the US.  I attended an all breed and obedience show that was also the National Specialty for Otterhounds. There were maybe 30 from around the country.


----------



## Moobli (1 April 2022)

Otterhounds are extremely rare and are on the endangered list in UK.


----------



## Moobli (1 April 2022)

The Otterhound is the British breed most at risk according to the Kennel Club. There were only seven registered last year, compared with 44 the year before, and it's thought there may be as few as 600 animals left worldwide.


----------



## suestowford (1 April 2022)

Otterhounds have been used to hunt mink, but now I don't suppose that happens.
Here's a pack of otterhounds parading at Dunster Country Fair back in 2004. I thought they looked quite nice until I got near enough to smell them!


----------



## littleshetland (1 April 2022)

Somebody in our village acquired an Otterhound to keep as a pet! She was only young and the whole episode was a complete disaster.  Although completely benign and friendly she more or less completely destroyed their house, appeared to be totally untrainable (in a very friendly 'nice but dim' kind of way) and blimey....did she smell!  They ended up rehoming her.


----------



## Clodagh (5 April 2022)

littleshetland said:



			Somebody in our village acquired an Otterhound to keep as a pet! She was only young and the whole episode was a complete disaster.  Although completely benign and friendly she more or less completely destroyed their house, appeared to be totally untrainable (in a very friendly 'nice but dim' kind of way) and blimey....did she smell!  They ended up rehoming her.
		
Click to expand...

Hounds are bred to live and work in packs. They often struggle in a conventional set up.


----------



## Clodagh (5 April 2022)

suestowford said:



			Otterhounds have been used to hunt mink, but now I don't suppose that happens.
Here's a pack of otterhounds parading at Dunster Country Fair back in 2004. I thought they looked quite nice until I got near enough to smell them!
View attachment 89969

Click to expand...

I think mink hunting is still legal?


----------



## Clodagh (5 April 2022)

So there has been rejigging at the top. Wheat do you think?


----------



## Clodagh (5 April 2022)

Double post. Damned reloading!


----------



## Tiddlypom (5 April 2022)

Bit more about that from The Hunting Office.

https://thehuntingoffice.org.uk/news


Update from the MFHA Chairman 
Hunting is both the most extraordinary and frustrating of activities. Whether running a day’s hunting, a hunt or the Masters of Foxhounds Association (and I have now done all three) nothing ever seems to be straightforward, but when things do work out the results make all the pain of delivering them rapidly fade away. Very few things can equal the glory of a wonderful pack of hounds taking their line across country, but we must not forget either the key role that hunts play in the management of the countryside and the life of rural communities. 
That is why, despite the huge challenges that have faced hunting over the years, we have always fought to retain its essence. And that is also why hunting has adapted to address the existential threats that it has faced whether it was the coming of the railways, the invention of barbed wire, or the Hunting Act, all of which were seen by some as ‘the end’ of hunting. That is also why, despite the challenges it faces at the moment, I am certain that hunting can adapt to meet the changing demands of society and the modern countryside and that it has a bright future.
The most urgent challenge facing us is perception that not all hunting activity is legitimate and that not all hunts are operating to the highest standards. That perception could in future lead to further legislation restricting trail hunting and other use of hounds, and it is also having a practical impact right now on hunting’s relationship with institutional and private landowners, the police and politicians. It is clear that we need a change in the way hunting is run to give all stakeholders confidence that we are operating legitimately.
To that end we have carried out a consultation with members and a review. It has been suggested and widely accepted that the hunting associations should step back from the overall governance and supervision of hunting. Instead, we are aiming to have two separate organisations.
Firstly, a single inclusive new body to undertake governance of all hunting activities. This Governing Body will be responsible for setting the standards and rules to which all members and member hunts must adhere. 
Secondly, a separate Regulatory Authority to administer all regulation and disciplinary matters for members and member hunts, according to the rules set by the Governing Body. 
Membership of the Governing Body will be inclusive and representative of the whole hunting community and all associations ,all hunts, huntsmen and kennel huntsmen will be invited to join. Hunts, huntsmen and kennel huntsmen will be assessed and accredited to validate the high standards of hunting activities in the field and animal welfare in hunt kennels. 
This is not a new idea. A detailed plan to create an Independent Supervisory Authority for Hunting was developed in the 1990s in the face of the political challenges hunting faced then. That proposal was overtaken by the Hunting Act but the principle was kept alive, not least by the late Brian Fanshawe my predecessor as master and huntsman of the Cottesmore Hounds who was a tireless promoter of high standards and credible regulation.
We are currently updating that model to fit with the demands of post-ban hunting and predominantly the regulation of trail hunting. The principles are clear; hunts must not only operate to the highest standards both in kennels and in the field, but they must be able to show that they are doing so. This may sound complicated and bureaucratic but, in reality, it need be neither; we cannot realistically argue that we need to be tested before we drive a car or accredited to use a chainsaw, whilst just allowing anyone to take a pack of hounds out into the countryside. Our reputation relies on every one of us upholding high standards and we simply cannot leave that to chance any longer. Our mantra must be that ‘nothing less than excellent is acceptable’.
Importantly, correcting the perception of hunting will not only ease the immediate challenges facing us. It will also create an opportunity to promote hunting and the good it does in the countryside. With our colleagues at the Countryside Alliance, we will be able to focus more resources on more proactive and promotional public relations. We need to get off back foot. It will be possible to communicate openly about hunting activities and work in hunt kennels, and to highlight all the environmental good that hunts do and the positive impact hunts have within the countryside. In time this may even put us in a position where we can start to unroll the legislation that has done so much harm to wildlife, the countryside and rural communities. 
Our goal is the protection, promotion and preservation of our core values, and the continuation of the sport we all love, for many years to come. If we get this right the Masters and huntsmen of today will be paving the way for a new generation to carry hunting on into a new era, hunting will continue to be an intrinsic part of the modern countryside and hounds will still be the glue that binds together so many rural communities.
It is our intention to take our plans to the hunting association AGMs in early summer, so structures are in place for the start of next season.
Andrew Osborne 
Chairman MFHA and Council of Hunting Associations 
Published:  11th March 2022


----------



## ycbm (5 April 2022)

It's promising,  Clodagh, but the wording .....   It's not a "perception" that not all hunts are operating within the law, it's a fact and they would do well to acknowledge that. 
.


----------



## Clodagh (5 April 2022)

I suspect it’s a load of tosh. But perhaps not and the governing body has seen the need for change.


----------



## Tiddlypom (5 April 2022)

ycbm said:



			It's promising,  Clodagh, but the wording .....   It's not a "perception" that not all hunts are operating within the law, it's a fact and they would do well to acknowledge that.
		
Click to expand...

Agree. I would be much more impressed with this if the Hunting Office statement didn't keep harking on about the 'perception' that not all hunting activity is legitimate. C'mon guys, we all know that a considerable amount of hunting activity is currently not legitimate.

_'The most urgent challenge facing us is *perception* that not all hunting activity is legitimate and that not all hunts are operating to the highest standards. That *perception* could in future lead to further legislation restricting trail hunting and other use of hounds, and it is also having a practical impact right now on hunting’s relationship with institutional and private landowners, the police_ _and politicians.'_

Anyone know if there's truth in what the antis are saying re that the Association of Masters of Harriers and Beagles Director has been sacked, and that the Hunting Office Director has stood down?


----------



## Wishfilly (5 April 2022)

I know this is just one incident, and it's not reflective of all hunts but : https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hunt-master-fined-after-dogs-25668956

Even before we start talking about whether some hunts hunt fox still (they do), when hounds are killing family pets, it's a perception that all hunts are "not operating to the highest standards" is it? The hounds were legally "dangerously out of control".

I think hunting bodies need to be really, really honest with themselves, and accept that perhaps some hunts can have a massive negative impact on the perception of all.


----------



## GoldenWillow (6 April 2022)

ycbm said:



			It's promising,  Clodagh, but the wording .....   It's not a "perception" that not all hunts are operating within the law, it's a fact and they would do well to acknowledge that.
.
		
Click to expand...

That's the bit that immediately stood out to me and made me wonder if anything is ever likely to change. I think until it is acknowledged that illegal hunting is being carried out by registered packs nothing will change. It makes me wonder if all they are wanting to do is change the "perception" and not the reality.

Eta it mentions "correcting the perception" and that the perception is already impacting hunting's relationship regarding landowners etc. It wasn't the perception that led to the hunt not being allowed on land around here it was continually going on land that they had been asked not to and being rude and abusive to LO partner as they didn't realise who she was.


----------



## SilverLinings (6 April 2022)

It sounds as though they _finally_ realise they need to change or risk loosing (legal) trail hunting (and possibly other forms of riding/working with hounds) completely. It is very unfortunate that the wording seems to imply that they don't realise quite how big the problem is, or quite how strongly a lot of the general public feel about it. I hope that the word 'perception' was just poorly chosen (maybe to placate some of the old guard who don't actually accept when they are wrong), and that they do manage to police themselves in a far more robust and trustworthy way going forwards, or they will indeed loose the sport entirely, and annoy a lot of other people in the process of doing so.


----------



## Wishfilly (6 April 2022)

It's interesting reading the statement more carefully that they perhaps do acknowledge that some of the people running hunts in some cases have acted irresponsibly or unsafely- they don't quite come out and say this, but I think the bit about allowing "just anyone" to take a pack of hounds out into the countryside is an interesting statement. 

However, they obviously can't force hunts to join their new organisations- so the concern must be what if some of the worst offenders choose to stay outside their governing body, and continue to operate as they are? 

I actually think much of the spirit of the statement is good, but either, to encourage all hunts to join, they'll turn a blind eye to some pretty dangerous behaviour still (and probably illegal hunting) OR they will be strict, and then some hunts may not join?


----------



## CrunchieBoi (6 April 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Bit more about that from The Hunting Office.

https://thehuntingoffice.org.uk/news


Update from the MFHA Chairman 
Hunting is both the most extraordinary and frustrating of activities. Whether running a day’s hunting, a hunt or the Masters of Foxhounds Association (and I have now done all three) nothing ever seems to be straightforward, but when things do work out the results make all the pain of delivering them rapidly fade away. Very few things can equal the glory of a wonderful pack of hounds taking their line across country, but we must not forget either the key role that hunts play in the management of the countryside and the life of rural communities. 
That is why, despite the huge challenges that have faced hunting over the years, we have always fought to retain its essence. And that is also why hunting has adapted to address the existential threats that it has faced whether it was the coming of the railways, the invention of barbed wire, or the Hunting Act, all of which were seen by some as ‘the end’ of hunting. That is also why, despite the challenges it faces at the moment, I am certain that hunting can adapt to meet the changing demands of society and the modern countryside and that it has a bright future.
The most urgent challenge facing us is perception that not all hunting activity is legitimate and that not all hunts are operating to the highest standards. That perception could in future lead to further legislation restricting trail hunting and other use of hounds, and it is also having a practical impact right now on hunting’s relationship with institutional and private landowners, the police and politicians. It is clear that we need a change in the way hunting is run to give all stakeholders confidence that we are operating legitimately.
To that end we have carried out a consultation with members and a review. It has been suggested and widely accepted that the hunting associations should step back from the overall governance and supervision of hunting. Instead, we are aiming to have two separate organisations.
Firstly, a single inclusive new body to undertake governance of all hunting activities. This Governing Body will be responsible for setting the standards and rules to which all members and member hunts must adhere. 
Secondly, a separate Regulatory Authority to administer all regulation and disciplinary matters for members and member hunts, according to the rules set by the Governing Body. 
Membership of the Governing Body will be inclusive and representative of the whole hunting community and all associations ,all hunts, huntsmen and kennel huntsmen will be invited to join. Hunts, huntsmen and kennel huntsmen will be assessed and accredited to validate the high standards of hunting activities in the field and animal welfare in hunt kennels. 
This is not a new idea. A detailed plan to create an Independent Supervisory Authority for Hunting was developed in the 1990s in the face of the political challenges hunting faced then. That proposal was overtaken by the Hunting Act but the principle was kept alive, not least by the late Brian Fanshawe my predecessor as master and huntsman of the Cottesmore Hounds who was a tireless promoter of high standards and credible regulation.
We are currently updating that model to fit with the demands of post-ban hunting and predominantly the regulation of trail hunting. The principles are clear; hunts must not only operate to the highest standards both in kennels and in the field, but they must be able to show that they are doing so. This may sound complicated and bureaucratic but, in reality, it need be neither; we cannot realistically argue that we need to be tested before we drive a car or accredited to use a chainsaw, whilst just allowing anyone to take a pack of hounds out into the countryside. Our reputation relies on every one of us upholding high standards and we simply cannot leave that to chance any longer. Our mantra must be that ‘nothing less than excellent is acceptable’.
Importantly, correcting the perception of hunting will not only ease the immediate challenges facing us. It will also create an opportunity to promote hunting and the good it does in the countryside. With our colleagues at the Countryside Alliance, we will be able to focus more resources on more proactive and promotional public relations. We need to get off back foot. It will be possible to communicate openly about hunting activities and work in hunt kennels, and to highlight all the environmental good that hunts do and the positive impact hunts have within the countryside. In time this may even put us in a position where we can start to unroll the legislation that has done so much harm to wildlife, the countryside and rural communities. 
Our goal is the protection, promotion and preservation of our core values, and the continuation of the sport we all love, for many years to come. If we get this right the Masters and huntsmen of today will be paving the way for a new generation to carry hunting on into a new era, hunting will continue to be an intrinsic part of the modern countryside and hounds will still be the glue that binds together so many rural communities.
It is our intention to take our plans to the hunting association AGMs in early summer, so structures are in place for the start of next season.
Andrew Osborne 
Chairman MFHA and Council of Hunting Associations 
Published:  11th March 2022
		
Click to expand...

Word salad.


----------



## Millionwords (8 April 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Bit more about that from The Hunting Office.

https://thehuntingoffice.org.uk/news


Update from the MFHA Chairman 
Hunting is both the most extraordinary and frustrating of activities. Whether running a day’s hunting, a hunt or the Masters of Foxhounds Association (and I have now done all three) nothing ever seems to be straightforward, but when things do work out the results make all the pain of delivering them rapidly fade away. Very few things can equal the glory of a wonderful pack of hounds taking their line across country, but we must not forget either the key role that hunts play in the management of the countryside and the life of rural communities.
That is why, despite the huge challenges that have faced hunting over the years, we have always fought to retain its essence. And that is also why hunting has adapted to address the existential threats that it has faced whether it was the coming of the railways, the invention of barbed wire, or the Hunting Act, all of which were seen by some as ‘the end’ of hunting. That is also why, despite the challenges it faces at the moment, I am certain that hunting can adapt to meet the changing demands of society and the modern countryside and that it has a bright future.
The most urgent challenge facing us is perception that not all hunting activity is legitimate and that not all hunts are operating to the highest standards. That perception could in future lead to further legislation restricting trail hunting and other use of hounds, and it is also having a practical impact right now on hunting’s relationship with institutional and private landowners, the police and politicians. It is clear that we need a change in the way hunting is run to give all stakeholders confidence that we are operating legitimately.
To that end we have carried out a consultation with members and a review. It has been suggested and widely accepted that the hunting associations should step back from the overall governance and supervision of hunting. Instead, we are aiming to have two separate organisations.
Firstly, a single inclusive new body to undertake governance of all hunting activities. This Governing Body will be responsible for setting the standards and rules to which all members and member hunts must adhere.
Secondly, a separate Regulatory Authority to administer all regulation and disciplinary matters for members and member hunts, according to the rules set by the Governing Body.
Membership of the Governing Body will be inclusive and representative of the whole hunting community and all associations ,all hunts, huntsmen and kennel huntsmen will be invited to join. Hunts, huntsmen and kennel huntsmen will be assessed and accredited to validate the high standards of hunting activities in the field and animal welfare in hunt kennels.
This is not a new idea. A detailed plan to create an Independent Supervisory Authority for Hunting was developed in the 1990s in the face of the political challenges hunting faced then. That proposal was overtaken by the Hunting Act but the principle was kept alive, not least by the late Brian Fanshawe my predecessor as master and huntsman of the Cottesmore Hounds who was a tireless promoter of high standards and credible regulation.
We are currently updating that model to fit with the demands of post-ban hunting and predominantly the regulation of trail hunting. The principles are clear; hunts must not only operate to the highest standards both in kennels and in the field, but they must be able to show that they are doing so. This may sound complicated and bureaucratic but, in reality, it need be neither; we cannot realistically argue that we need to be tested before we drive a car or accredited to use a chainsaw, whilst just allowing anyone to take a pack of hounds out into the countryside. Our reputation relies on every one of us upholding high standards and we simply cannot leave that to chance any longer. Our mantra must be that ‘nothing less than excellent is acceptable’.
Importantly, correcting the perception of hunting will not only ease the immediate challenges facing us. It will also create an opportunity to promote hunting and the good it does in the countryside. With our colleagues at the Countryside Alliance, we will be able to focus more resources on more proactive and promotional public relations. We need to get off back foot. It will be possible to communicate openly about hunting activities and work in hunt kennels, and to highlight all the environmental good that hunts do and the positive impact hunts have within the countryside. In time this may even put us in a position where we can start to unroll the legislation that has done so much harm to wildlife, the countryside and rural communities.
Our goal is the protection, promotion and preservation of our core values, and the continuation of the sport we all love, for many years to come. If we get this right the Masters and huntsmen of today will be paving the way for a new generation to carry hunting on into a new era, hunting will continue to be an intrinsic part of the modern countryside and hounds will still be the glue that binds together so many rural communities.
It is our intention to take our plans to the hunting association AGMs in early summer, so structures are in place for the start of next season.
Andrew Osborne
Chairman MFHA and Council of Hunting Associations
Published:  11th March 2022
		
Click to expand...

I don't really understand the following:

- "we must not forget either the key role that hunts play in the management of the countryside " and also
- "to highlight all the environmental good that hunts do and the positive impact hunts have within the countryside."

What are they referring to?  because this was due to fox control. As it should now not be involving a fox then what other benefits to the countryside are they providing?

Sounds like they're just telling themselves and their followers that they still think breaking the law is good because "tradition"


----------



## Caol Ila (8 April 2022)

Millionwords said:



			I don't really understand the following:

- "we must not forget either the key role that hunts play in the management of the countryside " and also
- "to highlight all the environmental good that hunts do and the positive impact hunts have within the countryside."

What are they referring to?  because this was due to fox control. As it should now not be involving a fox then what other benefits to the countryside are they providing?
		
Click to expand...

I started a post yesterday asking this _exact _question, then I had the reloading problem and had to run out the door, so didn't get a chance to finish it. How are they helping manage the countryside? And what on earth are they doing for the environment? From reading posts on here, I get the impression that many people who live in hunt country see them as a pain in the a*rse due to disturbances of fields, livestock, and wildlife, rather than "having a positive impact."  

Just be honest. It's fun to gallop cross-country following the hounds. Same as other equestrian sports. Dressage riders and eventers aren't arguing that their sport has a key role in managing the countryside.


----------



## Sandstone1 (8 April 2022)

Caol Ila said:



			I started a post yesterday asking this _exact _question, then I had the reloading problem and had to run out the door, so didn't get a chance to finish it. How are they helping manage the countryside? And what on earth are they doing for the environment? From reading posts on here, I get the impression that many people who live in hunt country see them as a pain in the a*rse due to disturbances of fields, livestock, and wildlife, rather than "having a positive impact." 

Just be honest. It's fun to gallop cross-country following the hounds. Same as other equestrian sports. Dressage riders and eventers aren't arguing that their sport has a key role in managing the countryside.
		
Click to expand...

They helped manage the countryside to encourage foxes so they could chase them!  The pest control aspect is just to hide the fact that foxes were encouraged and in some cases fed so that the hunt had its sport.  Its as simple as that really.  Now hunting is illegal (OR should be! ) They just scrape the barrel for excuses to continue their illegal and cruel "sport"


----------



## Caol Ila (8 April 2022)

Indeed. That's my point. If they are hunting legally now, i.e. allegedly not chasing foxes, then how are they continuing to "play a key role in managing the countryside?" It seems like he's making an absurd argument.

Are hunts doing anything useful, like helping maintain general equestrian access to bridleways and other off-road routes?


----------



## Tiddlypom (8 April 2022)

Ah, but hunts are still managing artificial earths to encourage foxes to breed. Bless them, encouraging and supporting wildlife.

So that a sicko closely associated with a hunt can flush the fox out with a terrier and then repeatedly stab it with a garden fork.

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-12-23/footage-shows-man-in-essex-attacking-a-fox-with-garden-fork

That incident happened on 4/12/21. Has that guy (and we all know who he is, and what his connections to the Essex Hunt are) even been charged yet?


----------



## stangs (8 April 2022)

Caol Ila said:



			Indeed. That's my point. If they are hunting legally now, i.e. allegedly not chasing foxes, then how are they continuing to "play a key role in managing the countryside?" It seems like he's making an absurd argument.
		
Click to expand...

No, they're right. By letting hounds kill off the occasional cat, they're saving our precious birds


----------



## Tiddlypom (8 April 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			That incident happened on 4/12/21. Has that guy (and we all know who he is, and what his connections to the Essex Hunt are) even been charged yet?
		
Click to expand...

Correction, it is the East Essex Hunt.


----------



## Wishfilly (8 April 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Ah, but hunts are still managing artificial earths to encourage foxes to breed. Bless them, encouraging and supporting wildlife.

So that a sicko closely associated with a hunt can flush the fox out with a terrier and then repeatedly stab it with a garden fork.

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-12-23/footage-shows-man-in-essex-attacking-a-fox-with-garden-fork

That incident happened on 4/12/21. Has that guy (and we all know who he is, and what his connections to the Essex Hunt are) even been charged yet?
		
Click to expand...

He was arrested according to this Mail report: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...er-footage-caught-stabbing-fox-PITCHFORK.html

But I don't know if he has been charged, certainly not prosecuted (I know that can take time for lots of reasons).


----------



## Tiddlypom (8 April 2022)

He was arrested on suspicion of offences under the Hunting Act 2004, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Wild Mammal Protection Act 1996, but later released.

The covert video footage is graphic and the fox torturer is clearly identifiable.

4 months on, and he is still not charged with anything.


----------



## palo1 (18 May 2022)

Keep the Ban's 'cruel' Fox Hospital  exposed by Fox Hunting Evidence  https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/an...zVCYKeo-I05H4qjqJXLDAfTpJnH-ZyvWB3QzBzgs7qCk-


----------



## Sossigpoker (18 May 2022)

palo1 said:



			Keep the Ban's 'cruel' Fox Hospital  exposed by Fox Hunting Evidence  https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/an...zVCYKeo-I05H4qjqJXLDAfTpJnH-ZyvWB3QzBzgs7qCk-

Click to expand...

Still better than ripping wildlife apart with packs of dogs


----------



## Fred66 (18 May 2022)

Sossigpoker said:



			Still better than ripping wildlife apart with packs of dogs
		
Click to expand...

Even if that was what the hunts were doing then actually it’s not. Deliberate cruelty is never right, however well meaning


----------



## YorksG (18 May 2022)

Sossigpoker said:



			Still better than ripping wildlife apart with packs of dogs
		
Click to expand...

A quick death versus a terrified wild animal kept in cramped conditions, with forced interactions with other creatures, I think your view is rather debatable


----------



## Sossigpoker (18 May 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Even if that was what the hunts were doing then actually it’s not. Deliberate cruelty is never right, however well meaning
		
Click to expand...

I didn't see any mention of cruelty,  just someone trying to help. No mention of what he supposedly did that was so cruel.
Most wildlife rescuers aren't vets.


----------



## YorksG (18 May 2022)

Sossigpoker said:



			I didn't see any mention of cruelty,  just someone trying to help. No mention of what he supposedly did that was so cruel.
Most wildlife rescuers aren't vets.
		
Click to expand...

The cramped conditions are cruel for wild animals, the containment itself is stressful. I'm not sure I saw someone wanting to help, but possibly making a quick few pounds?


----------



## Koweyka (18 May 2022)

Is that the best you can come up with ? Any donations have been returned if requested or sent to other wildlife charities, Rob has held his hands up and said he should have performed more due diligence, he is right he should have done and it wasn’t a good situation for foxes, everyone agrees with that. So really it’s a bit of a none story isn’t it, lots of other charities have now benefited ..Why not mention the countless hunts up in court in the next few months charged with illegal hunting, including one investigation carried out by the MOD police after they witnessed illegal hunting on MOD land,  terrier men found guilty for assaulting Sabs and theft and criminal damage, the huntsman that killed Mini losing his appeal and the laughable statement from the MFHA about policing themselves now …Or more and more hunts changing to Blood Hounds and clean boot as they acknowledge trail hunting is on its way out …. There is also potentially another huge expose coming that will knock another massive nail in the trail hunt coffin tick tock tick tock ….


----------



## Rowreach (18 May 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Is that the best you can come up with ? Any donations have been returned if requested or sent to other wildlife charities, Rob has held his hands up and said he should have performed more due diligence, he is right he should have done and it wasn’t a good situation for foxes, everyone agrees with that. So really it’s a bit of a none story isn’t it, lots of other charities have now benefited ..Why not mention the countless hunts up in court in the next few months charged with illegal hunting, including one investigation carried out by the MOD police after they witnessed illegal hunting on MOD land,  terrier men found guilty for assaulting Sabs and theft and criminal damage, the huntsman that killed Mini losing his appeal and the laughable statement from the MFHA about policing themselves now …Or more and more hunts changing to Blood Hounds and clean boot as they acknowledge trail hunting is on its way out …. There is also potentially another huge expose coming that will knock another massive nail in the trail hunt coffin tick tock tick tock ….
		
Click to expand...

Dobbed in by another anti-hunting group - bit of fighting amongst yourselves?


----------



## Fred66 (18 May 2022)

Those on here supporting trail hunts have made it clear that we are supporting trail hunting within the law.  
The fact that an animals right organisation has been found to be supporting an outfit that was actually perpetrating animal cruelty is news. 
Whataboutery doesn’t change this


----------



## Koweyka (18 May 2022)

Rowreach said:



			Dobbed in by another anti-hunting group - bit of fighting amongst yourselves?
		
Click to expand...

Not at all, in fact unlike the hunts that have been completely aware that other hunts have been breaking the law and hunting illegally and not calling it out, an anti group has stood up and done the right thing. I believe this shows integrity and morals something the hunting community could learn from.


----------



## Clodagh (18 May 2022)

Sossigpoker said:



			Still better than ripping wildlife apart with packs of dogs
		
Click to expand...

I don’t know if it is. Foxes are wild animals, not cuddly toys and they must have been very stressed.


----------



## Forum Admin Team (18 May 2022)

https://forums.horseandhound.co.uk/...a-spot-of-bother.797854/page-97#post-14828192

One user has had their access removed for seven days (and content removed).

Any further instances of users not debating with at least a degree of civility toward other users and groups will have their access removed permanently without notice.


----------



## Fred66 (18 May 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Not at all, in fact unlike the hunts that have been completely aware that other hunts have been breaking the law and hunting illegally and not calling it out, an anti group has stood up and done the right thing. I believe this shows integrity and morals something the hunting community could learn from.
		
Click to expand...

Personally I find that the people I associate with out hunting have high morals and personal integrity, so it’s nice to see that others do too .
Was it you that reported Sossigpoker as that’s one of the quickest post removals and banning’s I’ve seen.


----------



## Koweyka (18 May 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Personally I find that the people I associate with out hunting have high morals and personal integrity, so it’s nice to see that others do too .
Was it you that reported Sossigpoker as that’s one of the quickest post removals and banning’s I’ve seen.
		
Click to expand...

I haven’t reported anybody or have anyone on user ignore, if I am insulted it makes absolutely no difference to me.


----------



## Fred66 (18 May 2022)

Koweyka said:



			I haven’t reported anybody or have anyone on user ignore, if I am insulted it makes absolutely no difference to me.
		
Click to expand...

It was only if you had I would have admired the action as the vitriol and language used was unpleasant and it would be admirable for  someone who it was not directed at to have reported it.


----------



## Clodagh (18 May 2022)

It wasn’t that bad? I must have missed the offensive post.


----------



## Rowreach (18 May 2022)

Clodagh said:



			It wasn’t that bad? I must have missed the offensive post.
		
Click to expand...

She was rather rude. I went to quote  it and it was already gone.


----------



## Clodagh (18 May 2022)

Rowreach said:



			She was rather rude. I went to quote  it and it was already gone.
		
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Must get quicker 🤣


----------



## Koweyka (18 May 2022)

Fred66 said:



			It was only if you had I would have admired the action as the vitriol and language used was unpleasant and it would be admirable for  someone who it was not directed at to have reported it.
		
Click to expand...

I never saw what she wrote, however I have been on the receiving end of some very nasty comments and they were never reported by anyone so 🤷‍♀️


----------



## palo1 (18 May 2022)

Koweyka said:



			I never saw what she wrote, however I have been on the receiving end of some very nasty comments and they were never reported by anyone so 🤷‍♀️
		
Click to expand...

I think the discussion here on HHO has been fairly civil and I haven't seen comments aimed at you that were very nasty so I would be interested to know what they were?  On the whole the 'nasty' comment stuff generally seems to reflect the emotional response of anti-hunters toward those that are openly supporting trail hunting rather than the other way round.  As an aside it has been great to see registered hunts so well supported at big equestrian events this spring - long may that continue!!


----------



## Quigleyandme (18 May 2022)

I agree with Palo on this point Koweyka. I haven’t seen any uncivil posts directed at you. I have always respected the way both Palo and you, Koweyka, conduct yourselves on here given your opposing beliefs.


----------



## GSD Woman (18 May 2022)

This the thread that will not die, isn't it?

I read the article about the fox center previously, where I don't recollect. 

When I was in tech school each tech student had to help for X amount of time at the Wildlife Center of Virginia.  The idea there was to rehab injured wildlife back to being released.  A few animals that couldn't be released were kept for teaching.  Anything else that couldn't be released was euthanized.  In the fall all of the fawns that were brought in because people thought they were orphaned were released into Shenandoah National Forest. No hunting/shooting is allowed in the park.

Is there something like that available in England that wouldn't be keeping them in cages.


----------



## YorksG (18 May 2022)

GSD Woman said:



			This the thread that will not die, isn't it?

I read the article about the fox center previously, where I don't recollect.

When I was in tech school each tech student had to help for X amount of time at the Wildlife Center of Virginia.  The idea there was to rehab injured wildlife back to being released.  A few animals that couldn't be released were kept for teaching.  Anything else that couldn't be released was euthanized.  In the fall all of the fawns that were brought in because people thought they were orphaned were released into Shenandoah National Forest. No hunting/shooting is allowed in the park.

Is there something like that available in England that wouldn't be keeping them in cages.
		
Click to expand...

There are a number of wildlife rehab centres around the country, although, as far as I know, few foxes are treated at them.


----------



## Koweyka (31 May 2022)

Hopefully the M.O.D will follow suit and even more hunts will be consigned to history. 

📯 VICTORY! 📯

The Lake District National Park Authority will now 'suspend trail hunting licences indefinitely for activity on land owned by the LDNPA'!

This decision is a direct result of our exposé of the infamous Hunting Office webinars, which led to the Director of the Masters of Foxhounds Association being found guilty of encouraging hunts to break the Hunting Act.


----------



## palo1 (1 June 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Hopefully the M.O.D will follow suit and even more hunts will be consigned to history.

📯 VICTORY! 📯

The Lake District National Park Authority will now 'suspend trail hunting licences indefinitely for activity on land owned by the LDNPA'!

This decision is a direct result of our exposé of the infamous Hunting Office webinars, which led to the Director of the Masters of Foxhounds Association being found guilty of encouraging hunts to break the Hunting Act.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a result of anti-hunt activities because of hunts not following the law.  It will affect less than 4% of the National Park.


----------



## ycbm (1 June 2022)

How come there has been a prosecution completed for a footballer who kicked a cat and not for a hunt employee(?) who trapped a wild animal and stabbed it with a pitchfork long before?
.


----------



## Sandstone1 (1 June 2022)

ycbm said:



			How come there has been a prosecution completed for a footballer who kicked a cat and not for a hunt employee(?) who trapped a wild animal and stabbed it with a pitchfork long before?
.
		
Click to expand...

Thats a good question.   That person should be going to jail.  Clear video evidence and clear view of who it is.  Dreadful and completely un called for cruelty.


----------



## Chuffy99 (14 June 2022)

Paul O’Shea and a 16 yo girl have been charged with various cruelty and hunting a fox with dogs according to the East Anglian Times today


----------



## Tiddlypom (14 June 2022)

The Essex fox stabber has finally been charged nearly 6 months after the incident

He has been officially named as Paul O'Shea. The minor seen with him in the fox torturing video has also been charged.

https://www.itv.com/news/2022-06-14...l-charged-in-connection-with-cruelty-to-a-fox

Paul O'Shea is listed as being a 'countryman' for the East Essex Hunt in Horse and Hound's gushing report dated 16/12/21. He also, according to the H&H report, occasionally whips in. His wife is a joint master of the East Essex. She is praised for always being in the right place to watch hounds 🤔. Handy, that.


----------



## ycbm (14 June 2022)

Chuffy99 said:



			Paul O’Shea and a 16 yo girl have been charged with various cruelty and hunting a fox with dogs according to the East Anglian Times today
		
Click to expand...

About time!


----------



## Sandstone1 (14 June 2022)

ycbm said:



			About time!
		
Click to expand...

It certainly is about time and lets hope the punishment fits the crime.


----------



## Clodagh (14 June 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			The Essex fox stabber has finally been charged nearly 6 months after the incident

He has been officially named as Paul O'Shea. The minor seen with him in the fox torturing video has also been charged.

https://www.itv.com/news/2022-06-14...l-charged-in-connection-with-cruelty-to-a-fox

Paul O'Shea is listed as being a 'countryman' for the East Essex Hunt in Horse and Hound's gushing report dated 16/12/21. He also, according to the H&H report, occasionally whips in. His wife is a joint master of the East Essex. She is praised for always being in the right place to watch hounds 🤔. Handy, that.

View attachment 94283

Click to expand...

I was just coming on to say he has been charged. I loved hunting but people like this… no words suffice.
I do hear that Mrs O’Shea has stood down as master.


----------



## Clodagh (14 June 2022)

ycbm said:



			How come there has been a prosecution completed for a footballer who kicked a cat and not for a hunt employee(?) who trapped a wild animal and stabbed it with a pitchfork long before?
.
		
Click to expand...

What did the footballer get? I probably did know at the time, blame my age.


----------



## palo1 (14 June 2022)

Clodagh said:



			I was just coming on to say he has been charged. I loved hunting but people like this… no words suffice.
I do hear that Mrs O’Shea has stood down as master.
		
Click to expand...

Quite. I am very relieved he and the minor have been charged.  They should not be allowed anywhere near animals; the video was utterly horrific.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (14 June 2022)

Gary Thorpe is an utter buffoon, this type of scandal being associated with his hunt isnt the least bit surprising.


----------



## Clodagh (23 June 2022)

Any news? Weren’t they due in yesterday?


----------



## Koweyka (23 June 2022)

❌GUILTY❌

Today at Chelmsford Magistrates Paul O'Shea, terrierman for the East Essex Hunt, plead guilty to Animal Welfare Act and Hunting Act charges as a result of covert footage taken by North London Hunt Saboteurs.

Namely that he caused unnecessary suffering to an animal by stabbing it with a pitchfork (Section 4 Animal Welfare Act 2006) and that he unlawfully hunted a fox (Section 1 Hunting Act 2004)

Magistrates deferred sentencing until Monday 1st August pending pre sentence reports.

The chair magistrate warned O'Shea that "you have plead guilty to two serious offences, a custodial sentence is a distinct possibility."

Charges against his under 18 daughter were dropped.


----------



## Tiddlypom (23 June 2022)

^^^^

Koweyka, please edit out the sentence which identifies the minor. Her identity may well be plastered elsewhere all over the internet, but she is a minor and as such she should not be named.

At least Paul O'Shea pleaded guilty. Let's hope for a long custodial sentence.

Are the East Essex Hunt owning up to what was done by one of their employees - who is also the husband of a person who was joint master at the time of the offences and who was lauded in the E.Essex Hunt write up in Horse and Hound magazine which appeared in print shortly after the offences were committed?


----------



## Clodagh (23 June 2022)

I wonder if he will go to jail? I’m glad he pleaded guilty.


----------



## palo1 (23 June 2022)

Clodagh said:



			I wonder if he will go to jail? I’m glad he pleaded guilty.
		
Click to expand...

I hope it never entered either his or his advisors minds to plead anything else!! Not sure about a custodial sentence but he certainly deserves one.  Total lowlife.


----------



## Clodagh (23 June 2022)

palo1 said:



			I hope it never entered either his or his advisors minds to plead anything else!! Not sure about a custodial sentence but he certainly deserves one.  Total lowlife.
		
Click to expand...

I was a bit worried that some loophole would make the filming inadmissible and the defence might try that.
On a damage limitation front for hunting it’s better that he plead guilty and they can move on/ pretend it never happened. 
I’m still sickened by it.


----------



## Sandstone1 (23 June 2022)

I hope he goes down for a long time.  How could he not plead guilty when its there for all to see.  Sad excuse for a human being,


----------



## ycbm (23 June 2022)

Don't hope too hard for a prison sentence,  by pleading guilty at the first opportunity he is entitled to a reduction in sentence of up to 25%, which may well bring this down below custodial.  
.


----------



## palo1 (20 July 2022)

Mark Hankinson has won his appeal against conviction re: Webinars.  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ppeal-against-conviction-encouraging-illegal/


----------



## Tiddlypom (20 July 2022)

He is a very lucky man to be let off on appeal . 

I wonder how the major landowners will play it now?


----------



## Koweyka (20 July 2022)

This outcome makes no difference because damage has already been done. Even seasoned hunters knew exactly what he was talking about doing and agreed he was guilty. 

The things that will be remembered though are “soft underbelly" "smokescreen" "wheeze" “burner phone” 

This is what will be etched in the publics memory of what “hunters” like to talk about  when they think no one is listening. When you take the whole thing into context with Mancroft and Tyacke and Davies who should all be up on charges EVERYONE knows how they plotted to kill foxes and get away with it. 

Hunting is in terminal decline, the webinars highlighted everything hunters didn’t want to be heard and brought  it into the public domain, so get your kicks while you can, the anti movement is stronger than ever, more and more hunts folding every week, more turning to clean boot, the days of killing foxes are numbered…. see you in the fields 👋


----------



## YorksG (20 July 2022)

How interesting to see that some people appear to agree with "the rule of law" and the justice system, when the outcome supports their view, but then claim luck, or an incorrect decision, when the outcome disagrees with them.


----------



## Tiddlypom (20 July 2022)

Oh, he's lucky all right. I was surprised but pleased with the original verdict, which having read through the transcripts and viewed the webinars was indeed the correct one. He's been given the benefit of the doubt on his wording on appeal.

So no one ever thinks that the courts come to the wrong conclusion on occasion?


----------



## ycbm (20 July 2022)

palo1 said:



			Mark Hankinson has won his appeal against conviction re: Webinars.  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ppeal-against-conviction-encouraging-illegal/

Click to expand...

Surprising,  but if he's been found not guilty he's been found not guilty.


I wonder what the appeal made of the advice to have two phones, one for the official organisation of the hunt and a separate one for sharing the fun of the day,  and only give the first one up to the police in the event of a complaint of illegal hunting?  That seems rather less capable of an innocent explanation.  
.


----------



## palo1 (20 July 2022)

YorksG said:



			How interesting to see that some people appear to agree with "the rule of law" and the justice system, when the outcome supports their view, but then claim luck, or an incorrect decision, when the outcome disagrees with them.
		
Click to expand...

Yes.  I wonder too how the big organisations who have suspended trail hunting licences following the webinar conviction will act now;  they are kind of damned whatever they do and I understand that most were advised to hold fire until after the appeal but...

If they reinstate trail hunting licences then they will be the focus for attention from anti-hunt groups which is problematic in democratic but also organisational terms.  If they don't reinstate licences then they will look as if the rule of law doesn't inform their decision making.  I understand the difficulties for public facing organisations but I would hope that those that revoked/refused licences on the basis of the webinar conviction will think again as that basis for their decision has been turned over.

In the Lake District NP for example, where trail hunting licences have not been issued there are no convictions for illegal hunting and no cases in process.  That doesn't seem like a reasonable basis on which to ban a legal activity but I can see that it is complicated.  At the very least I hope National Resource Wales allow the bloodhounds access as they have used NRW land for several years and there is no issue whatsoever with their activities; it was appallingly unfair of NRW to lump them in with trail hunting re: not issuing licences.


----------



## palo1 (20 July 2022)

For anyone not sure about bloodhounds, this is very informative and can be viewed without any anxiety at all


----------



## palo1 (20 July 2022)

ycbm said:



			Surprising,  but if he's been found not guilty he's been found not guilty.


I wonder what the appeal made of the advice to have two phones, one for the official organisation of the hunt and a separate one for sharing the fun of the day,  and only give the first one up to the police in the event of a complaint of illegal hunting?  That seems rather less capable of an innocent explanation. 
.
		
Click to expand...

It obviously wasn't compelling enough to the appeal judge.  I guess that is the whole nature of the law and the right to reply/appeal - evidence has to be compelling.  I don't know if MH will get a refund on his fine though!    In my view the outcome is welcome in justice terms but it isn't necessarily helpful to hunting.  I sincerely hope this hasn't been more trouble than it is worth in that sense although I know many hunting people will be delighted with this outcome.  I know too that this will have been hugely difficult for MH as an individual; this experience will haunt him even when he has been vindicated.   I imagine that some anti hunt groups and individuals will not respond well to the news...LACS have barely covered it tbh.


----------



## Clodagh (20 July 2022)

palo1 said:



			It obviously wasn't compelling enough to the appeal judge.  I guess that is the whole nature of the law and the right to reply/appeal - evidence has to be compelling.  I don't know if MH will get a refund on his fine though!    In my view the outcome is welcome in justice terms but it isn't necessarily helpful to hunting.  I sincerely hope this hasn't been more trouble than it is worth in that sense although I know many hunting people will be delighted with this outcome.  I know too that this will have been hugely difficult for MH as an individual; this experience will haunt him even when he has been vindicated.   I imagine that some anti hunt groups and individuals will not respond well to the news...LACS have barely covered it tbh.
		
Click to expand...

I’m not responding well, he’s an arrogant tosser who wrecked hunting for thousands.


----------



## palo1 (20 July 2022)

Clodagh said:



			I’m not responding well, he’s an arrogant tosser who wrecked hunting for thousands.
		
Click to expand...

I hear you.  I didn't think an appeal was wise in all honesty but at the same time I want to live with a justice system that includes the right to appeal.  I don't have the legal knowledge or training to assert what is or isn't right under our law.   What I think doesn't matter thankfully.  I found it bizarre that MH, would, in the context of the webinars, do what was claimed he did.  BUT that, nor the successful appeal takes away from the need to deal with bad behaviour in hunting.  I suspect that both sides at the extreme end will simply find this to be fuel to their fire when in fact what most hunting people want to do is to accept the need for better governance, discipline, communication that have been highlighted through this; get those things in place and move on.  I I know he came across as arrogant in the way this case was portrayed in the media; I don't think he personally wrecked hunting for thousands - the MFHA have been a team in that respect    I just blooming hope that the new organisation for governance do an infinitely better, more trustworthy and convincing job.


----------



## Clodagh (20 July 2022)

palo1 said:



			I hear you.  I didn't think an appeal was wise in all honesty but at the same time I want to live with a justice system that includes the right to appeal.  I don't have the legal knowledge or training to assert what is or isn't right under our law.   What I think doesn't matter thankfully.  I found it bizarre that MH, would, in the context of the webinars, do what was claimed he did.  BUT that, nor the successful appeal takes away from the need to deal with bad behaviour in hunting.  I suspect that both sides at the extreme end will simply find this to be fuel to their fire when in fact what most hunting people want to do is to accept the need for better governance, discipline, communication that have been highlighted through this; get those things in place and move on.  I I know he came across as arrogant in the way this case was portrayed in the media; I don't think he personally wrecked hunting for thousands - the MFHA have been a team in that respect    I just blooming hope that the new organisation for governance do an infinitely better, more trustworthy and convincing job.
		
Click to expand...

Same people new jackets?


----------



## palo1 (20 July 2022)

Clodagh said:



			Same people new jackets?
		
Click to expand...

They are different people; let us hope they have learnt something from this mess and have the ability to make change happen.  That is wanted and clearly expressed by many hunting people too.


----------



## Tiddlypom (20 July 2022)

The newly appointed Hunting Director of the new single governing body for hunting – the British Hound Sports Association (BHSA) - is very much one of the old guard. He contributed to the MFHA webinars.


----------



## paddy555 (20 July 2022)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...nviction-encouraging-illegal-fox-hunting.html


----------



## Tiddlypom (21 July 2022)

As above, the National Trust are not changing their stance on trail hunting following the results of the appeal. 
_
"A National Trust spokesman said: “There were many contributing factors in our decision to no longer issue trail hunting activities on National Trust land, including the appropriate use of charitable funds, the risk of reputational harm to the Trust and the result of the recent members’ resolution vote on this matter at our October 2021 annual general meeting.

“We will not be reviewing our position on trail hunting as a result of this appeal.”_


----------



## sakura (21 July 2022)

No one who cares about their reputation is going to reverse their decision on banning trail hunting on their land - public opinion is very clear and the days of hunting are numbered.


----------



## Fellewell (21 July 2022)

Reputation? Or a desire to no longer be deluged with death threats, property damage, livelihoods destroyed and civil unrest in the countryside by a nameless , shameless group of balaclava-clad terrorists.
Arguably not one fox has been saved as a result of all their action. If a fox is a problem it will still be culled.
Traditionally land owners never had a problem with the hunts, they were invited and welcomed until the sabs turned up (clues in the name) sabs forced the ban but not content with that they set about further disruption and chaos and prevented hunts who were observing the law from functioning at all. It's a war they couldn't lose but it gained absolutely nothing for the fox.
I know this argument has been done every which way but lets not pretend there's something noble going on here re: the licences. This is about having millions in reserve and hanging on to it.


----------



## Miss_Millie (21 July 2022)

Fellewell said:



			Reputation? Or a desire to no longer be deluged with death threats, property damage, livelihoods destroyed and civil unrest in the countryside by a nameless , shameless group of balaclava-clad terrorists.
Arguably not one fox has been saved as a result of all their action. If a fox is a problem it will still be culled.
*Traditionally land owners never had a problem with the hunts*, they were invited and welcomed until the sabs turned up (clues in the name) sabs forced the ban but not content with that they set about further disruption and chaos and prevented hunts who were observing the law from functioning at all. It's a war they couldn't lose but it gained absolutely nothing for the fox.
I know this argument has been done every which way but lets not pretend there's something noble going on here re: the licences. This is about having millions in reserve and hanging on to it.
		
Click to expand...

That isn't true, you only have to go on farming forums to see how anti-hunt many farmers are. Trespass, crops damaged and livestock killed are commonly cited grievances. One such comment on TFF:

'*Banned this year on most of mine, totally fed up with there arrogant ways, cutting wire, blocking drains then not unblocking, trampling ditches in because they can't jump and don't get me going about the followers ******* should of done it years ago......'*


----------



## ycbm (21 July 2022)

.


Fellewell said:



			Traditionally land owners never had a problem with the hunts, they were invited and welcomed until the sabs turned up
		
Click to expand...


Absolutely untrue.  I have met many farmers over the years who disagree with hunting fox with hounds followed by horses and several who have banned them from their land if they were lucky enough not to be tenants. 
.


----------



## Koweyka (21 July 2022)

“Arguably not one fox has been saved as a result of all their action.”

I would beg to completely differ on this point, I know for a fact many foxes/hares/otters are still alive because of the actions of monitors and sabs stopping the illegal actions of many hunts over the country.

Last season we witnessed more landowners than ever taking the hunt to task and throwing the hunt off their land that they were trespassing on. 

I wonder if the Drewitts are rightly convicted under Section 1 and 3 of the hunting act, that more landowners will see its just not worth the risk having wildlife criminals marauding across their land destroying foxes and fields alike.


----------



## palo1 (22 July 2022)

Koweyka said:



			“Arguably not one fox has been saved as a result of all their action.”

I would beg to completely differ on this point, I know for a fact many foxes/hares/otters are still alive because of the actions of monitors and sabs stopping the illegal actions of many hunts over the country.

Last season we witnessed more landowners than ever taking the hunt to task and throwing the hunt off their land that they were trespassing on.

I wonder if the Drewitts are rightly convicted under Section 1 and 3 of the hunting act, that more landowners will see its just not worth the risk having wildlife criminals marauding across their land destroying foxes and fields alike.
		
Click to expand...

But you forget that many farmers also hate and deeply resent the attitudes and actions of sabs and where they are under pressure will choose to support local hunts (who include their neighbours and friends) rather than angry, anonymous gangs accessing their land as they please.  The vast majority of farmers, like horseowners do not post on public forums/social media so their attitudes cannot be guessed at.  Both sides of the debate represented here know of farmers that support or resent hunting.  

Sabs assert that they have 'saved' individual foxes (from???) yet anti-hunting actions have done nothing for fox population health at all.  Anti hunting has done nothing FOR the countryside, nothing for the improvement of fox habitats, nothing for the health of rivers, moorlands, nothing for the ground nesting birds that face really significant risks from fox predation, nothing to prevent foxes from being killed in huge numbers by guns.  

It suggests at least, that anti-hunters recognise that foxes need controlling and are happy to see a huge number being shot.  For many people (including myself)  the number of foxes being shot all year round, including pregnant and nursing vixens, is excessive, to say nothing of any welfare issues arising.  Yet I understand that farmers and landowners do not want foxes and other people enjoy the sport of shooting them day and night, spring, summer, autumn and winter.   Hunting foxes with hounds would not be an answer of course but anti-hunting groups do NOTHING to prevent the killing of foxes (as vermin) in large numbers.  How is that 'saving' foxes?


----------



## Koweyka (22 July 2022)

palo1 said:



			But you forget that many farmers also hate and deeply resent the attitudes and actions of sabs and where they are under pressure will choose to support local hunts (who include their neighbours and friends) rather than angry, anonymous gangs accessing their land as they please.  The vast majority of farmers, like horseowners do not post on public forums/social media so their attitudes cannot be guessed at.  Both sides of the debate represented here know of farmers that support or resent hunting.

Sabs assert that they have 'saved' individual foxes (from???) yet anti-hunting actions have done nothing for fox population health at all.  Anti hunting has done nothing FOR the countryside, nothing for the improvement of fox habitats, nothing for the health of rivers, moorlands, nothing for the ground nesting birds that face really significant risks from fox predation, nothing to prevent foxes from being killed in huge numbers by guns.

It suggests at least, that anti-hunters recognise that foxes need controlling and are happy to see a huge number being shot.  For many people (including myself)  the number of foxes being shot all year round, including pregnant and nursing vixens, is excessive, to say nothing of any welfare issues arising.  Yet I understand that farmers and landowners do not want foxes and other people enjoy the sport of shooting them day and night, spring, summer, autumn and winter.   Hunting foxes with hounds would not be an answer of course but anti-hunting groups do NOTHING to prevent the killing of foxes (as vermin) in large numbers.  How is that 'saving' foxes?[/QUOTE

For the love of god please stop with this diatribe again. This assertion that monitors and Sabs run around causing chaos is just getting tired now …. If that was the case why aren’t there masses of Sabs being charged and hauled into court week after week ? If that were the case there would be dispersal orders permanently in place at every hunt. The only defence you can ever drag up is by casting shade on your opposition, yet the amount of charges and convictions against hunts is increasing rapidly. What is even more heartening is the amount of prosecutions that the police have filmed themselves of illegal hunting. 

What has hunting done for the countryside ? Seriously ….improving fox habitats are you referring to artificial earths so they have somewhere nice to live ? Where they have food delivered by the nice people who then either put them in bags or stab them with pitchforks ?

Anti hunt think fox numbers need controlling, where do you get this nonsense. The amount of foxes being killed by cars or shot by trigger happy individuals is abhorrent. I suggest you get yourself on some of these supposedly secret forums where the real scum of society hang around and post pictures of what they do to wildlife and I can tell you many of them have hunt connections. Though your words seem to suggest that we should be out stopping these sort of people just not the ones that ride horses with a pack of hounds that also kill foxes ….

Again your assertion that “anti hunt people” do nothing for foxes (yet the clue is in the name for the main purpose of what they do) is based on what exactly? You have absolutely no idea what any sab and monitor does for conservation.

I am not going around in this perpetual circle with you again Palo, it serves no purpose at all. The seismic change has happened and hunting is on its knees and nothing will change that now.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## ycbm (22 July 2022)

Edited for you K. (This is easy,  it doesn't need admin, just a copy and replace the square bracket you edited off by mistake.)




			
				Palo said:
			
		


			But you forget that many farmers also hate and deeply resent the attitudes and actions of sabs and where they are under pressure will choose to support local hunts (who include their neighbours and friends) rather than angry, anonymous gangs accessing their land as they please. The vast majority of farmers, like horseowners do not post on public forums/social media so their attitudes cannot be guessed at. Both sides of the debate represented here know of farmers that support or resent hunting.

Sabs assert that they have 'saved' individual foxes (from???) yet anti-hunting actions have done nothing for fox population health at all. Anti hunting has done nothing FOR the countryside, nothing for the improvement of fox habitats, nothing for the health of rivers, moorlands, nothing for the ground nesting birds that face really significant risks from fox predation, nothing to prevent foxes from being killed in huge numbers by guns.

It suggests at least, that anti-hunters recognise that foxes need controlling and are happy to see a huge number being shot. For many people (including myself) the number of foxes being shot all year round, including pregnant and nursing vixens, is excessive, to say nothing of any welfare issues arising. Yet I understand that farmers and landowners do not want foxes and other people enjoy the sport of shooting them day and night, spring, summer, autumn and winter. Hunting foxes with hounds would not be an answer of course but anti-hunting groups do NOTHING to prevent the killing of foxes (as vermin) in large numbers. How is that 'saving' foxes?
		
Click to expand...

For the love of god please stop with this diatribe again. This assertion that monitors and Sabs run around causing chaos is just getting tired now …. If that was the case why aren’t there masses of Sabs being charged and hauled into court week after week ? If that were the case there would be dispersal orders permanently in place at every hunt. The only defence you can ever drag up is by casting shade on your opposition, yet the amount of charges and convictions against hunts is increasing rapidly. What is even more heartening is the amount of prosecutions that the police have filmed themselves of illegal hunting.

What has hunting done for the countryside ? Seriously ….improving fox habitats are you referring to artificial earths so they have somewhere nice to live ? Where they have food delivered by the nice people who then either put them in bags or stab them with pitchforks ?

Anti hunt think fox numbers need controlling, where do you get this nonsense. The amount of foxes being killed by cars or shot by trigger happy individuals is abhorrent. I suggest you get yourself on some of these supposedly secret forums where the real scum of society hang around and post pictures of what they do to wildlife and I can tell you many of them have hunt connections. Though your words seem to suggest that we should be out stopping these sort of people just not the ones that ride horses with a pack of hounds that also kill foxes ….

Again your assertion that “anti hunt people” do nothing for foxes (yet the clue is in the name for the main purpose of what they do) is based on what exactly? You have absolutely no idea what any sab and monitor does for conservation.

I am not going around in this perpetual circle with you again Palo, it serves no purpose at all. The seismic change has happened and hunting is on its knees and nothing will change that now.



This post is Koweykas, not mine.


----------



## ycbm (22 July 2022)

ycbm said:



			…. If that was the case why aren’t there masses of Sabs being charged and hauled into court week after week ?
		
Click to expand...


This is Palo's  argument as to why there are so few hunting prosecutions and I don't accept it for sabs either.  There is definitely illegal harassment going on,  and probably criminal damage.

But both crimes,  like many others,  are very difficult to prove well enough to get into court.   And I hope if people continue to insist that illegal hunting can't be happening because there aren't any prosecutions,  they realise that the same argument applies to sabbing.
.


----------



## Sandstone1 (22 July 2022)

Hunts get can get themselves in to enough trouble without the help of sabs, webinars giving advice how to get away with illegal hunting, foxes being stabbed with pitchfolks, hounds being shot, sabs being ran over with horses, and off course still actively hunting foxes when ever they think they can get away with.   How is that the sabs fault.


----------



## palo1 (22 July 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Hunts get can get themselves in to enough trouble without the help of sabs, webinars giving advice how to get away with illegal hunting, foxes being stabbed with pitchfolks, hounds being shot, sabs being ran over with horses, and off course still actively hunting foxes when ever they think they can get away with.   How is that the sabs fault.
		
Click to expand...

I was not remotely condoning appallling behaviour (on either side) - I was directly addressing the notion of the anti-hunt movement 'saving foxes' and landowners not welcoming trail hunting.   @Koweyka has asked me to stop with 'this diatribe' but wants a space to put forward their own ideas? That isn't 'debate'.   It is pointless arguing about this as positions are so entrenched but I believe in challenging ideas and opinions that I think are wrong, is all.  

Koweyka said 'I suggest you get yourself on some of these supposedly secret forums where the real scum of society hang around and post pictures of what they do to wildlife and I can tell you many of them have hunt connections.'  

As a reply to that I would point out that many sabs and sab groups have some equally disturbing connections; sadly humans can be utterly grim in many ways but I would hope that neither pro nor anti hunters would see those vile associates as representative of their particular standpoint.  I do not want to use this post to identify particularly worrying individuals as a riposte to Koweyak - that just isn't helpful and will only result in even more pointless insult-sharing.


----------



## palo1 (22 July 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Hunts get can get themselves in to enough trouble without the help of sabs, webinars giving advice how to get away with illegal hunting, foxes being stabbed with pitchfolks, hounds being shot, sabs being ran over with horses, and off course still actively hunting foxes when ever they think they can get away with.   How is that the sabs fault.
		
Click to expand...

Well I know this will irritate you but the appeal court judge decided that the only convicted webinar participant was not, in fact, guilty of 'giving advice how to get away with illegal hunting'.


----------



## Mrs_P (22 July 2022)

Wow first of all this thread is just..... epic 😳 taken me a while to read through all this but would like to contribute my opinion for what it may be worth. 

I hunt with the local bloodhounds and have also hunted with two local trail hunting packs. I have not witnessed any illegal hunting with either of the packs I have hunted with. 

I think sabs and illegal hunts are as bad as each other to be honest. I have seen hunts causing chaos by trespassing, upsetting livestock, blocking roads, one pack fairly local to us and not one I choose to ride with, are renowned for it and hated by many a local landowner.

Equally I have witnessed some appalling behaviour from sabs again trespassing, upsetting livestock, and local people. Our yard owner had a very upsetting encounter with a group on her land last season who took it upon themselves to go running across a field of heavily pregnant ewes in pursuit of the hunt who were hunting through a neighbouring farm.

When asked to leave by our (elderly and female) yard owner she was called "a pro-hunt sl@g" along with every name they could think of by a group of mostly male masked strangers.

It seems to me that both are as bad as each other and I personally hold little respect for either.


----------



## palo1 (22 July 2022)

Mrs_P said:



			Wow first of all this thread is just..... epic 😳 taken me a while to read through all this but would like to contribute my opinion for what it may be worth.

I hunt with the local bloodhounds and have also hunted with two local trail hunting packs. I have not witnessed any illegal hunting with either of the packs I have hunted with.

I think sabs and illegal hunts are as bad as each other to be honest. I have seen hunts causing chaos by trespassing, upsetting livestock, blocking roads, one pack fairly local to us and not one I choose to ride with, are renowned for it and hated by many a local landowner.

Equally I have witnessed some appalling behaviour from sabs again trespassing, upsetting livestock, and local people. Our yard owner had a very upsetting encounter with a group on her land last season who took it upon themselves to go running across a field of heavily pregnant ewes in pursuit of the hunt who were hunting through a neighbouring farm.

When asked to leave by our (elderly and female) yard owner she was called "a pro-hunt sl@g" along with every name they could think of by a group of mostly male masked strangers.

It seems to me that both are as bad as each other and I personally hold little respect for either.
		
Click to expand...

I am really glad to hear neither your bloodhound or trail hound pack are badly behaved!  That is my experience also.  This thread, like others on the issue of hunting is, indeed 'epic'! . There are very strong opinions voiced here but generally reasonably civilised lol.


----------



## sakura (22 July 2022)

Fellewell said:



			Reputation? Or a desire to no longer be deluged with death threats, property damage, livelihoods destroyed and civil unrest in the countryside by a nameless , shameless group of balaclava-clad terrorists.
Arguably not one fox has been saved as a result of all their action. If a fox is a problem it will still be culled.
Traditionally land owners never had a problem with the hunts, they were invited and welcomed until the sabs turned up (clues in the name) sabs forced the ban but not content with that they set about further disruption and chaos and prevented hunts who were observing the law from functioning at all. It's a war they couldn't lose but it gained absolutely nothing for the fox.
I know this argument has been done every which way but lets not pretend there's something noble going on here re: the licences. This is about having millions in reserve and hanging on to it.
		
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the age old argument of blaming sabs for all of hunting's problems.

Or perhaps, it could be that the general, voting, public simply do not like to see foxes chased and ripped apart? I don't know, maybe we'll never know ... 

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/issue/Fox_hunting


----------



## palo1 (22 July 2022)

Indiangel said:



			Ah yes, the age old argument of blaming sabs for all of hunting's problems.

Or perhaps, it could be that the general, voting, public simply do not like to see foxes chased and ripped apart? I don't know, maybe we'll never know ...

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/issue/Fox_hunting

Click to expand...

I don't think'... the general, voting, public (or even most hunting folk) got to 'see foxes chased and ripped apart' even back when fox hunting was legal.  Foxes were rarely seen in close proximity to hounds and many people who followed a hunt never saw a kill.   

The poll you link to is over 7 years old and who knows how that was communicated to people to participate in but I agree that most people, for a variety of reasons, do not want the hunting ban overturned.


----------



## sakura (22 July 2022)

palo1 said:



			I don't think'... the general, voting, public (or even most hunting folk) got to 'see foxes chased and ripped apart' even back when fox hunting was legal.  Foxes were rarely seen in close proximity to hounds and many people who followed a hunt never saw a kill.  

The poll you link to is over 7 years old and who knows how that was communicated to people to participate in but I agree that most people, for a variety of reasons, do not want the hunting ban overturned.
		
Click to expand...

The poll I linked has data from August 2019 to May 2022. It's from Yougov, so the poll would have been presented as all their other polls are. 

I recommend you ask the general public what their opinion on fox hunting is - I'm confident that most would describe a similar opinion to the one I have. My opinion of hunting is foxes being ripped apart - because we know that is what happened whether people saw it for themselves or not.


----------



## sakura (22 July 2022)

It certainly is not just sabs who are the reason fox hunting was banned. We live in a democracy and the vast majority supported, and continue to support, the ban:


----------



## Tiddlypom (22 July 2022)

palo1 said:



			But you forget that many farmers also hate and deeply resent the attitudes and actions of sabs and where they are under pressure will choose to support local hunts (who include their neighbours and friends) rather than angry, anonymous gangs accessing their land as they please.
		
Click to expand...

Farmers (except some tenant farmers) and landowners do exert a lot of clout over who accesses their land.

It was the clout of the big local sporting estate near me, with many tenanted farms of which it is a condition of the tenancy that the hunt is allowed on the land, that forced my local pack to stop illegal hunting and to switch to trail. The big sporting estate got fed up of all the bad publicity that it was attracting and gave the hunt an ultimatum - go legit or you are banned from all our land.

We've had a few seasons of blissful peace since then. But the masters have had a complete brain f@rt and have appointed for this season a new huntsman with a distinctly chequered past which will be like a red rag to a bull to the antis who have largely been leaving local pack alone recently.

Not looking forward to the new season here at all.


----------



## Koweyka (22 July 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Farmers (except some tenant farmers) and landowners do exert a lot of clout over who accesses their land.

It was the clout of the big local sporting estate near me, with many tenanted farms of which it is a condition of the tenancy that the hunt is allowed on the land, that forced my local pack to stop illegal hunting and to switch to trail. The big sporting estate got fed up of all the bad publicity that it was attracting and gave the hunt an ultimatum - go legit or you are banned from all our land.

We've had a few seasons of blissful peace since then. But the masters have had a complete brain f@rt and have appointed for this season a new huntsman with a distinctly chequered past which will be like a red rag to a bull to the antis who have largely been leaving local pack alone recently.

Not looking forward to the new season here at all.
		
Click to expand...

A brain f@rt is an understatement and he has already been over heard “mocking” any suggestion of trailing. I don’t envy you either unfortunately.


----------



## ycbm (22 July 2022)

palo1 said:



			Foxes were rarely seen in close proximity to hounds and many people who followed a hunt never saw a kill.
		
Click to expand...

"Rarely" is,  I think, not correct as I have seen hounds in close proximity to fox several times, depending on what you call "close".   It is true,  though,  that hunt followers do not generally see foxes ripped apart.  Unless they have been dug out and thrown to the hounds when the field has caught up during the digging out,  the field, ime, don't follow close enough to get a good sight of the kill. They are behind the field master who usually keeps them some way behind the huntsman so as not to interfere with or endanger hounds while following a scent. 
.


----------



## paddy555 (22 July 2022)

palo1 said:



			But you forget that many farmers also hate and deeply resent the attitudes and actions of sabs and where they are under pressure will choose to support local hunts (who include their neighbours and friends) rather than angry, anonymous gangs accessing their land as they please.  The vast majority of farmers, like horseowners do not post on public forums/social media so their attitudes cannot be guessed at.  Both sides of the debate represented here know of farmers that support or resent hunting.
		
Click to expand...

its not an either or situation. Some would just prefer nothing, no hunt, no sabs. Those who are tenant farmers don't have a choice and have to put up with it.


----------



## millikins (22 July 2022)

It concerns me that if Koweyka is genuinely representative of sabs then these self appointed guardians of wildlife think they have "saved" any otters from hunts. Otters have been a protected species with no hunting since 1978, any otter packs changed to hunting mink and nowadays otter hounds are the UK's rarest dog breed.


----------



## Clodagh (22 July 2022)

millikins said:



			It concerns me that if Koweyka is genuinely representative of sabs then these self appointed guardians of wildlife think they have "saved" any otters from hunts. Otters have been a protected species with no hunting since 1978, any otter packs changed to hunting mink and nowadays otter hounds are the UK's rarest dog breed.
		
Click to expand...

And it was a voluntary decision by the otter hounds to stop hunting them.


----------



## suestowford (22 July 2022)

I have lived in hunting country for 25 years and have only once seen the quarry animal in distress.
It did upset me, the stag was drenched in sweat and gasping for breath. God knows how far he'd come.

However, I have come across hunt followers many times and I'm afraid they come across as rude & self-entitled. Particularly those who follow in cars/on quads. I'd suggest that could be a big part of the dislike towards hunting in general, as well as animal welfare concerns.


----------



## Koweyka (22 July 2022)

millikins said:



			It concerns me that if Koweyka is genuinely representative of sabs then these self appointed guardians of wildlife think they have "saved" any otters from hunts. Otters have been a protected species with no hunting since 1978, any otter packs changed to hunting mink and nowadays otter hounds are the UK's rarest dog breed.
		
Click to expand...

Badgers are also a protected species but it doesn’t stop the “soft underbelly” filling them in and/or digging them out in pursuit of a fox and for the record hunting mink whether native or not is also an offence under the 2004 hunting act, but thank you for admitting to yet more illegality carried out by hunts …. I think that should be far more concerning for everyone ….


----------



## millikins (22 July 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Badgers are also a protected species but it doesn’t stop the “soft underbelly” filling them in and/or digging them out in pursuit of a fox and for the record hunting mink whether native or not is also an offence under the 2004 hunting act, but thank you for admitting to yet more illegality carried out by hunts …. I think that should be far more concerning for everyone ….
		
Click to expand...

So you also believe mink are a native species?


----------



## YorksG (22 July 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Badgers are also a protected species but it doesn’t stop the “soft underbelly” filling them in and/or digging them out in pursuit of a fox and for the record hunting mink whether native or not is also an offence under the 2004 hunting act, but thank you for admitting to yet more illegality carried out by hunts …. I think that should be far more concerning for everyone ….
		
Click to expand...

Your inability to read and comprehend, appears to have left you down, in this instance. Otter hunting stopped in the 1970s, when the hunts changed to mink, some considerable time before the hunting act!
And as an aside, mink, which are not a native animal, were released locally, by the ALF and caused utter devastation to local wildlife, including water rats.


----------



## tallyho! (22 July 2022)

It’s just completely and utterly not of this time, anymore. It’s all finished. Everything, the tweed, the silver, the wood, the velvet, the leather, the blood… there is another way, preserve the country. Many are willing to change please listen.


----------



## Koweyka (22 July 2022)

YorksG said:



			Your inability to read and comprehend, appears to have left you down, in this instance. Otter hunting stopped in the 1970s, when the hunts changed to mink, some considerable time before the hunting act!
And as an aside, mink, which are not a native animal, were released locally, by the ALF and caused utter devastation to local wildlife, including water rats.
		
Click to expand...

Mink were breeding in the wild in the 1950’s after escaping from fur farms, before any deliberate releases.


----------



## Koweyka (22 July 2022)

YorksG said:



			Your inability to read and comprehend, appears to have left you down, in this instance. Otter hunting stopped in the 1970s, when the hunts changed to mink, some considerable time before the hunting act!
And as an aside, mink, which are not a native animal, were released locally, by the ALF and caused utter devastation to local wildlife, including water rats.
		
Click to expand...

Again mink hunting with hounds is illegal under the hunting act.


----------



## Koweyka (22 July 2022)

millikins said:



			So you also believe mink are a native species?
		
Click to expand...

Errrrr no


----------



## YorksG (22 July 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Again mink hunting with hounds is illegal under the hunting act.
		
Click to expand...

Quite, no one had said that mink are currently hunted, that was rather my point about you not reading and comprehending


----------



## YorksG (22 July 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Mink were breeding in the wild in the 1950’s after escaping from fur farms, before any deliberate releases.
		
Click to expand...

Not in the huge numbers which flooded our local area. I was speaking to one of the ALF terrorists about this, in about 2010, that person had no idea of the impact of the releases, nor had they heard of the large number of mink run over on local roads at the time.


----------



## littleshetland (22 July 2022)

tallyho! said:



			It’s just completely and utterly not of this time, anymore. It’s all finished. Everything, the tweed, the silver, the wood, the velvet, the leather, the blood… there is another way, preserve the country. Many are willing to change please listen.
		
Click to expand...

This ^^^     To a lot of antis', fox hunting is every bit as abhorrent, vile and medieval as Bull fighting.  I cannot believe sometimes that people still do this s*** in the 21st century.


----------



## Koweyka (22 July 2022)

YorksG said:



			Quite, no one had said that mink are currently hunted, that was rather my point about you not reading and comprehending
		
Click to expand...

Pot Kettle Black Yorkie 

‘“Otters have been a protected species with no hunting since 1978, any otter packs changed to hunting mink and nowadays otter hounds are the UK's rarest dog breed.” posted by Milikins just a few posts up and the comment I was replying too.


----------



## YorksG (22 July 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Pot Kettle Black Yorkie

‘“Otters have been a protected species with no hunting since 1978, any otter packs changed to hunting mink and nowadays otter hounds are the UK's rarest dog breed.” posted by Milikins just a few posts up and the comment I was replying too.
		
Click to expand...

Please can you explain how you interpreted that as saying that mink are currently hunted?


----------



## millikins (22 July 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Pot Kettle Black Yorkie

‘“Otters have been a protected species with no hunting since 1978, any otter packs changed to hunting mink and nowadays otter hounds are the UK's rarest dog breed.” posted by Milikins just a few posts up and the comment I was replying too.
		
Click to expand...

Pre hunting ban, which consigned millions of our native fauna to be mink dinner. But hey ho, mink are cute and fluffy.


----------



## Koweyka (22 July 2022)

YorksG said:



			Please can you explain how you interpreted that as saying that mink are currently hunted?
		
Click to expand...

Well the “changed to hunting mink” is a bit of a giveaway and I have seen it with my own eyes as recently as June this year, why do you think the mink hunters either don’t unload the hounds or pack up as soon as they see an anti ? Because they know full well they are breaking the law and they have no plausible excuse. You are very naive if you believe mink hunting isn’t happening.


----------



## millikins (22 July 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Well the “changed to hunting mink” is a bit of a giveaway and I have seen it with my own eyes as recently as June this year, why do you think the mink hunters either don’t unload the hounds or pack up as soon as they see an anti ? Because they know full well they are breaking the law and they have no plausible excuse. You are very naive if you believe mink hunting isn’t happening.
		
Click to expand...

So take your evidence to court.


----------



## Koweyka (22 July 2022)

millikins said:



			So take your evidence to court.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tip …..


----------



## YorksG (22 July 2022)

The change to hunting mink was in the 1970s, as milikins said. You rather failed to explain that what you were alluding to was not in fact the post you quoted, but other information which you claim to have. Our local otterhounds disbanded at the time of the hunting act, having changed from hunting otter in the 70s, to hunting illegally released mink.


----------



## Koweyka (22 July 2022)

YorksG said:



			The change to hunting mink was in the 1970s, as milikins said. You rather failed to explain that what you were alluding to was not in fact the post you quoted, but other information which you claim to have. Our local otterhounds disbanded at the time of the hunting act, having changed from hunting otter in the 70s, to hunting illegally released mink.
		
Click to expand...

I replied to Milikins about Otter packs hunting mink and pointed out that otters are protected species, I pointed out that badgers are protected species but it doesn’t stop hunts targeting badgers/setts by digging out setts to get a fox, same with otters,  hunts do not care if an animal is protected or not as long as they get to carry on hunting. 

Can you explain why packs of hounds and men with spades are wading through rivers/streams in areas known to contain mink and otter ? Why they are digging burrows out ? Digging for buried treasure maybe ? Or are they hunting illegally for mink ? Regardless of your feelings around mink it is illegal to hunt them with dogs.


----------



## YorksG (22 July 2022)

Koweyka said:



			I replied to Milikins about Otter packs hunting mink and pointed out that otters are protected species, I pointed out that badgers are protected species but it doesn’t stop hunts targeting badgers/setts by digging out setts to get a fox, same with otters,  hunts do not care if an animal is protected or not as long as they get to carry on hunting.

Can you explain why packs of hounds and men with spades are wading through rivers/streams in areas known to contain mink and otter ? Why they are digging burrows out ? Digging for buried treasure maybe ? Or are they hunting illegally for mink ? Regardless of your feelings around mink it is illegal to hunt them with dogs.
		
Click to expand...

I have no knowledge of these activities and I suggest that if you have, that you report your suspicions to the police in that area.


----------



## Koweyka (22 July 2022)

YorksG said:



			I have no knowledge of these activities and I suggest that if you have, that you report your suspicions to the police in that area.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice.


----------



## Fellewell (23 July 2022)

Miss_Millie said:



			That isn't true, you only have to go on farming forums to see how anti-hunt many farmers are. Trespass, crops damaged and livestock killed are commonly cited grievances. One such comment on TFF:

'*Banned this year on most of mine, totally fed up with there arrogant ways, cutting wire, blocking drains then not unblocking, trampling ditches in because they can't jump and don't get me going about the followers ******* should of done it years ago......'*

Click to expand...

It is true and when I say traditionally I'm referring to way before the ban in what some would term the golden age (_lights touch paper) _but farmers still ride to hounds and thankfully landowners still host meets. However for the reasons stated above publishing details and 'with kind permission of' are no longer advisable.


----------



## Fellewell (23 July 2022)

Indiangel said:



			The poll I linked has data from August 2019 to May 2022. It's from Yougov, so the poll would have been presented as all their other polls are.

I recommend you ask the general public what their opinion on fox hunting is - I'm confident that most would describe a similar opinion to the one I have. My opinion of hunting is foxes being ripped apart - because we know that is what happened whether people saw it for themselves or not.
		
Click to expand...

What people generally saw was a grainy picture of a fox which had been flushed and shot and was being dismembered by hounds. It was already dead.
I think the general public have been bombarded with so much anti-hunt rhetoric that it has become absorbed into the nations consciousness. Social media is awash with unsubstantiated, anecdotal 'evidence' of hunting's 'wrongdoings' and people are primed and ready to be fed a constant diet of anti-hunt propaganda. People who live and work in the countryside don't have the luxury of being on line all day like these media-savvy antis. When the weather turns apocalyptic and people are advised to stay indoors that just doesn't apply to people with livestock and land to manage so arguing with hunt protestors is pretty low on their list of priorities.


----------



## Sandstone1 (23 July 2022)

Well I live in the countryside.  Born and bred.   Have horses ride and I am a reasonably sensible person.   I am very anti hunting.  I did go hunting years ago and decided it was not for me.
I can list the reasons I am anti hunting.
Animal welfare.
If a fox is a problem shoot it and dont chase it for miles in the name of sport.
Welfare of the hounds and horses involved.
distress caused to pets and livestock and horses.
Social issues.
Followers cause problems with parking
Hunts damage land and fencing and distress livestock
Hunts block roads
Hunts have killed peoples pets
Hunts trespass on railway lines and land they are not allowed on
Also lets not forget. IT IS NO LONGER LEGAL


----------



## sakura (23 July 2022)

Fellewell said:



			What people generally saw was a grainy picture of a fox which had been flushed and shot and was being dismembered by hounds. It was already dead.
I think the general public have been bombarded with so much anti-hunt rhetoric that it has become absorbed into the nations consciousness. Social media is awash with unsubstantiated, anecdotal 'evidence' of hunting's 'wrongdoings' and people are primed and ready to be fed a constant diet of anti-hunt propaganda. People who live and work in the countryside don't have the luxury of being on line all day like these media-savvy antis. When the weather turns apocalyptic and people are advised to stay indoors that just doesn't apply to people with livestock and land to manage so arguing with hunt protestors is pretty low on their list of priorities.
		
Click to expand...

I live and work in the countryside. It is not “anti hunt propaganda” to dislike the hunt and their actions. However, the attitude of “I am more country than you because I hunt” does make me dislike hunting even more.


----------



## littleshetland (23 July 2022)

Fellewell said:



			What people generally saw was a grainy picture of a fox which had been flushed and shot and was being dismembered by hounds. It was already dead.
I think the general public have been bombarded with so much anti-hunt rhetoric that it has become absorbed into the nations consciousness. Social media is awash with unsubstantiated, anecdotal 'evidence' of hunting's 'wrongdoings' and people are primed and ready to be fed a constant diet of anti-hunt propaganda. People who live and work in the countryside don't have the luxury of being on line all day like these media-savvy antis. When the weather turns apocalyptic and people are advised to stay indoors that just doesn't apply to people with livestock and land to manage so arguing with hunt protestors is pretty low on their list of priorities.
		
Click to expand...

Aaah yes, Ive heard this argument before.  It goes something like..."We're much to busy being rural and looking after our livestock and 'protecting' and 'caring' for the countryside  and all the wildlife in it to be on social media....."  Well I'm sorry, but there are legions of people born and bred in the countryside who live and work in it every day who are very opposed to hunting.


----------



## Fred66 (23 July 2022)

This all anecdotal tales with nothing to substantiate. If the farming community hates hunting as much as you profess then all forms of it would have died out years ago. We can only hunt through the goodwill and support of the local farmers.


----------



## Tiddlypom (23 July 2022)

Fred66 said:



			We can only hunt through the goodwill and support of the local farmers.
		
Click to expand...

Many farmers are tenants and have to allow the hunt on their land, like it or not, if their landlords insist on it as they do herabouts.


----------



## palo1 (23 July 2022)

The media have now reported that the police never spoke to Mark Hankinson, about his alleged crime - he was convicted without even a police interview.  How is that possible? I am not sure what the legal process should be but that sounds utterly bizarre - yet that is what the press are saying.


----------



## palo1 (23 July 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Many farmers are tenants and have to allow the hunt on their land, like it or not, if their landlords insist on it as they do herabouts.
		
Click to expand...

Well if the landowner wants certain activity on his land that is his prerogative surely?  I understand that agricultural tenants don't find it easy to find alternative properties to rent but the agreement to have trail hunting on the land would be in the contract.  It is possible to negotiate at that point.


----------



## Tiddlypom (23 July 2022)

Where is that reported, Palo?


----------



## ycbm (23 July 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Many farmers are tenants and have to allow the hunt on their land, like it or not, if their landlords insist on it as they do herabouts.
		
Click to expand...


It's also often a qualified approval on economic grounds as the hunts "buy" permission by offering a cheap rate fallen stock service. 

A bit like someone approving of a wind farm if offered 10% off their energy bills to allow one to be built nearby.  
.


----------



## ycbm (23 July 2022)

palo1 said:



			The media have now reported that the police never spoke to Mark Hankinson, about his alleged crime - he was convicted without even a police interview.  How is that possible? I am not sure what the legal process should be but that sounds utterly bizarre - yet that is what the press are saying.
		
Click to expand...

It was a private prosecution by LACS, wasn't it?  Many/most animal cruelty prosecutions are done the same way by the RSPCA.  Our system allows for anyone to prosecute a crime if they have the funds/skills  to do so.


----------



## ycbm (23 July 2022)

Fred66 said:



			This all anecdotal tales with nothing to substantiate. If the farming community hates hunting as much as you profess then all forms of it would have died out years ago. We can only hunt through the goodwill and support of the local farmers.
		
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying the whole farming community hates hunting.  All people are saying is that it's not true that the whole farming community welcomes hunting.  I doesn't.
.


----------



## Tiddlypom (23 July 2022)

palo1 said:



			Well if the landowner wants certain activity on his land that is his prerogative surely?  I understand that agricultural tenants don't find it easy to find alternative properties to rent but the agreement to have trail hunting on the land would be in the contract.  It is possible to negotiate at that point.
		
Click to expand...

Of course its the landowner's perogative, but don't assume that tenant farmers actually welcomes the hunt crossing their land, especially if they are not treated with due courtesy by the hunt and followers. There has been far too much of a sense of entitlement to treat the country as a playground until, as I posted upthread, the landowner themselves revolted.


----------



## palo1 (23 July 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Where is that reported, Palo?
		
Click to expand...

In the Telegraph newspaper here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ithout-even-talking-says-exonerated-huntsman/.  I have seen a couple of other reports but although I would not say I was a DT reader generally, this article was sent to me because of my interest in the subject matter.


----------



## palo1 (23 July 2022)

ycbm said:



			It was a private prosecution by LACS, wasn't it?  Many/most animal cruelty prosecutions are done the same way by the RSPCA.  Our system allows for anyone to prosecute a crime if they have the funds/skills  to do so.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, but even so, the justice system has...well, a system and everyone in this country is entitled to legal due process which you would think would include an interview under caution or some discussion with the Police prior to actual prosecution would you not?


----------



## Tiddlypom (23 July 2022)

palo1 said:



			In the Telegraph newspaper here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ithout-even-talking-says-exonerated-huntsman/.  I have seen a couple of other reports but although I would not say I was a DT reader generally, this article was sent to me because of my interest in the subject matter.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link, but it's behind a paywall, and I'm beggared if I'll even sign up to a free trial with the Torygraph.


----------



## Fred66 (23 July 2022)

ycbm said:



			It's also often a qualified approval on economic grounds as the hunts "buy" permission by offering a cheap rate fallen stock service.

A bit like someone approving of a wind farm if offered 10% off their energy bills to allow one to be built nearby. 
.
		
Click to expand...

They don’t “buy” permission, they have a symbiotic relationship whereby they do offer certain services at a reduced rate and those that partake in those services are more inclined to allow them access across their land.


----------



## ycbm (23 July 2022)

palo1 said:



			Yes, but even so, the justice system has...well, a system and everyone in this country is entitled to legal due process which you would think would include an interview under caution or some discussion with the Police prior to actual prosecution would you not?
		
Click to expand...


PACE applies to all criminal prosciuttions, they have to be done to a standard.  Inland Revenue and others also prosecute their own cases under PACE rules. 
.


----------



## sakura (23 July 2022)

Sorry, I think I’ve lost the trail of this topic. You don’t need to be a farmer or even live in the country to be against hunting - evidently. There are plenty of us country folk who are against hunting. But it also doesn’t matter, the vast majority of the population support the ban. It won’t be overturned any time soon, if ever.


----------



## ycbm (23 July 2022)

Fred66 said:



			They don’t “buy” permission, they have a symbiotic relationship whereby they do offer certain services at a reduced rate and those that partake in those services are more inclined to allow them access across their land.
		
Click to expand...

Yup, just like some people have a symbiotic relationship with a wind farm.  Do you know anyone who actually wants a wind farm near them who isn't earning money from it? 

The inverted commas were there for a reason 
.


----------



## GoldenWillow (23 July 2022)

Fred66 said:



			This all anecdotal tales with nothing to substantiate. If the farming community hates hunting as much as you profess then all forms of it would have died out years ago. We can only hunt through the goodwill and support of the local farmers.
		
Click to expand...

Our local large land owner withdrew his permission for the hunt to go on his land a few years ago due to their behaviour.


----------



## Fred66 (23 July 2022)

There 


ycbm said:



			Yup, just like some people have a symbiotic relationship with a wind farm.  Do you know anyone who actually wants a wind farm near them who isn't earning money from it?

The inverted commas were there for a reason 
.
		
Click to expand...

Not the same as one provides an ongoing service that is frequently not monetary the other is a purely commercial decision albeit it might be that farmer also has environmental concerns that outweigh a NIMBY attitude.


----------



## palo1 (23 July 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Thanks for the link, but it's behind a paywall, and I'm beggared if I'll even sign up to a free trial with the Torygraph.
		
Click to expand...

Well here are some snippets...I understand your reluctance to read the DT. 

Mr Hankinson believes that police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided to charge him because of “political” pressure from internet trolls and animal rights activists.


“I am just flabbergasted that the police managed to ruin my life without ever even speaking to me,” the former director of the Masters of Foxhounds Association (MFHA) told The Telegraph in his first interview.


Mr Hankinson says he was never spoken to by police officers in the investigation.


----------



## Miss_Millie (23 July 2022)

Fred66 said:



			This all anecdotal tales with nothing to substantiate. If the farming community hates hunting as much as you profess then all forms of it would have died out years ago. We can only hunt through the goodwill and support of the local farmers.
		
Click to expand...

*Another quote taken from The Farming Forum from 2019:*

'What is it with the hunt. They lay a trail through a sheep farm with heavy in-lamb ewes everywhere. The hounds deviate from the trail after picking up a scent, force 200 ewes up into a corner as they run through them.
Result ,twenty ewes with premature dead lambs.
This is my neighbour, he works every hour God sends, both on and off his farm. The matter is now with his insurers, it doesn't make it o.k. though. The hunt haven't even had the decency to apologise.
But hey, they've had their day of fun haven't they !'


----------



## palo1 (23 July 2022)

Miss_Millie said:



*Another quote taken from The Farming Forum from 2019:*

'What is it with the hunt. They lay a trail through a sheep farm with heavy in-lamb ewes everywhere. The hounds deviate from the trail after picking up a scent, force 200 ewes up into a corner as they run through them.
Result ,twenty ewes with premature dead lambs.
This is my neighbour, he works every hour God sends, both on and off his farm. The matter is now with his insurers, it doesn't make it o.k. though. The hunt haven't even had the decency to apologise.
But hey, they've had their day of fun haven't they !'
		
Click to expand...

But as has been said upthread, if most farmers were against hunting it simply couldn't happen. The quote you have used isn't from a farmer but about a farmer though that doesn't in any way excuse bad behaviour.  All sorts of people DO support trail hunting and some surprising people support all sorts of things.  Did you know for example that Worthy Farm (Glastonbury site) supports the badger cull and whilst their organisation famously prevented hunt supporters from stewarding at the festival, major parts of the Glasto bandwagon are supported logistically by their neighbour who is a major hunting landowner?  It isn't always as simple as black and white and hunting relies on landowners - without them, there is no hunting at all.  (I am referring to legal trail hunting).   I know farmers that support hunting and those that don't - here the majority are happy to see the hunt on their land or hills; probably because on the whole, hunting in this area is disciplined and polite and does not cause trouble.   It is infuriating when hunts either behave badly or cannot control either their mounted follower or vehicle followers but bad behaviour is reported by several sources, not all of which are reliable btw.


----------



## Miss_Millie (23 July 2022)

palo1 said:



			But as has been said upthread, if most farmers were against hunting it simply couldn't happen. *The quote you have used isn't from a farmer but about a farmer* though that doesn't in any way excuse bad behaviour.  All sorts of people DO support trail hunting and some surprising people support all sorts of things.  Did you know for example that Worthy Farm (Glastonbury site) supports the badger cull and whilst their organisation famously prevented hunt supporters from stewarding at the festival, major parts of the Glasto bandwagon are supported logistically by their neighbour who is a major hunting landowner?  It isn't always as simple as black and white and hunting relies on landowners - without them, there is no hunting at all.  (I am referring to legal trail hunting).   I know farmers that support hunting and those that don't - here the majority are happy to see the hunt on their land or hills; probably because on the whole, hunting in this area is disciplined and polite and does not cause trouble.   It is infuriating when hunts either behave badly or cannot control either their mounted follower or vehicle followers but bad behaviour is reported by several sources, not all of which are reliable btw.
		
Click to expand...

Here's another quote from the TFF if that one wasn't solid enough evidence that many farmers do not like the behaviour of some hunts:


*'I had 9 cows abort after a very bad upset all day long by the local hunt around 12 year's ago. Took two weeks to get near those cow's again and even in the same field and the were dead quiet beforehand.'*


I know that hunting relies on landowners, and this is EXACTLY why hunting seriously needs to clean up its act if it wants to survive. If all trail hunts were as well behaved as yours supposedly is, I would see no problem with them - they would exist like any other sport. But the evidence overwhelmingly points to the opposite. You seem to find it hard to accept that hunting has created a really bad image for itself. And before you say that anti-hunt propaganda from LACS and the like is to blame, I have never followed LACS or any anti-hunt groups, I only have to keep up with BBC news and country forums to read the various escapades of hunts each year - the fatal pet attacks, livestock killed, crops trampled.

As a horse owner who loves nothing more than cantering across the countryside, I cannot wrap my head around the arrogance of destroying someone's crops, cutting someone's fences or upsetting someone's stock, JUST so I can have a fun day out. 

I think that hunting COULD survive if it MAJORLY changed its public image. But all of the comments I see from pro-hunt on here are defending their every action and seem in denial that it needs a serious overhaul. And I think this will be its final downfall - the severe lack of self awareness.


----------



## palo1 (23 July 2022)

Miss_Millie said:



			Here's another quote from the TFF if that one wasn't solid enough evidence that many farmers do not like the behaviour of some hunts:


*'I had 9 cows abort after a very bad upset all day long by the local hunt around 12 year's ago. Took two weeks to get near those cow's again and even in the same field and the were dead quiet beforehand.'*


I know that hunting relies on landowners, and this is EXACTLY why hunting seriously needs to clean up its act if it wants to survive. If all trail hunts were as well behaved as yours supposedly is, I would see no problem with them - they would exist like any other sport. But the evidence overwhelmingly points to the opposite. You seem to find it hard to accept that hunting has created a really bad image for itself. And before you say that anti-hunt propaganda from LACS and the like is to blame, I have never followed LACS or any anti-hunt groups, I only have to keep up with BBC news and country forums to read the various escapades of hunts each year - the fatal pet attacks, livestock killed, crops trampled.

As a horse owner who loves nothing more than cantering across the countryside, I cannot wrap my head around the arrogance of destroying someone's crops, cutting someone's fences or upsetting someone's stock, JUST so I can have a fun day out.

I think that hunting COULD survive if it MAJORLY changed its public image. But all of the comments I see from pro-hunt on here are defending their every action and seem in denial that it needs a serious overhaul. And I think this will be its final downfall - the severe lack of self awareness.
		
Click to expand...

Gawd.  I haven't ever said that there are not farmers who don't like hunting and don't want trail hunting on their land and there is no excuse for bad behaviour on the part of anyone accessing anyone else's land!  I just pointed out that as logic would dictate, if most farmers didn't support hunting it simply wouldn't happen.  

You say that my my hunt 'supposedly' behaves well.  Thanks.


----------



## Miss_Millie (23 July 2022)

palo1 said:



			Gawd.  I haven't ever said that there are not farmers who don't like hunting and don't want trail hunting on their land and there is no excuse for bad behaviour on the part of anyone accessing anyone else's land!  *I just pointed out that as logic would dictate, if most farmers didn't support hunting it simply wouldn't happen. *

You say that my my hunt 'supposedly' behaves well.  Thanks.
		
Click to expand...

And I am pointing out that it only takes one bad experience for a farmer to ban the hunt from their land. So if hunts continue to be blasé about the little things that tick farmers off, they soon won't have much land left to ride over. 

I say supposedly because I'm only going off of your word. I don't know what hunt you are with and I doubt you will share the name of your hunt (fair enough) so I can't google search if they've done anything illegal since the ban. You don't have to take it personally.


----------



## Fred66 (23 July 2022)

Miss_Millie said:



			I know that hunting relies on landowners, and this is EXACTLY why hunting seriously needs to clean up its act if it wants to survive. If all trail hunts were as well behaved as yours supposedly is, I would see no problem with them - they would exist like any other sport.* But the evidence overwhelmingly points to the opposite. *You seem to find it hard to accept that hunting has created a really bad image for itself. And before you say that anti-hunt propaganda from LACS and the like is to blame, I have never followed LACS or any anti-hunt groups, I only have to keep up with BBC news and country forums to read the various escapades of hunts each year - the fatal pet attacks, livestock killed, crops trampled.
.
		
Click to expand...

Could you point me to genuine “overwhelming“ evidence that points to this ? There are probably in excess of 20000 days hunting per year in England and the number of proven incidents are less than 100 (don’t get me wrong that is still too many) but equally it’s less than 0.5%.

Who do you think gives the BBC their reports if not LACS or HSA ?

Its easy to be swayed by emotive pieces but these are not in themselves facts. If pets are killed by dogs then this is distressing for the owners and anyone who witnesses it , whether that dog belongs to a private individual or the hunt doesn’t change the distress.

I personally supported the middle way of greater regulation of the hunts, whereby they would have been licensed and that license could have been suspended or removed. This would have put animal welfare and control at the forefront but for whatever reason animal welfare was not as important as one upping the landed gentry. So we have a law that suits noone.


----------



## sakura (23 July 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Its easy to be swayed by emotive pieces but these are not in themselves facts. If pets are killed by dogs then this is distressing for the owners and anyone who witnesses it , whether that dog belongs to a private individual or the hunt doesn’t change the distress.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I am entirely swayed by my emotions of not wanting to see animals chased and hunted. I honestly don’t care that people have fun and see tradition in it. This also isn’t about sabs, though I suppose it’s useful to redirect the discussion towards them - as has always been the way with pro fox hunters.

Pets being killed by hounds should be distressing to everyone - owner or witness of someone who has simply heard about it. For me personally, seeing an animal killed by a pack of dogs would always be an even greater distress than a lone dog attack.


----------



## sakura (23 July 2022)

I’ll also just add the distress my horse has experienced over the years from the local hunt deviating from their route time and time again.


----------



## millikins (23 July 2022)

Indiangel said:



			I’ll also just add the distress my horse has experienced over the years from the local hunt deviating from their route time and time again.
		
Click to expand...

I am interested to know how they have "deviated from their route". They will be following a trail laid by a human runner trying to imitate a fox, if everyone knows the route it's rather pointless.


----------



## GoldenWillow (23 July 2022)

millikins said:



			I am interested to know how they have "deviated from their route". They will be following a trail laid by a human runner trying to imitate a fox, if everyone knows the route it's rather pointless.
		
Click to expand...

From my point of view I assume they are deviating from their route when they consistently go through land that they have no permission to be on.


----------



## millikins (23 July 2022)

GoldenWillow said:



			From my point of view I assume they are deviating from their route when they consistently go through land that they have no permission to be on.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, that would make sense, I hope you complained to the secretary, MFHA etc.


----------



## sakura (23 July 2022)

millikins said:



			I am interested to know how they have "deviated from their route". They will be following a trail laid by a human runner trying to imitate a fox, if everyone knows the route it's rather pointless.
		
Click to expand...

We all know there are hunts that regularly and brazenly break the law by continuing to hunt foxes.


----------



## millikins (23 July 2022)

Indiangel said:



			We all know there are hunts that regularly and brazenly break the law by continuing to hunt foxes.
		
Click to expand...

No, we don't. The anti's and hunt saboteurs have now had 18 years to show proof of consistent flouting of the law and have failed to do so. In this day and age when all the cyclists wear Gopro's to monitor bad driving, one would have thought it wouldn't be difficult to find conclusive evidence but anti's are still relying on hearsay, anecdote and "we all know...."


----------



## GoldenWillow (24 July 2022)

millikins said:



			Yes, that would make sense, I hope you complained to the secretary, MFHA etc.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I and others did, every single time it happened. Nothing changed until large LO withdrew his permission for the hunt to have access to any of their land so the hunt does not have permission for approx 1200+ acres around us.


----------



## GoldenWillow (24 July 2022)

millikins said:



			No, we don't. The anti's and hunt saboteurs have now had 18 years to show proof of consistent flouting of the law and have failed to do so. In this day and age when all the cyclists wear Gopro's to monitor bad driving, one would have thought it wouldn't be difficult to find conclusive evidence but anti's are still relying on hearsay, anecdote and "we all know...."
		
Click to expand...

We are lucky in our area not to have had any hunt saboteurs but on the rare occasions that peaceful hunt monitors appear the hunt immediately loads up and goes.


----------



## Steerpike (24 July 2022)

GoldenWillow said:



			We are lucky in our area not to have had any hunt saboteurs but on the rare occasions that peaceful hunt monitors appear the hunt immediately loads up and goes.
		
Click to expand...

Which speaks volumes, if that hunt was hunting within the law then they should have no problems having hunt monitors following them.


----------



## spacefaer (24 July 2022)

Steerpike said:



			Which speaks volumes, if that hunt was hunting within the law then they should have no problems having hunt monitors following them.
		
Click to expand...

No it means that "peaceful hunt monitors" is a misnomer. And that the hunt has got fed up of the tirade of screaming abuse etc that they're subjected to every time they go out. There are definitely antis who are not peaceful caring animal lovers. There are those who have spent time inside for violence of various kinds and who are paid to go out and intimidate hunts.


----------



## Koweyka (24 July 2022)

spacefaer said:



			No it means that "peaceful hunt monitors" is a misnomer. And that the hunt has got fed up of the tirade of screaming abuse etc that they're subjected to every time they go out. There are definitely antis who are not peaceful caring animal lovers. There are those who have spent time inside for violence of various kinds and who are paid to go out and intimidate hunts.
		
Click to expand...

Who pays them ?


----------



## sakura (24 July 2022)

millikins said:



			No, we don't. The anti's and hunt saboteurs have now had 18 years to show proof of consistent flouting of the law and have failed to do so. In this day and age when all the cyclists wear Gopro's to monitor bad driving, one would have thought it wouldn't be difficult to find conclusive evidence but anti's are still relying on hearsay, anecdote and "we all know...."
		
Click to expand...

lol, okay


----------



## GoldenWillow (24 July 2022)

spacefaer said:



			No it means that "peaceful hunt monitors" is a misnomer. And that the hunt has got fed up of the tirade of screaming abuse etc that they're subjected to every time they go out. There are definitely antis who are not peaceful caring animal lovers. There are those who have spent time inside for violence of various kinds and who are paid to go out and intimidate hunts.
		
Click to expand...

We have never, to my knowledge, had any problems with anti's or monitors causing any aggravation to the hunt, in fact I have never heard of any cases of anti's turning up at our hunts meets. The monitors, at least the ones I kjow personally, were actually locals who were fed up of the hunts behaviour. The minute the hunt hunt realised they were being recorded, and this was before they set off, as monitors wanted to record how the hunt and it's followers were parking in the village, they loaded up and went. There was no aggravation on the part of the monitors at all, there was on the part of the hunt followers.

Eta, I do appreciate this is only my experience of my hunt and those situations and that other hunts have been subjected to violent anti's behaviour. In these cases I would understand why they would remove themselves from the situation.


----------



## Sandstone1 (24 July 2022)

millikins said:



			No, we don't. The anti's and hunt saboteurs have now had 18 years to show proof of consistent flouting of the law and have failed to do so. In this day and age when all the cyclists wear Gopro's to monitor bad driving, one would have thought it wouldn't be difficult to find conclusive evidence but anti's are still relying on hearsay, anecdote and "we all know...."
		
Click to expand...

well not quite!   There are loads and loads of videos showing hunts breaking the law.  Hunts have been taken to court over it.


----------



## palo1 (24 July 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			well not quite!   There are loads and loads of videos showing hunts breaking the law.  Hunts have been taken to court over it.
		
Click to expand...

That utterly fails to acknowledge that very few actual convictions, with evidence that is satisfactory to our legal system, under the current law, have been made.  That, in spite of every effort made by anti-hunting groups to obtain evidence, to call on the public to ring in any concerns, in spite of dodgy evidence etc.   *You can find the actual, real data via the Ministry of Justice* and I have posted those statistics previously.   The most 'seismic' conviction (of Mark Hankinson) has been overturned on appeal. The vast majority of hunting convictions have had nothing to do with trail hunting or the use of hounds .  The data and information from anti-hunt groups is very, very poor quality and highly skewed. For example; This statement from the Campaign to strengthen the Hunting Act that '

*Cautions are treated as charges and convictions for purposes of these figures'*
*In what other situation in the UK would that be acceptable either legally, morally or statistically? *

There is a reality on the ground too that is simply not acknowledged by anti-hunt campaigners; that when local communities have the chance to see hounds and support hunts on, for example Boxing Day or at Agricultural shows, at inter-hunt competitions, through the pony club, the level of support far outweighs any level of protest.   Boxing Day has become a vile crucible of conflict actually but supporters still line village and town streets to support the hunt in numbers far greater than those that protest about it. 

3 years ago I visited a really large agricultural show (The Three Counties) and there was a group of about 8 anti hunt protesters at the gate, abusing visitors to the show, telling everyone at that gate entrance that they were, by visiting, supporting hunting.  They were there purportedly on a 'hunting' day (as in hunting competitions were scheduled) though they had the wrong day.   I saw not a single person engage or respond to that group of protesters and they had no idea of any visitor's own view of hunting.  The public that visit those shows in large numbers and may be seen as some representation of rural life either don't care, don't mind or support hunting being part of that event.  The vast majority of people in the UK think that there are FAR more pressing issues related to animal welfare and countryside management than trail hunting, even where there are incidents of appalling behaviour (and I hope Paul O Shea goes down for a very long time indeed as do most people I know).  It is just deluded echo-chamber thinking to assert that the vast majority of the British public give a stuff about trail hunting.


----------



## ycbm (24 July 2022)

palo1 said:




*Cautions are treated as charges and convictions for purposes of these figures'*
*In what other situation in the UK would that be acceptable either legally, morally or statistically?*

Click to expand...

In every court in the country.

Cautions have to be accepted by the recipient.  Accepting a caution means accepting you committed an offence.  They appear on DBS checks.  If you commit another offence and end up in court,  the cautions you have,  if relevant to the offence,  can be brought up as evidence of propensity to commit the crime and can also be taken into account when sentencing a repeat offender.
.


----------



## palo1 (24 July 2022)

ycbm said:



			In every court in the country.

Cautions have to be accepted by the recipient.  Accepting a caution means accepting you committed an offence.  They appear on DBS checks.  If you commit another offence and end up in court,  the cautions you have,  if relevant to the offence,  can be brought up as evidence of propensity to commit the crime and can also be taken into account when sentencing a repeat offender.
.
		
Click to expand...

A caution is given for a 'minor' crime -not a serious one relating to animal welfare and anti-hunt data does not identify what  minor crimes are cautioned.  Those cautions could relate to a huge number of things related or unrelated to any animal welfare or Hunting Act incident.  It is totally spurious to suggest that those cautions, treated as convictions are evidence of crimes under the Hunting Act. 

A caution is not a criminal conviction, but it could be used as evidence of bad character if you go to court for another crime.  https://www.gov.uk/caution-warning-penalty#:~:text=A caution is not a,Barring Service (DBS) checks.


----------



## ycbm (24 July 2022)

palo1 said:



			A caution is given for a 'minor' crime -not a serious one relating to animal welfare and anti-hunt data does not identify what  minor crimes are cautioned.  Those cautions could relate to a huge number of things related or unrelated to any animal welfare or Hunting Act incident.  It is totally spurious to suggest that those cautions, treated as convictions are evidence of crimes under the Hunting Act.

A caution is not a criminal conviction, but it could be used as evidence of bad character if you go to court for another crime.  https://www.gov.uk/caution-warning-penalty#:~:text=A caution is not a,Barring Service (DBS) checks.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, that's pretty much what I said  🤷‍♂️

I think you would be pretty surprised what serious crimes get cautioned or treated with restorative justice measures in order to get them off police desks and keep them out of taking up court time. 
.


----------



## palo1 (24 July 2022)

ycbm said:



			Yes, that's pretty much what I said  🤷‍♂️

I think you would be pretty surprised what serious crimes get cautioned or treated with restorative justice measures in order to get them off police desks and keep them out of taking up court time.
.
		
Click to expand...

Well you may be right but a caution is absolutely not the same thing as a conviction in law and it is nonsense and genuinely misleading in this context to assert that it is.  Do you recognise that the number of convictions under the Hunting Act, from the Ministry of Justice, are tiny and some of those do not relate to trail hunting?


----------



## Fred66 (24 July 2022)

ycbm said:



			Yes, that's pretty much what I said  🤷‍♂️

I think you would be pretty surprised what serious crimes get cautioned or treated with restorative justice measures in order to get them off police desks and keep them out of taking up court time.
.
		
Click to expand...

Equally how many people accept them to avoid the stress and cost of further actions.
There are many people (across all types of crime) who are arrested and bailed and still on bail months if not years later.


----------



## ycbm (24 July 2022)

palo1 said:



			Well you may be right but a caution is absolutely not the same thing as a conviction in law and it is nonsense and genuinely misleading in this context to assert that it is.  Do you recognise that the number of convictions under the Hunting Act, from the Ministry of Justice, are tiny and some of those do not relate to trail hunting?
		
Click to expand...


But they didn't assert that,  did they?   They explained exactly what their figures included. And accepting a caution is accepting that you have committed a criminal offence. The "conviction" is only a semantic difference of whether or not the offence you admit you are guilty of was tried in a court. 
.


----------



## Clodagh (24 July 2022)

It’s worth knowing that if you break the law and accept a caution you are admitting guilt.


----------



## YorksG (24 July 2022)

Clodagh said:



			It’s worth knowing that if you break the law and accept a caution you are admitting guilt.
		
Click to expand...

It certainly should be explained by the police officer offering the caution, but I have to say that a number of young people who I worked with in the past, did not understand the implications.


----------



## sakura (24 July 2022)

palo1 said:



			It is just deluded echo-chamber thinking to assert that the vast majority of the British public give a stuff about trail hunting.
		
Click to expand...

I guess if that makes you feel better you can think that way, but in 50 years' time, I do not believe we will see trail hunting. If the sabs are solely responsible for this (they're not, but again, if it makes you feel better...) just think what else they'll achieve when they're done with hunting!


----------



## palo1 (24 July 2022)

ycbm said:



			But they didn't assert that,  did they?   They explained exactly what their figures included. And accepting a caution is accepting that you have committed a criminal offence. The "conviction" is only a semantic difference of whether or not the offence you admit you are guilty of was tried in a court.
.
		
Click to expand...

A cautiion is different to a conviction though - particularly in that a caution is issued for minor crimes and may be removed from your record in months.   A conviction, tried in court is a very different beast in several ways.  The inclusion of cautions in the strenthen the ban data could well include things that are entirely unrelated to hunting activity even though they may have occurred on a hunting day (for example caution for not wearing a seat belt).   People do accept a police caution for lots of reasons, including admission of guilt but also because they may be unaware of what the implications are.


----------



## ycbm (24 July 2022)

I don't know what the point of all this arguing is Palo. You seem determined to believe that the British Public is only against hunting because they are being told to be against hunting and I don't believe that is true. 
.


----------



## palo1 (24 July 2022)

Indiangel said:



			I guess if that makes you feel better you can think that way, but in 50 years' time, I do not believe we will see trail hunting. If the sabs are solely responsible for this (they're not, but again, if it makes you feel better...) just think what else they'll achieve when they're done with hunting!
		
Click to expand...

Yes I am very aware of what else sabs have in their sights, as well as the concerns many people have about minority interest activists.  Have you read the Hunting Act's legislator's views on the Act; what is your response to Daniel Greenbergs concerns about that?  If you are not familiar with what he has said about it you can read it in it's entirety here:- 

https://www.danielgreenberg.co.uk/legal-lectures/.

Particularly pertinent bits of his lecture include his statements (as the person who was required to draft this legislation amongst other really significant laws). 

_ I was the drafter not only of the Hunting Act 2004 but of all the Government Bills that preceded it over a period of some years, and I well remember being struck by the fact that of all the legislation in which I had been involved since joining the Parliamentary Counsel Office, including Bills on matters medical, constitutional, social, fiscal and criminal, the first project in relation to which I felt seriously troubled from a moral perspective was over such an outwardly trivial matter in some respects as hunting.  Let me be clear: the prohibition of hunting did not trouble me from a personal moral perspective: I do not hunt myself, and I would even go so far as to doubt whether I would personally be ethically justified in doing so, as I do not belong to a community in which it forms either a necessary part of pest control or a cherished cultural tradition.  What troubled me was the fact that for the first time in my immediate professional experience the mechanism of the law was being deployed not to further some public policy objective – whether well-founded or not – but to inflict on the whole country the personal moral perspective of the 600 or so citizens who happened to find themselves in the House of Commons at the time....

From its earliest antecedents it was always clear that the Hunting Bill was not a measure aimed at advancing the public policy of animal welfare; at its best it was about morality (and of course to some it was not even that, but simply a piece of thinly disguised class warfare).  The clearest proof that this was never a measure aimed at improving animal welfare is that nothing in the construction of the legislation tends towards its effective enforceability as a matter of animal welfare.  Apart from the fact that the list of exemptions was deliberately, and on express instructions, framed in a way that would make circumvention obvious and easy, if one were devising an effective mechanism for advancing the welfare of the fox (and none of us will ever forget how the Burns Commission so convincingly justified the public money spent on it by its unutterably brilliant conclusion that on balance, and taking one thing with another, hunting seriously compromises the welfare of the fox being hunted) – if, as I say, one were devising a measure for safeguarding the welfare of the fox one would do it not through a few blunt criminal offences which are easy to circumvent and virtually impossible to prove (even if the Association of Chief Constables hadn’t written to the Government in advance to warn them that they had better things to do on a weekend morning than to hang around in bushes to see if people were following a fox or a drag).

If this had really been an animal welfare measure we would most likely have opted for a regulatory approach, possibly based around a licensing system: doubtless Of-fox would have been very popular, and the Chief Commissioner for Feral Foxes – or Foxcom – would have been a much sought-after sinecure.  Joking aside, I suspect that most if not all organised hunts would actively have welcomed a properly founded licensing system as a way of showing their respect for the law, and for the welfare of all the animals and humans involved in the hunting tradition, which irrespective of whether the observer herself or himself chooses to hunt is clearly recognisable as being as respectable as any other community or cultural tradition, and a good deal more respectable than many.

Instead of an effective measure, therefore, the Act and the Bills for it were largely an exercise in what it has now become fashionable to describe as “virtue signalling” by persons who happened to draw their line in the sand of morality in one place in connection with animals, and many of whom would doubtless be incensed if a fortuitous majority of vegetarians in the House of Commons on another occasion sought to outlaw all those whose personal line in the sand stopped short of refraining from eating meat.

An exercise in intolerance, at a time when diversity and cultural sensitivity are meant to be more socially cherished and legally protected than at any other time in the history of the United Kingdom, indeed possibly in the history of the world.   But diversity is a difficult ideal, that requires to be nurtured with great care.

I note in passing that it is interesting that it was on this moral or ethical issue of hunting that the House of Commons chose to dispense with the House of Lords and pass the Hunting Act 2004 under the Parliament Act 1911...    


So how does this age of unparalleled wealth of equality law come to be known also as a social media age in which bullying, harassment and other forms and expressions of intolerance have flourished as never before? Of course, the availability and anonymity of technology has something to do with this, but I think there is a more fundamental and troubling connection...

As a lawyer, I have often been struck with how little politicians and policymakers recognise the fact that a new law dealing with a particular matter is a sign of failure and not a sign of success.  Take the case of racial discrimination, one of the earliest forms of discrimination to be made unlawful, back in the 1960s.   Nobody would argue that as a society we have succeeded in conquering or even taming racial discrimination; it is as powerful a poison today as it was in 1965 if not more so, despite the law having had more than half a century to counter it.  And that of course is the whole point: law does not and cannot change attitudes, and if anything it entrenches unpleasant attitudes by setting their parameters in the stone of law which by aiming to coerce both creates the temptation, and sets the curriculum, for circumvention and avoidance.  Attitudes and ethics can be changed by discussion and by informative education; but they cannot in general be changed by law; and having recourse to legal enforcement by way of declaring certain attitudes unlawful is in general no more than a recognition of failure to change those attitudes by other and more effective methods...

The law of hunting is in my opinion a significant example of an issue where an ephemeral majority in the House of Commons sought to enforce and perpetuate its own opinion on a moral issue without caring whether or not the balance struck by the legislation corresponded to the consensual morality of the country as a whole.  It was an attempt by one side of a moral argument to coerce the other into submission.  On that basis it was unlikely to be a success on any level, and it has not proved so.  Sadly, it leaves unresolved some genuinely important practical issues of animal welfare, and it has widened the gulf between opposing views rather than creating a mechanism for them to explore and refine common ground.

_

On this forum, anti hunters have never once made a response to me asking about Daniel Greenberg's views.  I would very much like to know how posters respond to this lecture - how they feel they stand in relation to his authority as a legislator and legal expert and why they think someone in his position would make such clear statements about this one piece of legislation.


----------



## Fred66 (24 July 2022)

This article is also quite appropriate 
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/tim-bonner/hunting-act_b_6704010.html

The hunt saboteurs who follow the hunts don’t give two hoots about either the law or animal welfare as is frequently shown by their actions. They hide behind this to intimidate (where else would masked individuals flagrantly harassing others be allowed to get away with the actions they take)

Trespass might be a civil matter until you are asked to leave at which point a refusal (along with continued harassment by those seeking to hide their identity to avoid prosecution) becomes a criminal matter.

Breaking the law deliberately (even if you believe that doing so might prevent another crime occurring) is a form of vigilantism and needs to be stopped. Follow from public rights of way, collate evidence and phone the police if you believe a crime is occurring.


----------



## sakura (24 July 2022)

palo1 said:



			Yes I am very aware of what else sabs have in their sights, as well as the concerns many people have about minority interest activists.  Have you read the Hunting Act's legislator's views on the Act; what is your response to Daniel Greenbergs concerns about that?  If you are not familiar with what he has said about it you can read it in it's entirety here:-

https://www.danielgreenberg.co.uk/legal-lectures/.

Particularly pertinent bits of his lecture include his statements (as the person who was required to draft this legislation amongst other really significant laws).

_ I was the drafter not only of the Hunting Act 2004 but of all the Government Bills that preceded it over a period of some years, and I well remember being struck by the fact that of all the legislation in which I had been involved since joining the Parliamentary Counsel Office, including Bills on matters medical, constitutional, social, fiscal and criminal, the first project in relation to which I felt seriously troubled from a moral perspective was over such an outwardly trivial matter in some respects as hunting.  Let me be clear: the prohibition of hunting did not trouble me from a personal moral perspective: I do not hunt myself, and I would even go so far as to doubt whether I would personally be ethically justified in doing so, as I do not belong to a community in which it forms either a necessary part of pest control or a cherished cultural tradition.  What troubled me was the fact that for the first time in my immediate professional experience the mechanism of the law was being deployed not to further some public policy objective – whether well-founded or not – but to inflict on the whole country the personal moral perspective of the 600 or so citizens who happened to find themselves in the House of Commons at the time...._

_From its earliest antecedents it was always clear that the Hunting Bill was not a measure aimed at advancing the public policy of animal welfare; at its best it was about morality (and of course to some it was not even that, but simply a piece of thinly disguised class warfare).  The clearest proof that this was never a measure aimed at improving animal welfare is that nothing in the construction of the legislation tends towards its effective enforceability as a matter of animal welfare.  Apart from the fact that the list of exemptions was deliberately, and on express instructions, framed in a way that would make circumvention obvious and easy, if one were devising an effective mechanism for advancing the welfare of the fox (and none of us will ever forget how the Burns Commission so convincingly justified the public money spent on it by its unutterably brilliant conclusion that on balance, and taking one thing with another, hunting seriously compromises the welfare of the fox being hunted) – if, as I say, one were devising a measure for safeguarding the welfare of the fox one would do it not through a few blunt criminal offences which are easy to circumvent and virtually impossible to prove (even if the Association of Chief Constables hadn’t written to the Government in advance to warn them that they had better things to do on a weekend morning than to hang around in bushes to see if people were following a fox or a drag)._

_If this had really been an animal welfare measure we would most likely have opted for a regulatory approach, possibly based around a licensing system: doubtless Of-fox would have been very popular, and the Chief Commissioner for Feral Foxes – or Foxcom – would have been a much sought-after sinecure.  Joking aside, I suspect that most if not all organised hunts would actively have welcomed a properly founded licensing system as a way of showing their respect for the law, and for the welfare of all the animals and humans involved in the hunting tradition, which irrespective of whether the observer herself or himself chooses to hunt is clearly recognisable as being as respectable as any other community or cultural tradition, and a good deal more respectable than many._

_Instead of an effective measure, therefore, the Act and the Bills for it were largely an exercise in what it has now become fashionable to describe as “virtue signalling” by persons who happened to draw their line in the sand of morality in one place in connection with animals, and many of whom would doubtless be incensed if a fortuitous majority of vegetarians in the House of Commons on another occasion sought to outlaw all those whose personal line in the sand stopped short of refraining from eating meat._

_An exercise in intolerance, at a time when diversity and cultural sensitivity are meant to be more socially cherished and legally protected than at any other time in the history of the United Kingdom, indeed possibly in the history of the world.   But diversity is a difficult ideal, that requires to be nurtured with great care._

_I note in passing that it is interesting that it was on this moral or ethical issue of hunting that the House of Commons chose to dispense with the House of Lords and pass the Hunting Act 2004 under the Parliament Act 1911...    _


_So how does this age of unparalleled wealth of equality law come to be known also as a social media age in which bullying, harassment and other forms and expressions of intolerance have flourished as never before? Of course, the availability and anonymity of technology has something to do with this, but I think there is a more fundamental and troubling connection..._

_As a lawyer, I have often been struck with how little politicians and policymakers recognise the fact that a new law dealing with a particular matter is a sign of failure and not a sign of success.  Take the case of racial discrimination, one of the earliest forms of discrimination to be made unlawful, back in the 1960s.   Nobody would argue that as a society we have succeeded in conquering or even taming racial discrimination; it is as powerful a poison today as it was in 1965 if not more so, despite the law having had more than half a century to counter it.  And that of course is the whole point: law does not and cannot change attitudes, and if anything it entrenches unpleasant attitudes by setting their parameters in the stone of law which by aiming to coerce both creates the temptation, and sets the curriculum, for circumvention and avoidance.  Attitudes and ethics can be changed by discussion and by informative education; but they cannot in general be changed by law; and having recourse to legal enforcement by way of declaring certain attitudes unlawful is in general no more than a recognition of failure to change those attitudes by other and more effective methods..._

_The law of hunting is in my opinion a significant example of an issue where an ephemeral majority in the House of Commons sought to enforce and perpetuate its own opinion on a moral issue without caring whether or not the balance struck by the legislation corresponded to the consensual morality of the country as a whole.  It was an attempt by one side of a moral argument to coerce the other into submission.  On that basis it was unlikely to be a success on any level, and it has not proved so.  Sadly, it leaves unresolved some genuinely important practical issues of animal welfare, and it has widened the gulf between opposing views rather than creating a mechanism for them to explore and refine common ground._



On this forum, anti hunters have never once made a response to me asking about Daniel Greenberg's views.  I would very much like to know how posters respond to this lecture - how they feel they stand in relation to his authority as a legislator and legal expert and why they think someone in his position would make such clear statements about this one piece of legislation.
		
Click to expand...

I stopped reading when the writer started whinging about classism. I’m anti hunt cos I don’t want to see foxes chased and killed for sport, as is the majority of the population.

I’m getting bored of debating this now. Have fun, but remember, hunting is a dying pastime


----------



## palo1 (24 July 2022)

Indiangel said:



			I stopped reading when the writer started whinging about classism. I’m anti hunt cos I don’t want to see foxes chased and killed for sport, as is the majority of the population.

I’m getting bored of debating this now. Have fun, but remember, hunting is a dying pastime 

Click to expand...

Is it not remotely relevant or important to you that the writer was the person charged with creating the Hunting Act?  Do you know who Daniel Greenberg is and what other laws he has drawn up?  If you cannot be interested and engaged with the facts then your opinion is worth nothing.


----------



## Miss_Millie (24 July 2022)

palo1 said:



			Is it not remotely relevant or important to you that the writer was the person charged with creating the Hunting Act?  Do you know who Daniel Greenberg is and what other laws he has drawn up?  If you cannot be interested and engaged with the facts then your opinion is worth nothing.
		
Click to expand...

You can't just tell someone that their opinion is worth nothing, simply because you don't agree with them.


----------



## Clodagh (24 July 2022)

palo1 said:



			Is it not remotely relevant or important to you that the writer was the person charged with creating the Hunting Act?  Do you know who Daniel Greenberg is and what other laws he has drawn up?  If you cannot be interested and engaged with the facts then your opinion is worth nothing.
		
Click to expand...

Palo, I admire your dedication to all these threads, I really do. You win the longest post contest every time!
Some people though are against hunting, just because of what it is. You really have to accept that.


----------



## palo1 (24 July 2022)

Miss_Millie said:



			You can't just tell someone that their opinion is worth nothing, simply because you don't agree with them.
		
Click to expand...

I accept that it may sound insulting and I apologise for that.  But when a discussion includes opinions that are not based on facts or take account of really significant information then they are 'just' opinions.  I do not want to see laws and policies based on opinions which are not informed.


----------



## palo1 (24 July 2022)

Clodagh said:



			Palo, I admire your dedication to all these threads, I really do. You win the longest post contest every time!
Some people though are against hunting, just because of what it is. You really have to accept that.
		
Click to expand...

I totally understand and respect that; I have friends who are against any form of hunting but I like to challenge some of the opinions and attitudes expressed about a subject that is important to me. I know I will be very unlikely to change anyone's mind but I am still interested in why people hold those views in light of alternative information.  I must say, I am not thrilled to get any accolade at all in relation to a hunting debate. Life is short and all...


----------



## Fred66 (24 July 2022)

Indiangel said:



			I stopped reading when the writer started whinging about classism. I’m anti hunt cos I don’t want to see foxes chased and killed for sport, as is the majority of the population.

I’m getting bored of debating this now. Have fun, but remember, hunting is a dying pastime 

Click to expand...

You have every right to object to fox hunting and I don’t think anyone on here would disagree.

Please remember that fox hunting is now illegal, trail hunting is not. This is where a scent is laid for hounds to follow and where the riders follow on behind.

If we are talking about how the law changed in the first place then that is different, killing of foxes is not banned there are different methods still available to land owners to kill foxes. The only one banned was hunting the fox with a pack of hounds.   Despite evidence showing that from an animal welfare pov this was no more cruel (and frequently less cruel) than other methods.

So why was it banned if not on animal welfare grounds, because a bunch of MPs decided that the people they believed it impacted needed taking down a peg or two.

If the Burns report that they commissioned had shown it to be more cruel I could have accepted the decision but as it stands it’s a bad law in every sense.

I am unsure on how you differentiate between killing a fox for sport, if the farmer shoots the fox is this not sport ? The majority of the field back in the day would not have witnessed the kill, many would be probably have been quite pleased to see the fox get away. The field by and large could be split into those who enjoyed the social aspect and getting to ride out in areas of the country normally not available and those who did actually enjoy watching the hounds work to pick up and follow a scent.

I watch the wildlife programmes on tv where lions give chase to their prey, I simultaneously want the prey to escape and the lion to make the kill, not because of blood lust but because that is the nature of things, without a kill then the lions will die, they show teamwork and skill. I appreciate that the hounds would not have been killing for food, however the admiration of watching them work using skills bred into them through hundreds of years is similar.


----------



## Miss_Millie (24 July 2022)

Deleted because this is too tiring.


----------



## Miss_Millie (24 July 2022)

palo1 said:



			I accept that it may sound insulting and I apologise for that.  But when a discussion includes opinions that are not based on facts or take account of really significant information then they are 'just' opinions.  I do not want to see laws and policies based on opinions which are not informed.
		
Click to expand...

Indiangel already said that she does not like the idea of foxes being chased to exhaustion and mauled by dogs. That is a perfectly valid reason for her to not like hunting.


----------



## Miss_Millie (24 July 2022)

P.s. that's me done for the day, this thread is exhausting


----------



## GSD Woman (24 July 2022)

If foxhunting is banned in Great Britain how much trouble would it be to go to Ireland or Northern Ireland to hunt foxes?  Then all the trail hunts wouldn't have to worry and the people who insist on hunting foxes could do it elsewhere.


----------



## Clodagh (24 July 2022)

palo1 said:



			I totally understand and respect that; I have friends who are against any form of hunting but I like to challenge some of the opinions and attitudes expressed about a subject that is important to me. I know I will be very unlikely to change anyone's mind but I am still interested in why people hold those views in light of alternative information.  I must say, I am not thrilled to get any accolade at all in relation to a hunting debate. Life is short and all...
		
Click to expand...

Because people are anti hunting because it involves animals being killed. I’m pretty pro on the whole but accept it doesn’t matter to most people if it’s a better way to die than some alternatives, it’s still directly killing. Nicely or not. I suspect that’s what most antis are against.


----------



## moosea (24 July 2022)

Fellewell said:



			What people generally saw was a grainy picture of a fox which had been flushed and shot and was being dismembered by hounds. It was already dead.
		
Click to expand...

Was it dead like the racehorse was dead when the trainer sat on it?



Fellewell said:



			I think the general public have been bombarded with so much anti-hunt rhetoric that it has become absorbed into the nations consciousness. Social media is awash with unsubstantiated, anecdotal 'evidence' of hunting's 'wrongdoings' and people are primed and ready to be fed a constant diet of anti-hunt propaganda.
		
Click to expand...

Why are you ( pro hunt, not just you personally) unable to understand that the majority of people do not think it is ok to chase an animal then let dogs tear it to bits? Even if it is dead before this act can you not understand that allowing dogs to dismember an animal you have killed is in very bad taste to most people?



Fred66 said:



			This would have put animal welfare and control at the forefront but for whatever reason animal welfare was not as important as one upping the landed gentry. So we have a law that suits noone.
		
Click to expand...

Hunts have never been concerned with animal welfare. If they were they would not be encouraging foxes to an area - they did / do that so they have a good days 'sport.
I think most people would have been happy to see a complete ban.



spacefaer said:



			No it means that "peaceful hunt monitors" is a misnomer. And that the hunt has got fed up of the tirade of screaming abuse etc that they're subjected to every time they go out. There are definitely antis who are not peaceful caring animal lovers. There are those who have spent time inside for violence of various kinds and who are paid to go out and intimidate hunts.
		
Click to expand...

I wonder how many antis have been videoed ...I don't know, say... stabbing a fox to death with a garden fork??




Fred66 said:



			I am unsure on how you differentiate between killing a fox for sport, if the farmer shoots the fox is this not sport ?
		
Click to expand...

I differentiate it by the fact that there are not a group of people paying money to be involved / spectating the farmer shooting the fox.



Fred66 said:



			I appreciate that the hounds would not have been killing for food, however the admiration of watching them work using skills bred into them through hundreds of years is similar.
		
Click to expand...

But the hounds would still use those skills on a trail??


Hunting has tied it's own noose and put it around it's own neck and seems way to willing to jump off the chair.
I just wish they would hurry up and ban it all together.... if only to end this thread!


----------



## millikins (24 July 2022)

I wonder how many antis have been videoed ...I don't know, say... stabbing a fox to death with a garden fork??

But Jolyon Maughan can beat one to death with a baseball bat and remain a darling of the Left.


----------



## littleshetland (24 July 2022)

palo1 said:



			I totally understand and respect that; I have friends who are against any form of hunting but I like to challenge some of the opinions and attitudes expressed about a subject that is important to me. I know I will be very unlikely to change anyone's mind but I am still interested in why people hold those views in light of alternative information.  I must say, I am not thrilled to get any accolade at all in relation to a hunting debate. Life is short and all...
		
Click to expand...

Animals get killed everyday, millions and millions of them at the hands of human beings.  Sometimes it's necessary and sometimes its not, but what really galls is when there is so much obvious pleasure displayed at the hunting to death of an animal.


----------



## ycbm (24 July 2022)

millikins said:



			I wonder how many antis have been videoed ...I don't know, say... stabbing a fox to death with a garden fork??

But Jolyon Maughan can beat one to death with a baseball bat and remain a darling of the Left.
		
Click to expand...

Jolyon Maughan killed a fox caught in fencing in his garden  with a single blow of a baseball bat which was deemed after investigation an appropriate, humane and legal response to the situation.
.


----------



## ycbm (24 July 2022)

millikins said:



			But Jolyon Maughan can beat one to death with a baseball bat and remain a darling of the Left.
		
Click to expand...

You assume,  i think,  when you made this comment,  that people who are anti fox hunting are against killing foxes.  I'm not remotely against killing foxes when they are causing issues and neither are a lot of people like me who are against hunting fox with hounds.  
.


----------



## Tiddlypom (25 July 2022)

Fred66 said:



			The hunt saboteurs who follow the hunts don’t give two hoots about either the law or animal welfare as is frequently shown by their actions.
		
Click to expand...

As I have previously posted many times, I do not approve of the way that sabs as opposed to monitors operate (and the two are very different).

However, you can't dismiss all sabs as being indifferent to animal welfare, it's just not true.

I was left in the weird situation here a season or so ago when the hunt had moved off leaving some lost hounds milling around on and near the road. The car hunt followers had also moved off abandoning the hounds. The only people left looking out for the hounds were me and a sab, who were both worried that they were going to get run over. He was keen to drive off and follow the hunt, but he wouldn't go til he was sure that the hounds were safe. I ended up reassuring him that I'd make sure that they were safe so that he could leave. So I ended up (again) flagging down traffic until the hounds moved off.

That was also one of the days when although the sabs were present (he was a sab, as I asked him which group he was from) they were just monitoring the hunt, which was indeed trail hunting.


----------



## millikins (25 July 2022)

ycbm said:



			Jolyon Maughan killed a fox caught in fencing in his garden  with a single blow of a baseball bat which was deemed after investigation an appropriate, humane and legal response to the situation.
.
		
Click to expand...

From the BBC and Guardian, most other sources are behind a paywall, they say the fox was killed "swiftly", no mention of a single blow. And in a similar mood of cynicism as your response to Mr Hankinson's reasoning for his webinar advice, why would a man who clearly didn't think his actions would raise the furore it did, or he wouldn't have posted on Twitter, then keep the body of the fox so it was available for an autopsy? All in the middle of the Christmas holidays.


----------



## ycbm (25 July 2022)

I apologise.  "Swiftly" to me,  with the absence of a prosecuion after an investigation, and the knowledge of what a baseball bat wielded at close range by a big man will do,   meant that the fox was either killed with the first blow or rendered unconscious by the first blow.  I completely accept it may not have been killed with one blow and I'm glad you don't dispute that it was killed humanely.   And therefore has no bearing whatsoever on fox hunting with hounds.

He's a lawyer.  Once a Twitter storm was raised he knew the only thing that made sense was to keep the fox carcass to prove he killed it humanely.  Presumably he didn't want to leave it decomposing until Christmas was over.  Why on earth would you question him doing that?
.


----------



## millikins (25 July 2022)

ycbm said:



			You assume,  i think,  when you made this comment,  that people who are anti fox hunting are against killing foxes.  I'm not remotely against killing foxes when they are causing issues and neither are a lot of people like me who are against hunting fox with hounds. 
.
		
Click to expand...

No I don't assume that at all. But many of those opposed to hunting foxes with hounds show little appreciation of the alternatives. I am obviously pro hunt on the whole but I accept the most humane way to kill a fox is a marksman with a rifle, however this option is expensive and not readily available, most gun licenses are for shotguns which often wound or maim. And as others have said at least hunting gives foxes a closed season unlike the free for all they are now subject to.


----------



## millikins (25 July 2022)

ycbm said:



			I apologise.  "Swiftly" to me,  with the absence of a prosecuion after an investigation, and the knowledge of what a baseball bat wielded at close range by a big man will do,   meant that the fox was either killed with the first blow or rendered unconscious by the first blow.  I completely accept it may not have been killed with one blow and I'm glad you don't dispute that it was killed humanely.   And therefore has no bearing whatsoever on fox hunting with hounds.
.
		
Click to expand...

Well except that a fox caught in chicken netting which was likely electrified then clubbed with a baseball bat probably suffered as much or as little as one chased by hounds then killed with a bite to the neck.


----------



## ycbm (25 July 2022)

millikins said:



			Well except that a fox caught in chicken netting which was likely electrified then clubbed with a baseball bat probably suffered as much or as little as one chased by hounds then killed with a bite to the neck.
		
Click to expand...


He didn't have a bunch of people having a party in his garden to watch and paying him for the privilege,  or set out deliberately to chase a fox with a pack of hounds and it,  though,  did he?   The comparison, as a defence of hunting,   is ridiculous.
.


----------



## ycbm (25 July 2022)

millikins said:



			{shooting with a rifle} is not readily available,
		
Click to expand...

it's readily available in the countryside I have just moved from.




			And as others have said at least hunting gives foxes a closed season unlike the free for all they are now subject to.
		
Click to expand...

No it doesn't.  Problem foxes are shot in summer when there's no hunting and always have been.

.


----------



## teacups (25 July 2022)

Fred66 said:



			This article is also quite appropriate
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/tim-bonner/hunting-act_b_6704010.html

The hunt saboteurs who follow the hunts don’t give two hoots about either the law or animal welfare as is frequently shown by their actions. They hide behind this to intimidate (where else would masked individuals flagrantly harassing others be allowed to get away with the actions they take)

Trespass might be a civil matter until you are asked to leave at which point a refusal (along with continued harassment by those seeking to hide their identity to avoid prosecution) becomes a criminal matter.

Breaking the law deliberately (even if you believe that doing so might prevent another crime occurring) is a form of vigilantism and needs to be stopped. Follow from public rights of way, collate evidence and phone the police if you believe a crime is occurring.
		
Click to expand...


That would apply to the hunt, too, then?

You mean I should forward any first hand evidence I might have of the hunt trespassing on my land, which they full well knew they had no permission to be on, and chasing a fox with hounds, to the police?

They also knew there were pregnant ewes on the land, and a horse. It was easy to avoid the land. They could not care less about animal welfare that day. 

Appalling attitude, and I’m not surprised to hear that many farmers and landowners are getting fed up.


----------



## Koweyka (25 July 2022)

Why do pro hunt people keep peddling the lie that a fox is killed by a swift nip to the neck when the hounds catch and kill it ?


----------



## Fred66 (25 July 2022)

teacups said:



			That would apply to the hunt, too, then?

You mean I should forward any first hand evidence I might have of the hunt trespassing on my land, which they full well knew they had no permission to be on, and chasing a fox with hounds, to the police?

They also knew there were pregnant ewes on the land, and a horse. It was easy to avoid the land. They could not care less about animal welfare that day.

Appalling attitude, and I’m not surprised to hear that many farmers and landowners are getting fed up.
		
Click to expand...

If you ask them to leave and they refuse, then yes report them


----------



## spacefaer (25 July 2022)

In terms of fox welfare, the number of foxes in our area is in serious decline. They are lamped and shot all year round, including pregnant vixens.

 On the hillside behind our house, there are always been a litter or two every spring in living memory (and some of the local farmers are very old, with very long memories!) 
Last spring, we found a pile of 7 dead adult foxes pushed under some brambles.  With night vision goggles, night scopes and high powered rifles, badgers and foxes don't stand a chance. 
Not sure the ban has helped the species much.


----------



## meleeka (25 July 2022)

spacefaer said:



			Last spring, we found a pile of 7 dead adult foxes pushed under some brambles.  With night vision goggles, night scopes and high powered rifles, badgers and foxes don't stand a chance.
Not sure the ban has helped the species much.
		
Click to expand...

How do you think fox hunting would have prevented this?


----------



## meleeka (25 July 2022)

Fred66 said:



			If you ask them to leave and they refuse, then yes report them
		
Click to expand...

You shouldn’t have to ask them to leave if they know they are trespassing.


----------



## Fred66 (25 July 2022)

meleeka said:



			You shouldn’t have to ask them to leave if they know they are trespassing.
		
Click to expand...

It is not always clear cut, they might not know, land boundaries are not always clearly marked.


----------



## Fred66 (25 July 2022)

meleeka said:



			How do you think fox hunting would have prevented this?
		
Click to expand...

Can you please edit this post as you have indicated that I said this and it was not me .


----------



## meleeka (25 July 2022)

.


----------



## meleeka (25 July 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Can you please edit this post as you have indicated that I said this and it was not me .
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, I’ve no idea how I managed that!


----------



## suestowford (25 July 2022)

Fred66 said:



			I am unsure on how you differentiate between killing a fox for sport, if the farmer shoots the fox is this not sport ?
		
Click to expand...

I would imagine that most farmers would shoot a fox to protect their livestock, rather than for fun.
I'd also hazard a guess that a lot of farmers are too busy with farming, to have time for much fun of any kind.


----------



## meleeka (25 July 2022)

suestowford said:



			I would imagine that most farmers would shoot a fox to protect their livestock, rather than for fun.
I'd also hazard a guess that a lot of farmers are too busy with farming, to have time for much fun of any kind.
		
Click to expand...

A fox walking  around minding its own business, then getting shot and killed is totally different from being made to run for its life, for goodness knows how long, then being torn apart by dogs.  The latter causes distress and suffering and that’s the difference.


----------



## spacefaer (25 July 2022)

meleeka said:



			How do you think fox hunting would have prevented this?
		
Click to expand...

Because the sheep farmers who are allowing the chap who did it on their land to shoot the badgers wouldn't have tolerated the shooting of foxes pre ban. Now the hunt is not controlling the population, there is indiscriminate year round, all age shooting which is directly affecting the whole population. There hasn't been a litter on the bank for at least three years, which I find very sad.


----------



## Koweyka (25 July 2022)

Many studies have concluded that fox hunting does nothing for population control, many hunts used to feed foxes in areas they hunted to make sure they had something to chase. Why do artificial earths exist ?

There are just too many trigger happy lunatics with guns that get their kicks by shooting animals.


----------



## paddy555 (25 July 2022)

Fred66 said:



			It is not always clear cut, they might not know, land boundaries are not always clearly marked.
		
Click to expand...

rubbish. If you are the master/huntsman it is up to you to KNOW if you or your hounds or any other part of the hunt are permitted on a piece of land.
Hounds came over the fence (pulling it down as they went) into one of our fields. We have owned it for over 40 years. If they didn't know they should have found out. They actually came from a field on the other side of the fence where they also had no right to be. Huntsman came out the following after I complained. Said he didn't know  the boundaries. 
Not a case of not knowing just a case of CBA to respect.


----------



## Koweyka (25 July 2022)

paddy555 said:



			rubbish. If you are the master/huntsman it is up to you to KNOW if you or your hounds or any other part of the hunt are permitted on a piece of land.
Hounds came over the fence (pulling it down as they went) into one of our fields. We have owned it for over 40 years. If they didn't know they should have found out. They actually came from a field on the other side of the fence where they also had no right to be. Huntsman came out the following after I complained. Said he didn't know  the boundaries.
Not a case of not knowing just a case of CBA to respect.
		
Click to expand...

And when hounds are killing foxes in private gardens or chasing foxes around housing estates, across busy A roads what’s the excuse for that ? The fallacy that it’s only the anti’s that trespass is ridiculous, if a hunt is pursuing a fox there is no regard for anything or anyone else.


----------



## Indy (25 July 2022)

Fred66 said:



			It is not always clear cut, they might not know, land boundaries are not always clearly marked.
		
Click to expand...

You'd like to think they'd if they're laying a trail they'd know where they were going and would have asked the landowners permission before laying the trail.


----------



## Fred66 (25 July 2022)

Do you know about scent at all ? Weather conditions can have a big impact on it there is no guarantee that it remains where it was laid,  strength of the scent, how long it will last, there can be other outside factors that might impact on it. The trail will be laid by someone that is familiar with the country and it will be laid where they have permission to go but that doesn’t guarantee that it remains there


----------



## teacups (25 July 2022)

Fred66 said:



			It is not always clear cut, they might not know, land boundaries are not always clearly marked.
		
Click to expand...

In this case, it was very clear.
In this case there was also no trail.


----------



## Sandstone1 (25 July 2022)

So trails are laid through gardens on railway lines and on land that the hunt is not allowed?  Oh no the wind, rain frost etc will have moved the trail miles off course  wont it? total co incidence that a fox was found and hunted on this mystical trail is it not.  Yeah right.


----------



## Tiddlypom (25 July 2022)

Fred66 said:



			The trail will be laid by someone that is familiar with the country and it will be laid where they have permission to go but that doesn’t guarantee that it remains there
		
Click to expand...

Then the trail layer needs to take the prevailing scenting conditions into account, inc wind direction, and keep well away from land that the hunt has not been given permission to be on. There is no excuse for incursions onto off limits land. That happens because of poor practice.


----------



## Koweyka (25 July 2022)

If the scent being laid isn’t strong enough to hold the pack despite how “windy or wet ” it is then that hunt/pack has no business being out.

And the second the hounds deviate off the line the huntsman and whip should be calling them back immediately, not leaving them to rampage on private property after a “four legged ginger trail”


----------



## paddy555 (25 July 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Do you know about scent at all ? Weather conditions can have a big impact on it there is no guarantee that it remains where it was laid,  strength of the scent, how long it will last, there can be other outside factors that might impact on it. The trail will be laid by someone that is familiar with the country and it will be laid where they have permission to go but that doesn’t guarantee that it remains there
		
Click to expand...

I don't need to know about scent at all. It is of no interest to me (or other landowners) The hunts job is to keep hounds (and everyone else) off land where they are  not permitted. How they do it I have absolutely no interest in. Up to them not up to me to prevent mistakes. 
Do you not understand that?


----------



## Fred66 (25 July 2022)

…


----------



## Indy (25 July 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Do you know about scent at all ? Weather conditions can have a big impact on it there is no guarantee that it remains where it was laid,  strength of the scent, how long it will last, there can be other outside factors that might impact on it. The trail will be laid by someone that is familiar with the country and it will be laid where they have permission to go but that doesn’t guarantee that it remains there
		
Click to expand...

I do know a little bit about scent, I take my own dog mantrailing and appreciate that hot humid conditions and obviously wind can make scent drift and travel and that cold, frosty ground holds scent better but whether you're following a trail step by step or you've gone off kilter you really shouldn't be worrying other folks pregnant ewes.


----------



## palo1 (25 July 2022)

paddy555 said:



			I don't need to know about scent at all. It is of no interest to me (or other landowners) The hunts job is to keep hounds (and everyone else) off land where they are  not permitted. How they do it I have absolutely no interest in. Up to them not up to me to prevent mistakes.
Do you not understand that?
		
Click to expand...

I think everyone understands that mistakes shouldn't happen and certainly in some cases there is real damage and upset which is intolerable.  Having said that, where on earth is any sense of reality about life in the countryside?  people's Sheep get onto their neighbours land as do cattle, fences aren't maintained, gates get left open,  people's domestic dogs don't always go where they are supposed to and farm dogs roam on occasion.  Generally people are tolerant and understanding when accidents happen or something goes awry.  I understand that some posters here have a complete intolerance to any kind of hound activity and that is fine but the reality generally in rural areas is that people try to be tolerant with their neighbours and the community.  I don't see any sense of that in what is posted here tbh.  I am not talking about when damage and upset happens but what I have generally seen to be the case when hounds are not quite where they are supposed to be without causing damage or upset.  This forum isn't the place for moderate views about hunting I know though.


----------



## Tiddlypom (25 July 2022)

palo1 said:



			Generally people are tolerant and understanding when accidents happen or something goes awry.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed, but they are much less tolerant when repeated incursions happen due to incompetence and/or deliberate poor or illegal practice.


----------



## ycbm (25 July 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Do you know about scent at all ? Weather conditions can have a big impact on it there is no guarantee that it remains where it was laid,  strength of the scent, how long it will last, there can be other outside factors that might impact on it. The trail will be laid by someone that is familiar with the country and it will be laid where they have permission to go but that doesn’t guarantee that it remains there
		
Click to expand...


And yet drag hunts have no trouble keeping their hounds on the scent.
We've been through all this so many times!


----------



## palo1 (25 July 2022)

ycbm said:



			And yet drag hunts have no trouble keeping their hounds on the scent.
We've been through all this so many times!
		
Click to expand...

Drag hunts do go astray on occasion as do bloodhounds.


----------



## Fred66 (25 July 2022)

ycbm said:



			And yet drag hunts have no trouble keeping their hounds on the scent.
We've been through all this so many times!
		
Click to expand...

Some of the reasons I gave are not about hounds losing the scent but about the scent moving from where it is laid. This can happen with any pack, drag or trail.

Equally I was not excusing deliberate trespass by hunts, I started by saying that if hunts are on land that the owner doesn’t want them on and they refuse to leave then they should be reported to the police for criminal trespass.


----------



## Fred66 (25 July 2022)

Indy said:



			I do know a little bit about scent, I take my own dog mantrailing and appreciate that hot humid conditions and obviously wind can make scent drift and travel and that cold, frosty ground holds scent better but whether you're following a trail step by step or you've gone off kilter you really shouldn't be worrying other folks pregnant ewes.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree if stock is being worried it’s not acceptable but fortunately it is quite rare.
However I regularly read reports by sabs that stock has been worried when in fact it has just moved away from hounds passing by. Worrying is the deliberate chasing of not just happening to be in the vicinity.


----------



## Indy (25 July 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Totally agree if stock is being worried it’s not acceptable but fortunately it is quite rare.
However I regularly read reports by sabs that stock has been worried when in fact it has just moved away from hounds passing by. Worrying is the deliberate chasing of not just happening to be in the vicinity.
		
Click to expand...

I don't follow sab reports, I'm referring to our flock  who were worried by the Boxing Hunt a couple of years ago.


----------



## GoldenWillow (25 July 2022)

Fred66 said:



			If you ask them to leave and they refuse, then yes report them
		
Click to expand...

Police will still class it as a civil matter and are not interested, in our area anyway.



Fred66 said:



			It is not always clear cut, they might not know, land boundaries are not always clearly marked.
		
Click to expand...




Fred66 said:



			Do you know about scent at all ? Weather conditions can have a big impact on it there is no guarantee that it remains where it was laid,  strength of the scent, how long it will last, there can be other outside factors that might impact on it. The trail will be laid by someone that is familiar with the country and it will be laid where they have permission to go but that doesn’t guarantee that it remains there
		
Click to expand...

A hunt that regularly, 50%, of the time goes through a 35 acre pocket that they specifically did not and had never had permission to go on and a block of 100+ acres gone through 3 times in a row when, again, specifically told in no uncertain terms not to go near is very clear cut to me.

We have hound trails running in our area and in at our village. Although there's the odd hound that gets lost I've never known the whole field to go off track by even a full field.


----------



## ycbm (25 July 2022)

palo1 said:



			Drag hunts do go astray on occasion as do bloodhounds.
		
Click to expand...




Fred66 said:



			Some of the reasons I gave are not about hounds losing the scent but about the scent moving from where
		
Click to expand...



To my knowledge (and I was nearly always at the front), it never happened once in the many,  many years that I drag hunted that the pack strayed more than 100 or so metres from the intended trail before being recalled.


----------



## Tiddlypom (25 July 2022)

Following on from the reorganisation of the governance of hunting in the wake of the webinar leak.

To which body should a member of the public now raise a formal complaint about the actions of a hunt, and what are their contact details?

The MFHA were about as useful as a chocolate teapot in handling complaints. Let's hope that the new version takes that side rather more seriously.


----------



## paddy555 (25 July 2022)

palo1 said:



			I think everyone understands that mistakes shouldn't happen and certainly in some cases there is real damage and upset which is intolerable.  Having said that, where on earth is any sense of reality about life in the countryside?  people's Sheep get onto their neighbours land as do cattle, fences aren't maintained, gates get left open,  people's domestic dogs don't always go where they are supposed to and farm dogs roam on occasion.  Generally people are tolerant and understanding when accidents happen or something goes awry.  I understand that some posters here have a complete intolerance to any kind of hound activity and that is fine but the reality generally in rural areas is that people try to be tolerant with their neighbours and the community.  I don't see any sense of that in what is posted here tbh.  I am not talking about when damage and upset happens but what I have generally seen to be the case when hounds are not quite where they are supposed to be without causing damage or upset.  This forum isn't the place for moderate views about hunting I know though.
		
Click to expand...

sorry but no. It is not about tolerance. This is an organised activity that has to take total responsibility for it's actions. If hounds chase a cat through a village how can tolerance be exercised by the owner. It is simply lack of control. If hounds go running across a field which no permission it isn't tolerance that is needed it is control of dogs. If hunt staff don''t know if there is permission on a block of land it is not tolerance that is needed it is responsibility. If they go through a stable yard or close to horses in a field or stables etc and cause upset why is it the owner who should show tolerance. Why not the hunt who having seen a potential problem who should show respect and avoid the area/place. The hunt must know the area, they must know there are several horses in X field so their choices are to take the whole hunt past which could almost certainly rile the horses up and cause an accident or just avoid that area. They most often do the former. 

This is a very crowded little island and if someone wants to carry on an activity it is up to them to make sure others are not inconvenienced. 
I do have tolerance for sheep and cattle but I don't need to have because my neighbours have taken steps to make sure their boundaries are good so everything stays where it should be. Similarly my boundaries have been made very secure to make sure no one goes walkabout. If my dog roamed then I would expect my neighbours to shoot it. As it was causing havoc in a flock of sheep I wouldn't expect them to be tolerant I would see I was at fault in failing to keep it under control. In the same way if hounds run through my animals I don't expect to exercise tolerance. 

From your post I see it that you expect people to be tolerant about the hunt and it's mistakes. I see it that mistakes should be exceedingly rare. No one would be thinking of tolerance if a walker let say a half a dozen loose GSDs run their field of horses. I think the horse owner would be furious and rightly so. 

I'm afraid that many of these posts about tolerance do come across as arrogance of the hunts. Perhaps that is just me.


----------



## suestowford (25 July 2022)

It's not just you, Paddy.


----------



## Fred66 (25 July 2022)

Paddy I agree with some of what you have written but not all. I would agree that the full pack of hounds and field should never be on property where they know they are not welcome, that apologies should be immediate and that this should not be repeated. That stock should be safe from being worried, these things are not acceptable.

However I would argue that some of the blame for hunts no longer making an effort to notify all land owners where they will be lies with the growing lack of tolerance in the countryside. It appears to make no difference to some that the majority of hunts are legally hunting a trail and this manifests itself in people actively going out to abuse those partaking in a legal pastime. Is it any wonder that the provision of information is disseminated to those who are supportive of their activities, never mind the time and cost of informing a wider circle of people.

I read of one hunt who at the meet invited the hunt “monitors “ to partake of food and drink as well as to follow the hunt to show them the trail. They could have politely refused, explained that they were vegans whatever, instead they verbally abused the lady who offered them hospitality , took photos of her and then posted these photos on twitter using derogatory terms to encourage others to do the same.

If the hunt are on a public road, bridle way or private land with the owners permission then there is no obligation on them to inform the general public that they will be in the area. Would it be a neighborly thing to do then yes, but to be honest would it change opinions of many of you on here ? I would hazard a guess not and possibly what many perceive as arrogance on behalf of the hunts may well just be them retreating from an argument before it starts, you can only beat your head against a brick wall for so long.  I am sure there are arrogant hunts out there but equally many are just decent people trying to avoid conflict partaking in a legal activity.

People are entitled to be intolerant of others if they so choose but don’t then be surprised if the other person won’t do you a favour.

Also it isn’t up to organised activities to not inconvenience others, where I live we have cycle races on a weekly basis , along with club cycle nights etc. They can be  annoying and irritating, and  inconvenient, but they have every right to be there so I have to tolerate them. If you go at it with a tolerant attitude then largely I find it doesn annoy me as much.


----------



## paddy555 (26 July 2022)

I'm sorry Fred but you just don't seem to get it. Cyclists race on public roads, they don't normally stray across private land with  or without livestock on it. The hunt  and it's animals should not be  on that private land without permission. Straying hounds are not an excuse. Not a full pack of hounds, any number of hounds full stop. None. In that case people don't have to tolerate them. 

As far as neighbourly things to do. Then if there are say horses in a field by the side of the road then of course the hunt don't have to do anything whatsoever for those horses. They are perfectly free to charge past and to upset them. Of course they are. Similarly horses in a yard or whatever situation.  However as animal owners themselves one would have thought they would have had a little more respect for them and tried to avoid them or at least to reduce the hunt activities to the bare minimum not to rile them up and risk injury. 

One could always have the situation whereby the hunt avoid problems areas to reduce disruption and injury to those horses. But of course why should they, as you say people are entitled to be intolerant of others.


----------



## Fred66 (26 July 2022)

paddy555 said:



			I'm sorry Fred but you just don't seem to get it. Cyclists race on public roads, they don't normally stray across private land with  or without livestock on it. The hunt  and it's animals should not be  on that private land without permission. Straying hounds are not an excuse. Not a full pack of hounds, any number of hounds full stop. None. In that case people don't have to tolerate them..
		
Click to expand...

You are deliberately comparing trespass by a hunt (which I agreed with you was wrong) rather than to a hunt partaking in its legal activity on ground it is allowed to be on. I can understand your anger and frustration with the hunt near you if you are subject to regular trespass, however this doesn’t mean that other hunts act in the same way, trail hunting is legal and if done legally then the inconvenience of them being on the road and slowing you down is directly comparable to cycle club time trials or road races (if anything these can be worse as they impact on a larger number of people)



paddy555 said:



			As far as neighbourly things to do. Then if there are say horses in a field by the side of the road then of course the hunt don't have to do anything whatsoever for those horses. They are perfectly free to charge past and to upset them. Of course they are. Similarly horses in a yard or whatever situation.  However as animal owners themselves one would have thought they would have had a little more respect for them and tried to avoid them or at least to reduce the hunt activities to the bare minimum not to rile them up and risk injury.

One could always have the situation whereby the hunt avoid problems areas to reduce disruption and injury to those horses. But of course why should they, as you say people are entitled to be intolerant of others.
		
Click to expand...

Our hunt is considerate of horses left out, we generally go past in at most a trot and frequently walk. This does not always stop incidents, we we’re passing down a bridle path in a very steady walk a good sized field away from one horse, that got through its field fence (so badly fenced it might as well not have had one) and took off in the opposite direction. A small group of the field plus car followers did a combination of following the horse, phoning round to see if we could identify an owner, as well as knocking at peoples doors. We spent the better part of two hours trying to catch it and when the owner was located we got a mouthful of abuse. So as I said tolerance is a two way street and the responsibility for an animals safety is the owners.

Our hunt has land split across a fairly wide area but generally speaking the hunt cards don’t differ much from one season to another so chances are most locals will have a fairly good idea of when the hunt is likely to be nearby.


----------



## ycbm (26 July 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Our hunt has land split across a fairly wide area but generally speaking the hunt cards don’t differ much from one season to another so chances are most locals will have a fairly good idea of when the hunt is likely to be nearby.
		
Click to expand...


You're so close to the wood you can't see the trees Fred.

This is what people mean when they call hunts arrogant. You expect  people to remember from year to year which specific weeks your hunt comes to their area.  You expect incomers to the area,  whenever residents or liveries of renters of grazing to pick this information up by osmosis. 

I'm sorry you have trouble from sabs if you tell people where you are going to be,  but imo that is the fault of hunts which don't take enough trouble to avoid catching fox, both legal and illegal.  There is very little sabbing of drag packs, we have been told on this forum of only one that has been sabbed any time recently.   

There are notices in advance of bike races, there should be notification of hunting.  The country is too small and populated for you simply to insist on tolerance.  
.


----------



## Fred66 (26 July 2022)

ycbm said:



			You're so close to the wood you can't see the trees Fred.

This is what people mean when they call hunts arrogant. You expect  people to remember from year to year which specific weeks your hunt comes to their area.  You expect incomers to the area,  whenever residents or liveries of renters of grazing to pick this information up by osmosis.

I'm sorry you have trouble from sabs if you tell people where you are going to be,  but imo that is the fault of hunts which don't take enough trouble to avoid catching fox, both legal and illegal.  There is very little sabbing of drag packs, we have been told on this forum of only one that has been sabbed any time recently.  

There are notices in advance of bike races, there should be notification of hunting.  The country is too small and populated for you simply to insist on tolerance. 
.
		
Click to expand...

Have to disagree with you , notice of cycle races don’t go up round here, the first you here of it frequently is seeing a Marshall at a crossroads.

I think the arrogance being shown by many on here regarding an entitlement to be informed of when the hunt is in your area is remarkable. The total self absorption and unwillingness to see that there is no obligation for the hunts to inform you of when they will be in the area and that the sharing of the information is theirs to gift not yours as a right, isthe epitome of arrogance.


----------



## ycbm (26 July 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Have to disagree with you , notice of cycle races don’t go up round here, the first you here of it frequently is seeing a Marshall at a crossroads.
		
Click to expand...

Road races aren't allowed without prior warning.  You may be talking about time trials where riders ride singly which do not equate to the chaos caused on the roads by a big group of horses and riders.  If you have marshalled groups of cyclists racing as a peleton,  report it to the police. 




			I think the arrogance being shown by many on here regarding an entitlement to be informed of when the hunt is in your area is remarkable. The total self absorption and unwillingness to see that there is no obligation for the hunts to inform you of when they will be in the area and that the sharing of the information is theirs to gift not yours as a right, isthe epitome of arrogance.
		
Click to expand...

And that's why eventually you will lose hunting altogether and have nobody to blame but yourselves. 
.


----------



## Indy (26 July 2022)

Fred66 said:



			You are deliberately comparing trespass by a hunt (which I agreed with you was wrong) rather than to a hunt partaking in its legal activity on ground it is allowed to be on. I can understand your anger and frustration with the hunt near you if you are subject to regular trespass, however this doesn’t mean that other hunts act in the same way, trail hunting is legal and if done legally then the inconvenience of them being on the road and slowing you down is directly comparable to cycle club time trials or road races (if anything these can be worse as they impact on a larger number of people)



Our hunt is considerate of horses left out, we generally go past in at most a trot and frequently walk. This does not always stop incidents, we we’re passing down a bridle path in a very steady walk a good sized field away from one horse, that got through its field fence (so badly fenced it might as well not have had one) and took off in the opposite direction. A small group of the field plus car followers did a combination of following the horse, phoning round to see if we could identify an owner, as well as knocking at peoples doors. We spent the better part of two hours trying to catch it and when the owner was located we got a mouthful of abuse. So as I said tolerance is a two way street and the responsibility for an animals safety is the owners.
		
Click to expand...

Is that just not being a good person though.  I can't say I'm overly fond of cyclists but if I saw one fall off in front of me I'd stop and give first aid and make sure they were ok.  I saw someone struggling with their horse to get past a van with flappy tarpaulin.  I know she hunts, I've seen her with them in the pub, the  road was wet, the horse had forgotten where it's brain was I didn't just drive past chuntering too myself, I pulled over, put a leadrope on and led her two mile up the road back to her yard.  We've housed hounds when they've been forgotten until the kennels came and picked them up (with no thank you) and if I saw a loose hunt horse or a rider on the floor I'd help them too.  That's not tolerance that's just being a good person.  We don't tolerate it when folks come on stealing diesel or machinery, why should we tolerate the hunt mucking up our crops and worrying our livestock?


----------



## Fred66 (26 July 2022)

ycbm said:



			Road races aren't allowed without prior warning.  You may be talking about time trials where riders ride singly which do not equate to the chaos caused on the roads by a big group of horses and riders.  If you have marshalled groups of cyclists racing as a peleton,  report it to the police.



And that's why eventually you will lose hunting altogether and have nobody to blame but yourselves.
.
		
Click to expand...

I said time trials and races, along with just club nights where they ride round in groups of 20+ without any prior warning or signage. 

Hopefully you are wrong about the latter, it would be a sad reflection on society if the “me first” people were able to convince the Government that minority activities have no place in this Country.


----------



## Fred66 (26 July 2022)

Indy said:



			Is that just not being a good person though.  I can't say I'm overly fond of cyclists but if I saw one fall off in front of me I'd stop and give first aid and make sure they were ok.  I saw someone struggling with their horse to get past a van with flappy tarpaulin.  I know she hunts, I've seen her with them in the pub, the  road was wet, the horse had forgotten where it's brain was I didn't just drive past chuntering too myself, I pulled over, put a leadrope on and led her two mile up the road back to her yard.  We've housed hounds when they've been forgotten until the kennels came and picked them up (with no thank you) and if I saw a loose hunt horse or a rider on the floor I'd help them too.  That's not tolerance that's just being a good person.  We don't tolerate it when folks come on stealing diesel or machinery, why should we tolerate the hunt mucking up our crops and worrying our livestock?
		
Click to expand...

I am not sure how many more times I can say hunts shouldn’t trespass and no one is expecting you to tolerate that. The hunt should have thanked you for finding the hounds, and yes helping others is something that generally I would expect of people especially in the countryside where remoteness can bring its own problems.

I find the description by some of the lack of manners by some hunts quite appalling as good manners on the hunting field is one of the first rules that’s learnt. 

Tolerance regarding their legal activities is what is being asked for. However many on here don’t think they should have to have even this, but expect the hunts at their own expense and time to notify them if they are going to be in the area. They seem to think that its our fault that we are continually harassed and abused, even when we have tried to work with monitors to show that we are trail hunting, that an action by a hunt 100+ miles away is in someway our fault. That we should provide information to all whilst knowing that the chances are that information will enable our abusers to be pre-warned. 

That we in some way deserve the abuse that we receive and should basically pack up and go quietly because they don’t like our activity as it offends and inconveniences them


----------



## palo1 (26 July 2022)

Fred66 said:



			I am not sure how many more times I can say hunts shouldn’t trespass and no one is expecting you to tolerate that. The hunt should have thanked you for finding the hounds, and yes helping others is something that generally I would expect of people especially in the countryside where remoteness can bring its own problems.

I find the description by some of the lack of manners by some hunts quite appalling as good manners on the hunting field is one of the first rules that’s learnt.

Tolerance regarding their legal activities is what is being asked for. However many on here don’t think they should have to have even this, but expect the hunts at their own expense and time to notify them if they are going to be in the area. They seem to think that its our fault that we are continually harassed and abused, even when we have tried to work with monitors to show that we are trail hunting, that an action by a hunt 100+ miles away is in someway our fault. That we should provide information to all whilst knowing that the chances are that information will enable our abusers to be pre-warned.

That we in some way deserve the abuse that we receive and should basically pack up and go quietly because they don’t like our activity as it offends and inconveniences them
		
Click to expand...

It is a reflection on some elements of society that tolerance cannot and will not be given unless that fits their schedule and ideology.  The internet is absolutely a place where extreme opinions are expressed and where polarisation in debate is highlighted and sadly driven by algorithm and narrow focus but at the same time it does reveal the mentality of those parts of society where opinion can be expressed not only as fact but also where those opinions do not need facts, informed debate or wider cultural values that we generally hold in our society to be applied.   I am really proud of my community, it's diversity in many ways, in the fact that it is not an echo chamber, where tolerance is actually practised and where people come together in lots of different places - culturally and physically.  I don't see very many of the things that posters here talk about as if they are every day occurrences, I don't experience a lack of tolerance and my neighbours both pro and anti hunting have NEVER made me feel uncomfortable about my choice to trail hunt.   I don't see the culture wars that are spouted as truth here on this forum.  I see and experience far more tolerance and acceptance of differing views and values and I am truly grateful for that.   I have had abuse from hunt sabs (when I was neither mounted nor in any form of hunting dress) and I have met very polite and interested hunt monitors.   I have never knowingly ridden anywhere that wasn't cleared and I have never received any kind of abuse from a landowner or any indication that me, in hunting attire, is either an unwelcome sight or actively offensive.  I am glad of that too.  I am certain that I am far from alone in experiencing communities that are generous and open to others living their lives as they choose and actively promoting tolerance of difference in this issue as well as others.


----------



## Fred66 (26 July 2022)

palo1 said:



			It is a reflection on some elements of society that tolerance cannot and will not be given unless that fits their schedule and ideology.  The internet is absolutely a place where extreme opinions are expressed and where polarisation in debate is highlighted and sadly driven by algorithm and narrow focus but at the same time it does reveal the mentality of those parts of society where opinion can be expressed not only as fact but also where those opinions do not need facts, informed debate or wider cultural values that we generally hold in our society to be applied.   I am really proud of my community, it's diversity in many ways, in the fact that it is not an echo chamber, where tolerance is actually practised and where people come together in lots of different places - culturally and physically.  I don't see very many of the things that posters here talk about as if they are every day occurrences, I don't experience a lack of tolerance and my neighbours both pro and anti hunting have NEVER made me feel uncomfortable about my choice to trail hunt.   I don't see the culture wars that are spouted as truth here on this forum.  I see and experience far more tolerance and acceptance of differing views and values and I am truly grateful for that.   I have had abuse from hunt sabs (when I was neither mounted nor in any form of hunting dress) and I have met very polite and interested hunt monitors.   I have never knowingly ridden anywhere that wasn't cleared and I have never received any kind of abuse from a landowner or any indication that me, in hunting attire, is either an unwelcome sight or actively offensive.  I am glad of that too.  I am certain that I am far from alone in experiencing communities that are generous and open to others living their lives as they choose and actively promoting tolerance of difference in this issue as well as others.
		
Click to expand...

I liked your post albeit some of the latter parts I now find sadly on the wane , we used to have hunt monitors who whilst not interacting much with us were generally polite. We now have hunt sabs and sadly this has changed. Last season our huntsman and his young family were subject to daily abuse by sabs sitting outside his house for almost a fortnight, how can anyone think this is acceptable?
Many locally appear to be live and let live so the abuse is by a few but they are a vocal few, pulling in some who whilst not directly abusive excuse it by making out it is deserved.


----------



## palo1 (26 July 2022)

Fred66 said:



			I liked your post albeit some of the latter parts I now find sadly on the wane , we used to have hunt monitors who whilst not interacting much with us were generally polite. We now have hunt sabs and sadly this has changed. Last season our huntsman and his young family were subject to daily abuse by sabs sitting outside his house for almost a fortnight, how can anyone think this is acceptable?
Many locally appear to be live and let live so the abuse is by a few but they are a vocal few, pulling in some who whilst not directly abusive excuse it by making out it is deserved.
		
Click to expand...

Abuse, harassment and the involvement of other family members in any ideological issue is appalling.  Sadly those strategies are deployed by people who do not want to debate or reason about their views, nor practise reasonability and tolerance and this can be seen increasingly around several issues of choice.  I am really sad that you have experienced this.  I hope you all have some good support locally to deal with what sounds a horrendous situation.  Our huntsman too has a young family and we are mindful of that so I understand how stressful and horrible that is to have to take on board.


----------



## Koweyka (26 July 2022)

Fred66 said:



			I liked your post albeit some of the latter parts I now find sadly on the wane , we used to have hunt monitors who whilst not interacting much with us were generally polite. We now have hunt sabs and sadly this has changed. Last season our huntsman and his young family were subject to daily abuse by sabs sitting outside his house for almost a fortnight, how can anyone think this is acceptable?
Many locally appear to be live and let live so the abuse is by a few but they are a vocal few, pulling in some who whilst not directly abusive excuse it by making out it is deserved.
		
Click to expand...

There has to be some reason why your hunt is being targeted, there are almost 300 hunts in the country and probably a couple of dozen sab groups and a dozen monitoring groups, so as an anti it makes absolutely no sense for a sab group to waste time on a hunt that is trailing within the law as you state your hunt does, when there are plenty that aren’t.


----------



## Koweyka (26 July 2022)

palo1 said:



			Abuse, harassment and the involvement of other family members in any ideological issue is appalling.  Sadly those strategies are deployed by people who do not want to debate or reason about their views, nor practise reasonability and tolerance and this can be seen increasingly around several issues of choice.  I am really sad that you have experienced this.  I hope you all have some good support locally to deal with what sounds a horrendous situation.  Our huntsman too has a young family and we are mindful of that so I understand how stressful and horrible that is to have to take on board.
		
Click to expand...

You are aware that it’s a two way street and anti’s are subjected to the same if not worse level of harassment by the hunting community.


----------



## palo1 (26 July 2022)

Koweyka said:



			You are aware that it’s a two way street and anti’s are subjected to the same if not worse level of harassment by the hunting community.
		
Click to expand...

Not in my name and not from my hunting community. That is important to be aware of; hunting is made up of many different communities - that has always been it's nature and why it isn't possible to generalise.  There is as much difference between hunting communities as there are political constituencies and local cultures.  That is at least one reason why the silly MFHA have failed to engage all hunts; many of which never attended the webinars for example.  It is very much needed to have some effective over-arching governance, but then sab and monitor groups experience the same issues and differ in their strategies and group cultures too.


----------



## paddy555 (26 July 2022)

palo1 said:



			It is a reflection on some elements of society that tolerance cannot and will not be given unless that fits their schedule and ideology.  .
		
Click to expand...

you've hit the nail on the head. If we are expected to be tolerant of the hunt then they are also expected to be tolerant of the rest of the population and their property. and their animals. 
I'm afraid YCBM has made the most accurate comment. You cannot see the wood for the trees.


----------



## Nasicus (26 July 2022)

I think the arrogance being shown by many on here regarding an entitlement to be informed of when the hunt is in your area is remarkable. The total self absorption and unwillingness to see that there is no obligation for the hunts to inform you of when they will be in the area and that the sharing of the information is theirs to gift not yours as a right, isthe epitome of arrogance.
		
Click to expand...

Ah yes, how _arrogant_ of people to want to be informed of when a bunch of people partaking in a voluntary pastime (which causes much disruption to those around them) are passing by. How _arrogant _of them to want to know when to keep their horses in, to make sure the cat is safely inside, to ensure all gates are closed, to know when to stay home all day to safeguard their land and stock, to know when the traffic is likely to be ground to a halt in the village, what roads are likely to be snarled up with followers, cars, quads and dogs. How absolutely _arrogant_ of them to expect the bare minimum basic decency 🙄


----------



## Fred66 (26 July 2022)

Koweyka said:



			There has to be some reason why your hunt is being targeted, there are almost 300 hunts in the country and probably a couple of dozen sab groups and a dozen monitoring groups, so as an anti it makes absolutely no sense for a sab group to waste time on a hunt that is trailing within the law as you state your hunt does, when there are plenty that aren’t.
		
Click to expand...

From what I see because  sabs are a law unto themselves and get enjoyment from harassing others. Quite sad and frankly disturbing that there are people out there that appear to derive enjoyment in terrorizing others. But to be honest I can’t make sense of them or their actions, it’s outside my comprehension.


----------



## Fred66 (26 July 2022)

Nasicus said:



			Ah yes, how _arrogant_ of people to want to be informed of when a bunch of people partaking in a voluntary pastime (which causes much disruption to those around them) are passing by. How _arrogant _of them to want to know when to keep their horses in, to make sure the cat is safely inside, to ensure all gates are closed, to know when to stay home all day to safeguard their land and stock, to know when the traffic is likely to be ground to a halt in the village, what roads are likely to be snarled up with followers, cars, quads and dogs. How absolutely _arrogant_ of them to expect the bare minimum basic decency 🙄
		
Click to expand...

Why do you feel that hunts are obligated to give this information? They have previously done this through courtesy and for many years this was happily done. However some hunts no longer do this for a number of reasons, if you politely ring the secretary and ask whether you could be notified when the hunt is likely to be in your vicinity in the coming season then the probability is that they will oblige. However more and more hunts are cagey about putting this information out there because bitter experience shows them that this results in them getting abused.

So as I previously said it is a courtesy that the hunt inform not a given right, and if people believe that it is their “right to know” and demand the information rather than ask politely then yes I would say they are being arrogant.


----------



## Miss_Millie (26 July 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Have to disagree with you , notice of cycle races don’t go up round here, the first you here of it frequently is seeing a Marshall at a crossroads.

I think the arrogance being shown by many on here regarding an entitlement to be informed of when the hunt is in your area is remarkable. *The total self absorption and unwillingness to see that there is no obligation for the hunts to inform you of when they will be in the area and that the sharing of the information is theirs to gift not yours as a right, isthe epitome of arrogance.*

Click to expand...

This has got to be one of the most ridiculous, arrogant, self important statements made on this thread.

Remember Barney the horse who was killed by hounds at the beginning of the year? His owner said she would have kept him in his stable if she had known the hunt would be riding by. Instead, 40 hounds broke into his field, chasing him into a gate and causing him to break his leg. When she arrived at the scene, he had been lying there for god knows how long and had to be euthanised. 

Are you really telling me that Barney's owner was the arrogant one in this situation? Her poor horse was just an innocent bystander, another victim of out of control hounds and _extremely _arrogant people, who couldn't keep one dog under control, let alone 40.

I am so fed up of people making up excuses for this kind of behaviour and for making it sound like the general public are the problem. Oh, how very very arrogant of us for wanting to protect our animals, we are the worst


----------



## Koweyka (26 July 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Why do you feel that hunts are obligated to give this information? They have previously done this through courtesy and for many years this was happily done. However some hunts no longer do this for a number of reasons, if you politely ring the secretary and ask whether you could be notified when the hunt is likely to be in your vicinity in the coming season then the probability is that they will oblige. However more and more hunts are cagey about putting this information out there because bitter experience shows them that this results in them getting abused.

So as I previously said it is a courtesy that the hunt inform not a given right, and if people believe that it is their “right to know” and demand the information rather than ask politely then yes I would say they are being arrogant.
		
Click to expand...

The thing is we don’t need a meet card to find out where any hunt is on any day, so by not giving the public the choice around keeping their pets, horses, livestock safe so a small minority can go hunting is yet another reason why the hunts are disliked so much.


----------



## Koweyka (26 July 2022)

Miss_Millie said:



			This has got to be one of the most ridiculous, arrogant, self important statements made on this thread.

Remember Barney the horse who was killed by hounds at the beginning of the year? His owner said she would have kept him in his stable if she had known the hunt would be riding by. Instead, 40 hounds broke into his field, chasing him into a gate and causing him to break his leg. When she arrived at the scene, he had been lying there for god knows how long and had to be euthanised.

Are you really telling me that Barney's owner was the arrogant one in this situation? Her poor horse was just an innocent bystander, another victim of out of control hounds and _extremely _arrogant people, who couldn't keep one dog under control, let alone 40.

I am so fed up of people making up excuses for this kind of behaviour and for making it sound like the general public are the problem. Oh, how very very arrogant of us for wanting to protect our animals, we are the worst 

Click to expand...

👏 extremely well said.


----------



## Nasicus (26 July 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Why do you feel that hunts are obligated to give this information? They have previously done this through courtesy and for many years this was happily done. However some hunts no longer do this for a number of reasons, if you politely ring the secretary and ask whether you could be notified when the hunt is likely to be in your vicinity in the coming season then the probability is that they will oblige. However more and more hunts are cagey about putting this information out there because bitter experience shows them that this results in them getting abused.

So as I previously said it is a courtesy that the hunt inform not a given right, and if people believe that it is their “right to know” and demand the information rather than ask politely then yes I would say they are being arrogant.
		
Click to expand...

Because this isn't some cycle race that causes a bit of traffic. This is an activity that is much maligned in the public eye, that can and often does have negative consequences to the lives of people and their animals that have absolutely no involvement or affiliation, all for the enjoyment of a few others. And it isn't some activity that can be easily avoided due to being confined to a single location, such as a shoot.

How an earth can you expect to turn peoples perceptions around and attempt to preserve your much beloved sport, when your answer to the owner of the horse with the broken leg is 'well you should have asked politely'? When your answer the owner of the mauled cat's question of 'Why didn't you let people know?' is 'Well if we told people than the antis might find us and ruin our fun'?

Sit back and take a real hard look at yourself Fred, because you are not doing hunting any favours at all with that attitude of yours.


----------



## Fred66 (26 July 2022)

Koweyka said:



			The thing is we don’t need a meet card to find out where any hunt is on any day, so by not giving the public the choice around keeping their pets, horses, livestock safe so a small minority can go hunting is yet another reason why the hunts are disliked so much.
		
Click to expand...

But our experience is that in the main we aren’t disliked, generally around us we have good support.


----------



## paddy555 (26 July 2022)

Fred66 said:



			So as I previously said it is a courtesy that the hunt inform not a given right, and if people believe that it is their “right to know” and demand the information rather than ask politely then yes I would say they are being arrogant.
		
Click to expand...

it is my right not to have hounds, not any of them, on my land. You don't address that. Not apologies for it happening just that it doesn't happen in the first place. Address the issue of Barney. Not that it is sad or unfortunate but why it happened in the first place. Dogs don't get out of  control and stray people lack control and let them. 



Nasicus said:



			Sit back and take a real hard look at yourself Fred, because you are not doing hunting any favours at all with that attitude of yours.
		
Click to expand...

your posts Fred sum up general hunt attitudes. Do you not realise that far from promoting hunting your are doing the opposite.


----------



## Koweyka (26 July 2022)

Fred66 said:



			But our experience is that in the main we aren’t disliked, generally around us we have good support.
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps in your own little bubble, but public opinion is very much against hunting.


----------



## Clodagh (26 July 2022)

Fred66 said:



			I find the description by some of the lack of manners by some hunts quite appalling as good manners on the hunting field is one of the first rules that’s learnt.
		
Click to expand...

I stopped hunting largely as a result of the appalling manners shown by the field to landowners and road users. It does seem infinitely better round where I live now but I am surprised that you feel non hunting people have any obligation to the hunt. Many, maybe even most rural people enjoy seeing the hunt but the ones that don’t have just as much right to an opinion.


----------



## Fred66 (26 July 2022)

Clodagh said:



			I stopped hunting largely as a result of the appalling manners shown by the field to landowners and road users. It does seem infinitely better round where I live now but I am surprised that you feel non hunting people have any obligation to the hunt. Many, maybe even most rural people enjoy seeing the hunt but the ones that don’t have just as much right to an opinion.
		
Click to expand...

I don’t believe non hunting people have an obligation and totally agree that everyone is entitled to an opinion.


----------



## Tiddlypom (26 July 2022)

Fred66 said:



			think the arrogance being shown by many on here regarding an entitlement to be informed of when the hunt is in your area is remarkable. The total self absorption and unwillingness to see that there is no obligation for the hunts to inform you of when they will be in the area and that the sharing of the information is theirs to gift not yours as a right, isthe epitome of arrogance.
		
Click to expand...

Whereas if a particular hunt declines, if asked in a polite fashion, to inform residents of when they will be around so that the residents can make arrangements to keep their stock and animals safe, then the hunt are deliberately being arrogant feckwits.

Make no mistake, having the hunt here is a pain in the @rse, but as long as I am pre warned so that I can organise my animals (horses, dog, cat) in good time then we go on lockdown and I will not give the hunt a peep of trouble. Turning up without warning is another thing altogether, and I will be very cross indeed (once I have grabbed the animals in).

Moving to big hunt country from small friendly hunt country was a huge shock to me as a hunting person as to just how badly behaved and arrogant a hunt can be. Tbf, they have gradually improved over the years, and have been a lot better more recently. Fingers crossed that they don't revert.

Certain past masters didn't even think it necessary to warn the tenant farmers in advance that they were intending to hunt across their land on a particular day. They knew that the tenant farmers couldn't ban them, so they didn't bother contacting them.


----------



## Koweyka (26 July 2022)

Lake District National Park will be keeping the ban on hunting on it’s land.

https://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/2051...f3Cmww59GEw44Wsr97v3oOsRt1NLi0o9S14&fs=e&s=cl


----------



## sakura (26 July 2022)

It's funny, when I joined this discussion, I was really only arguing why, ethically, I hate hunting. I had no intention of sharing my opinion on anything else, but now, I have a pretty poor opinion of the hunting community itself. The entitled, elitist, "I'm more country than you" attitude is exactly what will end hunting. You can blame sabs as much as you like (and I know you will), but it'll be the hunting communities own fault - as the ban was itself. Not people hating the rich because they're rich, but people hating animals being chased and killed by a large group of people enjoying the thrill. Terrible attitude for a terrible hobby. 

Anyway, I really am leaving this discussion now - feel free to insult me in the quote replies again. I won't reply because it just isn't worth it - I only am now cos I wanted to agree with others when they said that this thread itself has worsened hunting even more in my mind. 

I'm going to take a minute to remember animals like Minnie the cat, brutally killed by out of control hounds trespassing on land they had no permission or right to be on. Argue pedantics all you like, it won't change the death of hunting. You should probably look for a new hobby. 

Have a good day.


----------



## Koweyka (1 August 2022)

The fox stabber Paul O‘Shea from the East Essex Hunt has given an 18 week sentence, suspended for 12 months, community service and banned from owning a dog for five years. It’s not enough he should have had a custodial sentence, this isn’t enough of a deterrent for hunts to stop abusing foxes and their cubs, if they aren’t feeding fox cubs to hounds they are stabbing them with pitch forks.


----------



## Clodagh (1 August 2022)

That’s absolutely appalling. So much for the tougher animal cruelty laws. 
I’m disgusted.


----------



## Koweyka (1 August 2022)

Clodagh said:



			That’s absolutely appalling. So much for the tougher animal cruelty laws.
I’m disgusted.
		
Click to expand...

Apparently because he has a mortgage and a family it was thought he could be rehabilitated…. It is no deterrent.


----------



## Clodagh (1 August 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Apparently because he has a mortgage and a family it was thought he could be rehabilitated…. It is no deterrent.
		
Click to expand...

What earthly difference does it make?


----------



## Fred66 (1 August 2022)

Koweyka said:



			The fox stabber Paul O‘Shea from the East Essex Hunt has given an 18 week sentence, suspended for 12 months, community service and banned from owning a dog for five years. It’s not enough he should have had a custodial sentence, this isn’t enough of a deterrent for hunts to stop abusing foxes and their cubs, if they aren’t feeding fox cubs to hounds they are stabbing them with pitch forks.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree that the sentence is too lenient and that stronger deterrents to animal cruelty are required.

However would have to disagree regarding the rest of your statement as it is totally unrelated to hunting.


----------



## Tiddlypom (1 August 2022)

Far too lenient a sentence .

A horrific act in itself, and he involved the juvenile.

Would there not be safe guarding issues re the juvenile being permitted to partake in such activities?

Can Paul O'Shea be rehabilated? No, of course not. He is evil personified, he might not do it again but only because he might get caught, not because what he did was utterly cruel and wrong.


----------



## Koweyka (1 August 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Totally agree that the sentence is too lenient and that stronger deterrents to animal cruelty are required.

However would have to disagree regarding the rest of your statement as it is totally unrelated to hunting.
		
Click to expand...

Which part ?


----------



## Koweyka (1 August 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Far too lenient a sentence .

A horrific act in itself, and he involved the juvenile.

Would there not be safe guarding issues re the juvenile being permitted to partake in such activities?

Can Paul O'Shea be rehabilated? No, of course not. He is evil personified, he might not do it again but only because he might get caught, not because what he did was utterly cruel and wrong.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly this, it’s only when animal abusers get caught do they pretend to show remorse, if the Sabs hadn’t caught that footage on camera would they have carried on attracting foxes in the A/E and torturing them, of course he would.


----------



## Sandstone1 (1 August 2022)

If it were up to me he would be feeling the prongs of a pitchfork in a delicate part of his anatomy.   He should have gone to jail.


----------



## Fred66 (1 August 2022)

Koweyka said:



			… for hunts to stop abusing foxes and their cubs, if they aren’t feeding fox cubs to hounds they are stabbing them with pitch forks.
		
Click to expand...




Koweyka said:



			Which part ?
		
Click to expand...

The part above.
He should have been sentenced to longer and his sentence should have been sufficient to hopefully act as a deterrent to anyone thinking that it is acceptable to treat any animal in this way.
I am sure that the hunting community is equally appalled at his behavior, even though his actions were those of a private individual who was not acting as part of the hunt. By his personal association with a hunt it allows people to sling more mud our way.


----------



## palo1 (1 August 2022)

That is a dire and utterly inadequate sentence   Paul O Shea's behaviour was/is totally sickening and there is no way that sentence seems proportionate.  Everyone I know that has discussed this is shocked and disappointed; it was an act of outright and appalling cruelty.  Vile man.


----------



## Tiddlypom (2 August 2022)

A reminder of just how entwined the convicted fox stabber Paul O'Shea and his family is with the East Essex Hunt. He, his wife and daughter all ride with the hunt, and his son is, like him, a countryman for the hunt. His wife was, at the time of the report, a joint master. His father was huntsman with the same pack for 36 years, and was described as a 'legend'.

All courtesy of the gushing two page report on the East Essex Hunt in Horse and Hound, which was published on 16 Dec 2021. This was after the fox stabbing incident which occurred on 4 Dec 2021, but before the covert CCTV footage of the incident came to light.

The full account is deliberately blurred out, but is readily viewable if you access the H&H 16 December 2021 edition.


----------



## skinnydipper (2 August 2022)

Why would they need an eagle owl for trail hunting?


----------



## Clodagh (2 August 2022)

skinnydipper said:



			Why would they need an eagle owl for trail hunting?
		
Click to expand...

Bizarrely it’s legal to kill a fox with an eagle owl. I think I’d rather be killed by a pack of hounds on the whole.


----------



## stangs (2 August 2022)

Clodagh said:



			I think I’d rather be killed by a pack of hounds on the whole.
		
Click to expand...

Why?


----------



## ycbm (2 August 2022)

skinnydipper said:



			Why would they need an eagle owl for trail hunting?
		
Click to expand...

They are allowed to use a pack of hounds to flush a fox towards a bird of prey. As long as they have a bird of prey out with them it's impossible to prosecute for illegal hunting.  They don't even need to make any pretence of trail hunting, they are openly hunting fox. 
.


----------



## ycbm (2 August 2022)

stangs said:



			Why?
		
Click to expand...

I would imagine it's a much quicker death,  I'd make the same choice as Clodagh. No worries,  though,  the owl is only there for  a smokescreen show.
.


----------



## Tiddlypom (2 August 2022)

Mark Hankinson mentions using a bird of prey in the infamous webinars. This is the transcript of what he had to say on the matter.

_Bird of prey: the law states you can use a pack of dogs to flush a wild mammal to be hunted by a bird of prey. Now, that’s a terribly good wheeze for holding up, and I think that everyone during autumn hunting ought to be considering that. However, it lacks viability if you’re having a 5 mile hunt. So really at that stage once the quarry is gone you very much need your trail laying exemption because a bird of prey one starts to... [inaudible]._

He is describing how the use of a bird of prey can be used as a 'terribly good wheeze' to camouflage 'holding up' in Autumn hunting. Holding up is the post Hunting Act completely illegal practice of putting hounds into a covert and getting the mounted field to surround the covert. The field are asked to make a lot of noise eg by slapping their crops against their boots to frighten any foxes back who try to escape back into the covert, to be killed by hounds.

This is to teach the young hounds their job. Holding up makes for a slaughter fest so that the new entry of hounds get easy kills and get the taste for foxes.

More smokescreens.

Mark Hankinson might have won his appeal, but the webinars lay bare just what tips and tricks that illegal fox hunts are using to continue to fox hunt.


----------



## Koweyka (2 August 2022)

One of the worst things I witnessed was a hunt surrounding a copse, we had to go across a river to get close to them so we were a bit slow to get to them, we could hear the saddle slapping, the field surrounding the copse, the hounds baying, we saw one young fox tried to make a break for it, a man on his horse rode at the fox screaming “aye aye aye aye” the fox was turned back into the hounds, we found three distinct blood pools and an artificial earth with chicken carcasses near to one entrance, this was only a few years ago. 

This will be happening all over the country in the next few weeks.


----------



## ycbm (2 August 2022)

I have done it, once. I had no idea what I had agreed to when I went, it was cutely called "Cubbing".  I am still angry with myself 35 years later that I didn't leave immediately and tell the friends I went with what I thought of them.


----------



## Koweyka (2 August 2022)

ycbm said:



			I have done it, once. I had no idea what I had agreed to when I went, it was cutely called "Cubbing".  I am still angry with myself 35 years later that I didn't leave immediately and tell the friends I went with what I thought of them.
		
Click to expand...

I am glad you never went again, it’s truly the most disgusting practice. They changed “cubbing” to Autumn Hunting….it doesn’t fool anyone though.


----------



## palo1 (2 August 2022)

Holding up didn't happen in every country; in hill country it was never really a practical strategy - I saw it happen when I was a child in some vale country but never since even when hunting with a number of different packs in different kinds of country.


----------



## ycbm (2 August 2022)

palo1 said:



			Holding up didn't happen in every country; in hill country it was never really a practical strategy - I saw it happen when I was a child in some vale country but never since even when hunting with a number of different packs in different kinds of country.
		
Click to expand...


So?   It doesn't happen where the country doesn't suit.  That isn't saying a lot really.  Do the hunts who don't do it makes the slightest attempt to stop the others?  Do they even say one word suggesting that it's an unacceptable thing to do?

It's absolutely vile.  When I first wrote about it on the forum a sheep farmer who was happy to have his land fox hunted and who himself was a huge enthusiast of shooting live birds out of the sky accused me of lying about it.  That's how bad it is of you are far enough away from the trees to see the wood. 
.


----------



## palo1 (2 August 2022)

ycbm said:



			So?   It doesn't happen where the country doesn't suit.  That isn't saying a lot really.  Do the hunts who don't do it makes the slightest attempt to stop the others?  Do they even say one word suggesting that it's an unacceptable thing to do?

It's absolutely vile.  When I first wrote about it on the forum a sheep farmer who was happy to have his land fox hunted and who himself was a huge enthusiast of shooting live birds out of the sky accused me of lying about it.  That's how bad it is of you are far enough away from the trees to see the wood.
.
		
Click to expand...

I am not sure I understand the whole post @ycbm but as I have said many times before, whilst the MFHA may have the title of overseeing hunting, many, many hunts are distant in several ways from that organisation; either through choice because of their feelings about the MFHA or because the organisation isn't particularly relevant to their activities or needs.   Of course hunts condemn poor practice and discuss that amongst themselves but as long as the MFHA fail to provide genuine governance and discipline over hunting matters then the general impression will be that no one is calling it out.  There is considerable disquiet amongst hunting people about appalling behaviour.    Not all hunting practices apply to all hunts and some of the worst abuses are things that may have been common with a few hunts BITD but for some hunts they have NEVER happened even when legal; feeding foxes, creating artificical earths, holding up etc.   

The E Essex hunt should be shut down or have an enforced change of management if they cannot control their staff and remain within the law.


----------



## palo1 (2 August 2022)

This is not as a response to vile Paul O'Shea's conviction but because this thread concerns the state of hunting;  5 hunt saboteurs have been convicted for assault and '...using threatening, abusive and insulting words and behaviour to cause harassment, alarm and distress.'.   There were 3 victims on this occasion. stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/five-hunt-saboteurs-found-guilty-of-threatening-behaviour-9267060/?fbclid=IwAR25Ek68b1jF6l1qD9E_lpYLecEsrqRwUWbDn9MU5rL4pXi5wtcbqU1xSaw.    


Oakham as a place has form for this issue as earlier this year another saboteur was convicted of criminal damage: https://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/hunt-saboteur-targeted-car-with-young-children-in-9242510/.

I noticed too that the former huntsman Chris Mardles was in court for GBH (in 2020) for riding over, and severely injuring a hunt saboteur.  The victim, Mel Broughton is a long time animal rights activist, convicted arsonist and bomb maker. (relating to incidents in 2010). He was jailed for 10 years in 2010.


----------



## Millionwords (2 August 2022)

palo1 said:



			This is not as a response to vile Paul O'Shea's conviction but because this thread concerns the state of hunting;  5 hunt saboteurs have been convicted for assault and '...using threatening, abusive and insulting words and behaviour to cause harassment, alarm and distress.'.   There were 3 victims on this occasion. stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/five-hunt-saboteurs-found-guilty-of-threatening-behaviour-9267060/?fbclid=IwAR25Ek68b1jF6l1qD9E_lpYLecEsrqRwUWbDn9MU5rL4pXi5wtcbqU1xSaw.    Oakham as a place has form for this issue as earlier this year another saboteur was convicted of criminal damage: https://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/hunt-saboteur-targeted-car-with-young-children-in-9242510/.

I noticed too that the former huntsman Chris Mardles was in court for GBH (in 2020) for riding over, and severely injuring a hunt saboteur.  The victim, Mel Broughton is a long time animal rights activist, convicted arsonist and bomb maker. (relating to incidents in 2010). He was jailed for 10 years in 2010.
		
Click to expand...

Okay? Noone suggests this is okay....it just seems like deflection from the cubbing topic.

"OOOh but what about these incidents with sabs?" isn't really a valid defence to wrong doing or very useful.

x riding over y being okay because "y was worse than x" seems a bizzare suggestion.


----------



## Koweyka (2 August 2022)

Millionwords said:



			kOkay? Noone suggests this is okay....it just seems like deflection from the cubbing topic.

"OOOh but what about these incidents with
		
Click to expand...

I agree, there are so many huntsman/whips/terrier men and landowners up on charges at the moment but I can’t be bothered with a tit for tat.


----------



## palo1 (2 August 2022)

Millionwords said:



			kOkay? Noone suggests this is okay....it just seems like deflection from the cubbing topic.

"OOOh but what about these incidents with
		
Click to expand...

I never suggested that this was a response to anything; simply reporting troubles within hunting.  I wasn't intending to deflect from the post about either PO'S or cubbing practices at all.  None of it is ok!  It's not in any way OK to stab a fox with a pitchfork, assault hunt supporters, run over hunt saboteurs or plan terrorist attacks (Mel Broughton).  None of it is ok.


----------



## palo1 (2 August 2022)

Millionwords said:



			Okay? Noone suggests this is okay....it just seems like deflection from the cubbing topic.

"OOOh but what about these incidents with sabs?" isn't really a valid defence to wrong doing or very useful.

x riding over y being okay because "y was worse than x" seems a bizzare suggestion.
		
Click to expand...

I wasn't intending that at all though I do often think that context is useful in discussion.  It seems and often feels, on this thread in particular, that only one version of hunting is to be represented and as it is a public forum I think it is ok, with respect, to present other narratives and experiences.   Those may not be 'popular' on this forum but it doesn't mean that they are not representative of a larger group of people, as is the anti hunt position.  The thread is called 'Hunting is in a spot of bother' which it is!  I am engaging with that in the particular post you are referring to by reporting on some of the bother involved in hunting, albeit from a different perspective.  I don't think any of us want this culture war tbh and I probably have more in common with anti-hunters views than they would like to accept possibly.  I don't actually particularly enjoy contributing to this thread but the right of people to engage in trail hunting and hunting cultures is important to me (scoff, laugh away - I know!) for a number of reasons.  I am glad I live somewhere that it is possible to hold those views and to publicly voice them tis all.

Perhaps some posters would like to see my voice and that of other trail hunters, shooters etc shut down?


----------



## minesadouble (2 August 2022)

I really admire you Palo1 because you are always the voice of reason. Regardless of how much you are goaded you always keep your cool and remain rational and logical.

There is no way I could do the same as it must feel like banging your head against a brick wall sometimes.

I am a hunt supporter and indeed have just spent a lovely Sunday at the puppy show where one of the judges was Sir Johnny Scott whom I greatly admire and who also talks an awful lot of sense. 
But every time I get involved in one of these threads I just get so infuriated, clearly I'm not alone as I have noticed other hunting forum members tend to keep out of them too, I'm assuming for the same reason as myself.


----------



## Millionwords (3 August 2022)

palo1 said:



			I wasn't intending that at all though I do often think that context is useful in discussion.  It seems and often feels, on this thread in particular, that only one version of hunting is to be represented and as it is a public forum I think it is ok, with respect, to present other narratives and experiences.   Those may not be 'popular' on this forum but it doesn't mean that they are not representative of a larger group of people, as is the anti hunt position.  The thread is called 'Hunting is in a spot of bother' which it is!  I am engaging with that in the particular post you are referring to by reporting on some of the bother involved in hunting, albeit from a different perspective.  I don't think any of us want this culture war tbh and I probably have more in common with anti-hunters views than they would like to accept possibly.  I don't actually particularly enjoy contributing to this thread but the right of people to engage in trail hunting and hunting cultures is important to me (scoff, laugh away - I know!) for a number of reasons.  I am glad I live somewhere that it is possible to hold those views and to publicly voice them tis all.

Perhaps some posters would like to see my voice and that of other trail hunters, shooters etc shut down?
		
Click to expand...

I've stated before I hunted pre-ban and I enjoyed it. However like others on here who have seen both sides of the coin, many do not see it as a culture war, more of a clear case of what is now right and wrong given the law/ public opinion/ behavior of the hunts.
The current hunting community makes very few (if any) compelling arguments for their case now, and fails to see that no-one outside the community itself can take them seriously because of it.

I was gutted when the ban occured, the behavior and disregard for anyone but themselves now makes me loathe to admit I was previously a lover and participant because I do not want to be seen to be part of a group of people who now can only see as far as the ends of their own noses.

ETA - With regards Sabs, I do not agree with many/most of their actions either, however I can see why they do it given the state of affairs. Everyone is in the wrong. That could be solved with a total ban, which seems the only way given that neither party can be trusted to behave. 

Saying "but not all hunts /sabs " doesn't help anyones argument - if you have no mechanism to control those hunts, then a blanket ban is the only way.


----------



## palo1 (3 August 2022)

minesadouble said:



			I really admire you Palo1 because you are always the voice of reason. Regardless of how much you are goaded you always keep your cool and remain rational and logical.

There is no way I could do the same as it must feel like banging your head against a brick wall sometimes.

I am a hunt supporter and indeed have just spent a lovely Sunday at the puppy show where one of the judges was Sir Johnny Scott whom I greatly admire and who also talks an awful lot of sense.
But every time I get involved in one of these threads I just get so infuriated, clearly I'm not alone as I have noticed other hunting forum members tend to keep out of them too, I'm assuming for the same reason as myself.
		
Click to expand...

Sir Johnny Scott is an absolute legend, a true gentleman and passionate conservationist.  I have had the privilege of discussing hunting matters with him on a number of occasions!!  These threads about hunting, usually started and pushed by anti-hunters, in my view, are incredibly frustrating to contribute to and really I do wonder why I bother.  I do know though there are other posters on the forum that share my views - I completely understand their reluctance to engage but I was brought up to respect and stand up for the right to speak openly so it IS important to me to offer a different perspective on hunting.  I have had the benefit of time in other cultures too and have found that having your views and opinions challenged is generally a good thing.  Also, I have no desire to contribute to echo chamber culture which, generally speaking, social media promotes.  I don't like seeing my hunting community so misrepresented and slated so in spite of real frustration I do blooming carry on with this 'discussion'...


----------



## Clodagh (3 August 2022)

I used to love cubbing. Unboxing in the dark, only very few people out, the chance to see how the puppies you had walked entered. To hear the old hounds again, doing what they were bred to do.
Magical times.


----------



## palo1 (3 August 2022)

minesadouble said:



			I really admire you Palo1 because you are always the voice of reason. Regardless of how much you are goaded you always keep your cool and remain rational and logical.

There is no way I could do the same as it must feel like banging your head against a brick wall sometimes.

I am a hunt supporter and indeed have just spent a lovely Sunday at the puppy show where one of the judges was Sir Johnny Scott whom I greatly admire and who also talks an awful lot of sense.
But every time I get involved in one of these threads I just get so infuriated, clearly I'm not alone as I have noticed other hunting forum members tend to keep out of them too, I'm assuming for the same reason as myself.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you for your kind words and support of the decent folk in hunting  No one wants the bad ones!


----------



## Clodagh (3 August 2022)

I too have been to several puppy shows this year. Tbh unless you’ve walked an entrant I find them very dull. 🤣.
I have made many cakes and sandwiches though.

We went to Dunster hound show last week, that was better.

But hunting on the whole needs to do more to root out the bad behaviour. I hope the ban on Mr and Mrs O’Shea with the East Essex doesn’t only last this season, until eyes have moved on.


----------



## palo1 (3 August 2022)

Clodagh said:



			I too have been to several puppy shows this year. Tbh unless you’ve walked an entrant I find them very dull. 🤣.
I have made many cakes and sandwiches though.

We went to Dunster hound show last week, that was better.
		
Click to expand...

I love the puppy shows and hound shows; usually people are incredibly generous about catering for them and it is a lovely social gathering in civilised weather!  I also love the collective knowledge and memory involved with hound breeding.  Our hunt usually has someone provide a kind of talk about some aspect of that - sometimes it is dreadfully dull tbh but other times really interesting.  I like the summer dressing up, eating afternoon tea and catching up with people I haven't seen for a while.  We also have a raffle to raise money for charity which people very generously contribute to.


----------



## palo1 (3 August 2022)

Clodagh said:



			I too have been to several puppy shows this year. Tbh unless you’ve walked an entrant I find them very dull. 🤣.
I have made many cakes and sandwiches though.

We went to Dunster hound show last week, that was better.

But hunting on the whole needs to do more to root out the bad behaviour. I hope the ban on Mr and Mrs O’Shea with the East Essex doesn’t only last this season, until eyes have moved on.
		
Click to expand...

I hope the O'Sheas are never allowed anywhere near hunting or any other animal related activity again tbh.


----------



## Koweyka (3 August 2022)

Clodagh said:



			I used to love cubbing. Unboxing in the dark, only very few people out, the chance to see how the puppies you had walked entered. To hear the old hounds again, doing what they were bred to do.
Magical times.
		
Click to expand...

So you knew exactly what was going on, young hounds killing young foxes and you call that magical ?

Describing Cubbing as magical has got to be one of the most revolting comments on this thread.

This is why all hunting needs to be banned outright because you still have people involved that want to kill or think killing is magical, because that’s what Cubbing is it’s killing young foxes just as they start leaving the den and explore, do not use the old **** excuse that it’s to disperse foxes because that’s a lie just another smokescreen to hide the truth.

This is why outside your little hunting bubble what you do is loathed by the majority of the population. I saw a comment further on that it’s not true that people don’t care about the cruelty of hunting because they do, if you explained Cubbing to anyone outside a hunt circle do you think people would support it, like heck they would.

Cubbing ….magical ….sick.


----------



## Clodagh (3 August 2022)

I don’t hunt any more, but yes I loved it.


----------



## Koweyka (3 August 2022)

Clodagh said:



			I don’t hunt any more, but yes I loved it.
		
Click to expand...

You loved assisting in the killing of fox cubs ?


----------



## Sandstone1 (3 August 2022)

Clodagh said:



			I used to love cubbing. Unboxing in the dark, only very few people out, the chance to see how the puppies you had walked entered. To hear the old hounds again, doing what they were bred to do.
Magical times.
		
Click to expand...

To describe cubbing as magical is beyond belief,  You do realise that young fox cubs are allowed no means of escape and are killed by young hounds?  literally pulled apart in the name of sport?


----------



## palo1 (3 August 2022)

Koweyka said:



			So you knew exactly what was going on, young hounds killing young foxes and you call that magical ?

Describing Cubbing as magical has got to be one of the most revolting comments on this thread.

This is why all hunting needs to be banned outright because you still have people involved that want to kill or think killing is magical, because that’s what Cubbing is it’s killing young foxes just as they start leaving the den and explore, do not use the old **** excuse that it’s to disperse foxes because that’s a lie just another smokescreen to hide the truth.

This is why outside your little hunting bubble what you do is loathed by the majority of the population. I saw a comment further on that it’s not true that people don’t care about the cruelty of hunting because they do, if you explained Cubbing to anyone outside a hunt circle do you think people would support it, like heck they would.

Cubbing ….magical ….sick.
		
Click to expand...

I understand that you don't or won't recognise how multi-layered things are/can be.  No matter how much people say that hunting wasn't about the killing of foxes, that is all you see.  In the same way though that you might find watching a documentary about wildlife magical, it may still contain grisly elements, upsetting sights - even where the context and other elements are, for you, magical/inspiring/whatever.  You are still a witness to those scenes and the filming is created with you in mind (as in the general wildlife and nature loving public).

Many, many people who love animals and will reject all and any form of hunting in any situation (eg shooting, hunting where it is legal etc) will still sit down to a 'fabulous' roast dinner/curry/whatever even when they are aware that perhaps the meat in that meal has been produced in pretty horrific conditions in terms of welfare.  I think there are posters here who will eat ready meals containing meat, for very good personal reasons, even when they know that perhaps the pork or chicken in that meal has had a horrific life.  How many people 'love' a bacon sandwich even when they are perhaps aware of various vile animal husbandry and killing practices in relation to pigs.   I have watched ravens hunting larks on the heather and found that to be an inspiring experience even when I am witness to the death of a lark which I would rather see live. I understand, of course, about animals needing to eat to survive but I think you were horrified about the experience of witnessing hunting.  Yet, @Clodagh made it clear that other elements of the experience were what they found 'magical'.  Life is rarely as simple as we would all find convenient.


----------



## Koweyka (3 August 2022)

palo1 said:



			I understand that you don't or won't recognise how multi-layered things are/can be.  No matter how much people say that hunting wasn't about the killing of foxes, that is all you see.  In the same way though that you might find watching a documentary about wildlife magical, it may still contain grisly elements, upsetting sights - even where the context and other elements are, for you, magical/inspiring/whatever.  You are still a witness to those scenes and the filming is created with you in mind (as in the general wildlife and nature loving public).

Many, many people who love animals and will reject all and any form of hunting in any situation (eg shooting, hunting where it is legal etc) will still sit down to a 'fabulous' roast dinner/curry/whatever even when they are aware that perhaps the meat in that meal has been produced in pretty horrific conditions in terms of welfare.  I think there are posters here who will eat ready meals containing meat, for very good personal reasons, even when they know that perhaps the pork or chicken in that meal has had a horrific life.  How many people 'love' a bacon sandwich even when they are perhaps aware of various vile animal husbandry and killing practices in relation to pigs.   I have watched ravens hunting larks on the heather and found that to be an inspiring experience even when I am witness to the death of a lark which I would rather see live. I understand, of course, about animals needing to eat to survive but I think you were horrified about the experience of witnessing hunting.  Yet, @Clodagh made it clear that other elements of the experience were what they found 'magical'.  Life is rarely as simple as we would all find convenient.
		
Click to expand...

I totally understand hunting for food and the natural world hunting for food, that is not the issue is it. It’s going to an event knowing animals will die so you can enjoy yourself, it’s absolutely barbaric and it’s killing for your own enjoyment.

She actually said she enjoyed seeing foxhounds doing what they were bred to do, it can not be dressed up as anything other than savagery watching animals suffer and die for your own amusement.

I am vegan but it’s each individuals choice about whether they eat meat or not, just as it’s each individuals choice to partake in an extremely cruel practice, it’s not like the cubs can even escape or have a fighting chance with the hideous saddle slappers terrifying them back to their deaths. What sort of person can find that magical.


----------



## stangs (3 August 2022)

palo1 said:



			You are still a witness to those scenes and the filming is created with you in mind (as in the general wildlife and nature loving public).
		
Click to expand...

But the act of killing itself isn't done for me, or with me in mind. 

Playing the devil's advocate here, but watching a crocodile drag down a zebra - whether in person, or on a screen - is a passive act on my behalf. If I were to start giving crocodiles directions to the local zebra population, or paying some Crocodile Co. for the chance to come along, then I'd be actively participating. So, surely, it's incomparable?


----------



## YorksG (3 August 2022)

stangs said:



			But the act of killing itself isn't done for me, or with me in mind.

Playing the devil's advocate here, but watching a crocodile drag down a zebra - whether in person, or on a screen - is a passive act on my behalf. If I were to start giving crocodiles directions to the local zebra population, or paying some Crocodile Co. for the chance to come along, then I'd be actively participating. So, surely, it's incomparable?
		
Click to expand...

I think you will find that in some of the programmes you are talking about, that the prey are indeed "set up" for the filming.


----------



## Mrs_P (3 August 2022)

Just playing devils advocate here (and something I may live to regret reading this thread) but what is meat if not "killing for our own enjoyment". Humans are capable of surviving without meat (and yes before that one clever person pipes up that some people have health issues that wouldn't be compatible with a vegetarian lifestyle but I'm talking in general terms here).

How many people generally give much thought to the meat they are eating, and how it has been killed? Most lambs are slaughtered between 6 - 12 months. Pigs are generally slaughtered at 6 months. What makes them less worthy of defending than fox cubs? These animals are also killed for our pleasure if you think about it. How many people genuinely NEED to eat meat, or rather eat it because they simply enjoy it and I include myself in that by the way


----------



## Miss_Millie (3 August 2022)

I think you'll find that a large percentage of people who are anti-fox hunting are vegetarian or vegan.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (3 August 2022)

I used to find going to a football game pretty magical.

If the half-time entertainment consisted of pointlessly torturing and killing animals however, I'd have given it a miss.


----------



## Mrs_P (3 August 2022)

Miss_Millie said:



			I think you'll find that a large percentage of people who are anti-fox hunting are vegetarian or vegan.
		
Click to expand...

Which, according to this thread should include the vast majority of the general public in the UK. Yet a quick Google search and according the vegan society website only 1.2% of the population are vegan, and 10% are vegetarian......


----------



## ycbm (3 August 2022)

You could toast bread in the heat of the air of the whataboutery on a fox hunting thread 🙃
.


----------



## Mrs_P (3 August 2022)

Ah I did wonder how long before someone started shouting "whataboutery" - which from reading this forum roughly translates to "oh b*llocks someone has made a valid point and brought wider perspective to a discussion but rather than answering that point constructively, instead I will simply shout "whataboutery" over and over and hope they go away"......


----------



## Tiddlypom (3 August 2022)

The perception of hunting is that participants are actually revelling in the act of killing animals.

Footage such as this of an injured and clearly terrified stag being chased and whipped along by a loudly shouting group of hunters from the Devon and Somerset Staghounds. The exhausted animal was later shot.

This was an utterly abhorrent and cruel way to cull an injured animal. These individuals were doing this for fun. The stag, if indeed he was seriously injured, should have been quietly taken out by a skilled marksman without stress. But where would the fun have been in that?

Listen to the soundtrack as they shout and bay at the poor creature.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...pursuing-injured-stag-across-exmoor-jdqgxngqv


----------



## ycbm (3 August 2022)

Mrs_P said:



			Ah I did wonder how long before someone started shouting "whataboutery" - which from reading this forum roughly translates to "oh b*llocks someone has made a valid point and brought wider perspective to a discussion but rather than answering that point constructively, instead I will simply shout "whataboutery" over and over and hope they go away"......
		
Click to expand...

Rather than answering the point constructively?  So untrue.

I have argued all the arguments worth arguing,  (as a person who also fox hunted in the past, then drag hunted for many years),  over and over and over on this and many other threads over many, many  years.
.


----------



## Sandstone1 (3 August 2022)

Killing animals for fun is barbaric, out dated and cruel.   I do not see any excuse for doing it.


----------



## suestowford (3 August 2022)

That footage of the DSSH does not surprise me, having seen them out & about many times.



Clodagh said:



			We went to Dunster hound show last week, that was better.
		
Click to expand...

I was in the ring next to the hound show at Dunster, at the Fell pony show.


----------



## Fred66 (3 August 2022)

At the risk of repeating previous points, the decision on whether hunting with hounds should have been made illegal should have been made on animal welfare grounds not on individual perception of morals on hunting with hounds. If this meant some hunting was allowed then it should have been licensed and rules agreed as to what was deemed acceptable, failure to adhere could have resulted in sanctions up to and including removal of a license.

However that was not what happened, broadly speaking hunting live prey with hounds was banned with the odd exception and trail hunting came into being. Some hunts were slow to convert and a very small minority still flout the law. However the vast majority do now trail hunt. 
I would point out that the changes have not improved the welfare of the fox one iota, if anything it is worse and ultimately my outlook is that the welfare of the fox as a species is more important than an assumed outrage at the method being enjoyed or not.


----------



## skinnydipper (3 August 2022)

Fred66 said:



			At the risk of repeating previous points, the decision on whether hunting with hounds should have been made illegal should have been made on animal welfare grounds not on individual perception of morals on hunting with hounds. If this meant some hunting was allowed then it should have been licensed and rules agreed as to what was deemed acceptable, failure to adhere could have resulted in sanctions up to and including removal of a license.

However that was not what happened, broadly speaking hunting live prey with hounds was banned with the odd exception and trail hunting came into being. Some hunts were slow to convert and a very small minority still flout the law. However the vast majority do now trail hunt.
I would point out that the changes have not improved the welfare of the fox one iota, if anything it is worse and ultimately my outlook is that the welfare of the fox as a species is more important than an assumed outrage at the method being enjoyed or not.
		
Click to expand...

Could you tell me please, does your hunt have terrier men and/or bird of prey?


----------



## minesadouble (3 August 2022)

What some see as 'whataboutery' I see as the calling out of double standards.


----------



## Fred66 (3 August 2022)

skinnydipper said:



			Could you tell me please, does your hunt have terrier men and/or bird of prey?
		
Click to expand...

No and no.
Albeit we do have quads out most weeks some are used to assist in trail laying and some help with gates and some landowners prefer to follow on quad rather than horse, foot or car.


----------



## skinnydipper (3 August 2022)

Fred66 said:



			No and no.
Albeit we do have quads out most weeks some are used to assist in trail laying and some help with gates and some landowners prefer to follow on quad rather than horse, foot or car.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you.


----------



## Tiddlypom (3 August 2022)

Fred66 said:



			At the risk of repeating previous points, the decision on whether hunting with hounds should have been made illegal should have been made on animal welfare grounds not on individual perception of morals on hunting with hounds. If this meant some hunting was allowed then it should have been licensed and rules agreed as to what was deemed acceptable, failure to adhere could have resulted in sanctions up to and including removal of a license.

However that was not what happened, broadly speaking hunting live prey with hounds was banned with the odd exception and trail hunting came into being. Some hunts were slow to convert and a very small minority still flout the law. However the vast majority do now trail hunt.
I would point out that the changes have not improved the welfare of the fox one iota, if anything it is worse and ultimately my outlook is that the welfare of the fox as a species is more important than an assumed outrage at the method being enjoyed or not.
		
Click to expand...

As someone who hunted pre ban, I agree with most of this post.

The countryside in general and foxes in particular were managed better pre ban.

However, we will have to disagree about the part where you say that only a very small minority of hunts flout the law. The law might be an ass, but it is the law and it ought to be followed. 

The governance of hunting has had a makeover, so in theory intransigent hunts will be called out and dealt with by the governing body. However, too many of the old guard are still in authority for anyone to take that seriously. I hope to be proved wrong on that.


----------



## palo1 (3 August 2022)

stangs said:



			But the act of killing itself isn't done for me, or with me in mind.

Playing the devil's advocate here, but watching a crocodile drag down a zebra - whether in person, or on a screen - is a passive act on my behalf. If I were to start giving crocodiles directions to the local zebra population, or paying some Crocodile Co. for the chance to come along, then I'd be actively participating. So, surely, it's incomparable?
		
Click to expand...

Yes, it is not the same thing at all but I was just trying to convey the different elements in witnessing a difficult event; I wasn't intending to suggest that active participation was the same as passive observation.  But if you are deliberately observing a natural death scene, complete with potentially difficult to view stuff, you are still making a choice about that.  Because of the potentially inspiring/dramatic/informative content you will accept the sometimes awful aspects of death/nature.  I am not going to speak for @Clodagh but I read the post to mean that elements of the legal autumn hunting experience (not necessarily all aspects of hunting) were magical. That was in full knowledge of the purpose of the event but not specifically the killing of young foxes.  I think that was intended simply to be honest and to convey the multi layered aspect of that experience in total.


----------



## Millionwords (3 August 2022)

palo1 said:



			I am not going to speak for @Clodagh but I read the post to mean that elements of the legal autumn hunting experience (not necessarily all aspects of hunting) were magical. That was in full knowledge of the purpose of the event but not specifically the killing of young foxes. I think that was intended simply to be honest and to convey the multi layered aspect of that experience in total.
		
Click to expand...

She did say Cubbing. Not "legal autumn hunting". We all know the difference.


----------



## Tiddlypom (3 August 2022)

palo1 said:



			The E Essex hunt should be shut down or have an enforced change of management if they cannot control their staff and remain within the law.
		
Click to expand...

Completely agree with this. The MFHA should have suspended the East Essex as soon as the fox stabbing video came out, and made a thorough investigation of how the hunt is run before deciding whether it is fit to continue.

It is not too late for the new governing body to act on that.

The fox stabbing happened within a very prominent local hunting family. Any and all ties of the hunt (or indeed any other hunt) with the O'Sheas must be permanently severed, there is no coming back from a crime like that being passed down the generations.


----------



## palo1 (3 August 2022)

ycbm said:



			Rather than answering the point constructively?  So untrue.

I have argued all the arguments worth arguing,  (as a person who also fox hunted in the past, then drag hunted for many years),  over and over and over on this and many other threads over many, many  years.
.
		
Click to expand...




Fred66 said:



			At the risk of repeating previous points, the decision on whether hunting with hounds should have been made illegal should have been made on animal welfare grounds not on individual perception of morals on hunting with hounds. If this meant some hunting was allowed then it should have been licensed and rules agreed as to what was deemed acceptable, failure to adhere could have resulted in sanctions up to and including removal of a license.

However that was not what happened, broadly speaking hunting live prey with hounds was banned with the odd exception and trail hunting came into being. Some hunts were slow to convert and a very small minority still flout the law. However the vast majority do now trail hunt.
I would point out that the changes have not improved the welfare of the fox one iota, if anything it is worse and ultimately my outlook is that the welfare of the fox as a species is more important than an assumed outrage at the method being enjoyed or not.
		
Click to expand...

This, many times over. It is very widely acknowledged that the Hunting Act was not about animal welfare and thus as any kind of movement toward improved fox welfare it was utterly misbegotten. As it had to be pushed through Parliament without the standard parliamentary procedure it was recognised that there was not even a safe consensus on the issue.  The fact that we are where we are now is not remotely surprising and foxes have simply not benefitted from the act.  Anti hunters feel they have the high moral ground but pro hunters, without appalling behaviour from some hunts, feel the same because of the dire nature of getting the act in place and the lack of evidence to persuade hunters themselves that this was necessary from a welfare point of view.


----------



## palo1 (3 August 2022)

Millionwords said:



			She did say Cubbing. Not "legal autumn hunting". We all know the difference.
		
Click to expand...

I think the reference was actually to cubbing and not Autumn Hunting.


----------



## palo1 (3 August 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Completely agree with this. The MFHA should have suspended the East Essex as soon as the fox stabbing video came out, and made a thorough investigation of how the hunt is run before deciding whether it is fit to continue.

It is not too late for the new governing body to act on that.

The fox stabbing happened within a very prominent local hunting family. Any and all ties of the hunt (or indeed any other hunt) with the O'Sheas must be permanently severed, there is no coming back from a crime like that being passed down the generations.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I completely agree with you on this.


----------



## palo1 (3 August 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			To describe cubbing as magical is beyond belief,  You do realise that young fox cubs are allowed no means of escape and are killed by young hounds?  literally pulled apart in the name of sport?
		
Click to expand...

@Sandstone and @Koweyka, what is the reason for your outrage at something that was legal and accepted at the time?  I understand your ethical standpoint but it has very little impact or meaning to say that something is 'revolting'  - that is an entirely subjective and personal opinion.  My opinion of a whole variety of things has as much impact - zilch!!  I think various methods of animal slaughter are pretty revolting, as are puppy farms and many other things but I wonder why you think that using that expression would add to a discussion other than to add heat and emotion?


----------



## Clodagh (3 August 2022)

As Crunchieboi says, you can’t explain what makes things interesting for you. A football game would be my idea of hell but to him is magical.
I no longer hunt but loved hound work. 
The D&S beating that stag was as abhorrent as P O’S stabbing the fox.


----------



## Clodagh (3 August 2022)

suestowford said:



			That footage of the DSSH does not surprise me, having seen them out & about many times.


I was in the ring next to the hound show at Dunster, at the Fell pony show.
		
Click to expand...

Oh I saw some fells, they were gorgeous. There was a rather keen stallion being shown in hand 🤣


----------



## Koweyka (3 August 2022)

palo1 said:



@Sandstone and @Koweyka, what is the reason for your outrage at something that was legal and accepted at the time?  I understand your ethical standpoint but it has very little impact or meaning to say that something is 'revolting'  - that is an entirely subjective and personal opinion.  My opinion of a whole variety of things has as much impact - zilch!!  I think various methods of animal slaughter are pretty revolting, as are puppy farms and many other things but I wonder why you think that using that expression would add to a discussion other than to add heat and emotion?
		
Click to expand...

Are you serious. Asking why we are outraged at the deliberate killing of fox cubs and the active participants of this disgusting practice finding it magical. I don’t give two hoots if it was back in the day, its about as sick a pass time as it can get.

It still happens now. It will be starting again within the next few weeks. I have seen it, I have seen cubs killed and this is very recently.

If I told a crowd of people who had no ideas about hunting, that people go out on horses just as it’s getting light and surround a small wood that has been identified as having a fox family living in it, either naturally or by means of an Artificial Earth and these people on horses surround the wood and the hounds are sent in, then the people on the outside of the wood slap their boots or saddles with their whip while making a Brrrrrring sound which unsettles the foxes, the foxes instinct is to run and hide but they are prevented from doing that by the riders surrounding the wood, the foxes are scared they turn back and are met by a pack of hounds and they are ripped to pieces, what do you think people would think ? Would they say it’s magical or would they say it was revolting and cruel ? I know from experience in outreach what people say and you are in a minuscule minority of thinking it’s acceptable practice back then or now.


----------



## ycbm (3 August 2022)

palo1 said:



			@Sandstone and @Koweyka, what is the reason for your outrage at something that was legal and accepted at the time?
		
Click to expand...


This question illustrates the depth of divide between those who would support a legal return to fox hunting and those who wouldn't.

If you can't see any it would have disgusted and outraged me to be told to slap my boot with my whip and talk in a loud voice to turn fox cubs back into the jaws of young hounds which have been put into a covert to learn to kill, then there is,  (as I have understood for some time now),  no point whatsoever in continuing to discuss these issues.

Just because something is legal does not mean it is immune from outrage and disgust.
.


----------



## Clodagh (3 August 2022)

…


----------



## palo1 (3 August 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Are you serious. Asking why we are outraged at the deliberate killing of fox cubs and the active participants of this disgusting practice finding it magical. I don’t give two hoots if it was back in the day, its about as sick a pass time as it can get.

It still happens now. It will be starting again within the next few weeks. I have seen it, I have seen cubs killed and this is very recently.

If I told a crowd of people who had no ideas about hunting, that people go out on horses just as it’s getting light and surround a small wood that has been identified as having a fox family living in it, either naturally or by means of an Artificial Earth and these people on horses surround the wood and the hounds are sent in, then the people on the outside of the wood slap their boots or saddles with their whip while making a Brrrrrring sound which unsettles the foxes, the foxes instinct is to run and hide but they are prevented from doing that by the riders surrounding the wood, the foxes are scared they turn back and are met by a pack of hounds and they are ripped to pieces, what do you think people would think ? Would they say it’s magical or would they say it was revolting and cruel ? I know from experience in outreach what people say and you are in a minuscule minority of thinking it’s acceptable practice back then or now.
		
Click to expand...

I am really not trying to aggravate you but fox cubs were killed in that way as part of a practice of vermin control.  It was no different to sending terriers in to a rat's nest/den where the terrier handlers stand around an area full of rats and try to prevent the rats from getting away from the dogs.  There is much noise and shouting in that practice too.  I know we will never find accord on this subject but what I have described with rats is considered legal and humane and few people would prefer to see rats poisoned or die in several other vile ways than at the teeth of terriers bred for the job.   Some people really enjoy ratting with dogs but I totally understand that for you, killing in this way, even if considered swift and humane by the law and many people, would be cruel and revolting.  That is an opinion that I am glad you have the freedom to hold but your revulsion is subjective.


----------



## ycbm (3 August 2022)

There is a world of difference between killing rats with a terrier and chasing a fox for miles for the fun of a group of horse riders and foot followers.


----------



## Koweyka (3 August 2022)

palo1 said:



			I am really not trying to aggravate you but fox cubs were killed in that way as part of a practice of vermin control.  It was no different to sending terriers in to a rat's nest/den where the terrier handlers stand around an area full of rats and try to prevent the rats from getting away from the dogs.  There is much noise and shouting in that practice too.  I know we will never find accord on this subject but what I have described with rats is considered legal and humane and few people would prefer to see rats poisoned or die in several other vile ways than at the teeth of terriers bred for the job.   Some people really enjoy ratting with dogs but I totally understand that for you, killing in this way, even if considered swift and humane by the law and many people, would be cruel and revolting.  That is an opinion that I am glad you have the freedom to hold but your revulsion is subjective.
		
Click to expand...

Foxes never have been classed as vermin, the only control was the sickos partaking in the killing of defenceless young animals and having no chance of escape and the participants controlled whether those cubs lived or died.

I can tell you something else a hound killing a fox is as far from humane as you can get, the animal is terrified and does not die instantly.


----------



## Koweyka (3 August 2022)

This thread has been wonderful in showing just how vile hunting is and some posters have done more damage in promoting hunting in a good light than most anti’s could dream of.


----------



## ycbm (3 August 2022)

minesadouble said:



			What some see as 'whataboutery' I see as the calling out of double standards.
		
Click to expand...

I don't see any comparison between eating British farmed meat and chasing a fox for miles across country for the enjoyment of a group of horse riders and foot followers.  The  Burns Report said shooting was of equal humanity to hunting with hounds (though it is questionable whether he included cubbing in that). The addition of horseback and foot followers is superfluous.

And way past its time. 
.


----------



## Mrs_P (3 August 2022)

ycbm said:



			I don't see any comparison between eating British farmed meat and chasing a fox for miles across country for the enjoyment of a group of horse riders and foot followers.  The  Burns Report said shooting was of equal humanity to hunting with hounds (though it is questionable whether he included cubbing in that). The addition of horseback and foot followers is superfluous.

And way past its time.
.
		
Click to expand...

I thought you had said everything you had to say on the matter? 

I do find it interesting the outrage shown at the killing of fox cubs and yet no thought is given to the lamb on your (hypothetical "you" by the way) plate that has been killed for your personal enjoyment. Either way you are gaining pleasure through the death of an animal no? 

I find it an interesting discussion but no doubt someone will begin shouting "whataboutery" very soon which is disappointing.


----------



## Fred66 (3 August 2022)

ycbm said:



			There is a world of difference between killing rats with a terrier and chasing a fox for miles for the fun of a group of horse riders and foot followers.
		
Click to expand...

I think you will find it was the act of surrounding a cover during cubbing that was being compared to ratting.

The following a scent for miles by hounds gave the fox a far better chance of escape unharmed than alternate methods.

Animal welfare/cruelty is not related to enjoyment. To me it is around ensuring that control of the fox numbers is done in a way that is as “uncruel” as it can be. As reports showed that hunting foxes with hounds was no more cruel and in many instances less cruel than other methods then I would support it as a method on that basis.
If despite this individuals believe that it is wrong to “enjoy” the method then that is their choice and for their conscience, however equally if it is deemed not to be more cruel than other methods then you have no right to impose your choice on others.

However as it is now illegal and therefore fairly academic.


----------



## Mrs_P (3 August 2022)

Just to add..... as I previously said, I do not support illegal hunting, nor have I hunted pre-ban. I attend drag hunts with a local pack of  bloodhounds and have also been out with two local legit trail packs and have not witnessed any behaviour from either that would make me believe otherwise.

I do not condone illegal hunting, nor do I particularly wish to see the ban lifted.

I am simply trying to add a wider discussion to the table. Food for thought pardon the pun.


----------



## Fred66 (3 August 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Foxes never have been classed as vermin, the only control was the sickos partaking in the killing of defenceless young animals and having no chance of escape and the participants controlled whether those cubs lived or died.

I can tell you something else a hound killing a fox is as far from humane as you can get, the animal is terrified and does not die instantly.
		
Click to expand...

This is your subjective opinion and is no way born out by independently commissioned reports.
You are obviously entitled to hold this opinion but please don’t try and dress it up as facts


----------



## Koweyka (3 August 2022)

Fred66 said:



			I think you will find it was the act of surrounding a cover during cubbing that was being compared to ratting.

The following a scent for miles by hounds gave the fox a far better chance of escape unharmed than alternate methods.

Animal welfare/cruelty is not related to enjoyment. To me it is around ensuring that control of the fox numbers is done in a way that is as “uncruel” as it can be. As reports showed that hunting foxes with hounds was no more cruel and in many instances less cruel than other methods then I would support it as a method on that basis.
If despite this individuals believe that it is wrong to “enjoy” the method then that is their choice and for their conscience, however equally if it is deemed not to be more cruel than other methods then you have no right to impose your choice on others.

However as it is now illegal and therefore fairly academic.
		
Click to expand...

Its still cruel whichever way you want to dress it up.


----------



## Fred66 (3 August 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Its still cruel whichever way you want to dress it up.
		
Click to expand...

Actually it’s not, as reports have shown. It might well be distasteful depending upon your viewpoint and I can totally understand that some will feel that way, but the evidence doesn’t back up your assertion of cruelty


----------



## Koweyka (3 August 2022)

Fred66 said:



			This is your subjective opinion and is no way born out by independently commissioned reports.
You are obviously entitled to hold this opinion but please don’t try and dress it up as facts
		
Click to expand...

How many foxes have you seen die and how many bodies have you retrieved.


----------



## palo1 (3 August 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Foxes never have been classed as vermin, the only control was the sickos partaking in the killing of defenceless young animals and having no chance of escape and the participants controlled whether those cubs lived or died.

I can tell you something else a hound killing a fox is as far from humane as you can get, the animal is terrified and does not die instantly.
		
Click to expand...

Foxes are classed as pests which is simply a different word for vermin.  They are in the same classification according to the Govt as moles and mink.   Traditional fox hunting certainly saw foxes - adults and cubs able to escape from and evade hounds; you know that is the truth.


----------



## Koweyka (3 August 2022)

This fox suffered, it was ragged between two hounds before being disembowelled, it didn’t die instantly. Look at his eyes and tell me he didn’t suffer.


----------



## Koweyka (3 August 2022)

palo1 said:



			Foxes are classed as pests which is simply a different word for vermin.  They are in the same classification according to the Govt as moles and mink.   Traditional fox hunting certainly saw foxes - adults and cubs able to escape from and evade hounds; you know that is the truth.
		
Click to expand...

So some evade and some don’t so that makes it ok ?


----------



## Koweyka (3 August 2022)

In the UK the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) determines which animals are vermin, and *foxes are not on that list*. So stop peddling lies to suit your narrative.


----------



## palo1 (3 August 2022)

ycbm said:



			I don't see any comparison between eating British farmed meat and chasing a fox for miles across country for the enjoyment of a group of horse riders and foot followers.  The  Burns Report said shooting was of equal humanity to hunting with hounds (though it is questionable whether he included cubbing in that). The addition of horseback and foot followers is superfluous.

And way past its time.
.
		
Click to expand...

Some British farming practices - such as killing pigs using gas gondolas would horrify the hardest heart and I think you have posted about that previously.   Obviously though, my sense of horror is subjective and I can chose whether to eat that kind of product or not.  Aspects of chicken farming might also revolt you in terms of the welfare and basic quality of life of intensively farmed birds but I am sure you are aware of that too.  Some people are not remotely revolted by those things and know and understand exactly what they are supporting and eating and that is perfectly fine as we have a choice.   As you well know too, foxes were not 'chased' for miles across country but their scent was tracked until/if/when they caught up a fox that may have made a mistake or not been sufficiently fit or experienced to get away from hounds.  The chasing for miles trope is a misrepresentation.  Hounds are bred for their nose and ability to track scent; they are not sight hounds that do, in fact 'chase' their quarry.  I am sure you know that as well as you are an experienced fox hunter as well as drag hunter.  My post about rats was presenting an absolutely similar scenario to the holding up example during cubbing that you referred to.


----------



## palo1 (3 August 2022)

Koweyka said:



			In the UK the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) determines which animals are vermin, and *foxes are not on that list*. So stop peddling lies to suit your narrative.
		
Click to expand...

I am not lying but using the government's own advice about pests and pest control on your property.  Here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/foxes-moles-and-mink-how-to-protect-your-property-from-damage

Were you not aware of this?


----------



## palo1 (3 August 2022)

Koweyka said:



			So some evade and some don’t so that makes it ok ?
		
Click to expand...

Well that was the standard, legal and widely accepted method of dealing with foxes in rural areas before the ban so yes, it was ok when fox hunting was legal.


----------



## Sandstone1 (3 August 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Actually it’s not, as reports have shown. It might well be distasteful depending upon your viewpoint and I can totally understand that some will feel that way, but the evidence doesn’t back up your assertion of cruelty
		
Click to expand...

What a completely ridiculous thing to say.


----------



## palo1 (3 August 2022)

Koweyka said:



			How many foxes have you seen die and how many bodies have you retrieved.
		
Click to expand...

I have not retrieved any dead foxes.  I could not say how many foxes I have seen killed by hounds before the Hunting Act - not many would be my general answer!  Since the ban I have seen no foxes killed by hounds but I have seen piles of foxes shot and left by the side of the road which I have found pretty sad. They are beautiful and fascinating creatures.


----------



## palo1 (3 August 2022)

Koweyka said:



			In the UK the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) determines which animals are vermin, and *foxes are not on that list*. So stop peddling lies to suit your narrative.
		
Click to expand...

Where is that list?


----------



## palo1 (3 August 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			What a completely ridiculous thing to say.
		
Click to expand...

Why is that ridiculous?


----------



## ycbm (3 August 2022)

palo1 said:



			Well that was the standard, legal and widely accepted method of dealing with foxes in rural areas before the ban so yes, it was ok when fox hunting was legal.
		
Click to expand...

It wasn't in all rural areas,  please don't write as if it was.  The area I used to live in was not fox hunted.  Pest foxes were shot by a local marksman. Foxes not causing problems were left alone.

If being legal is what counts with you Palo, why are you disquieted by farming practices?

And why are you not prepared to allow others the same level of disquiet over once-legal fox hunting practices, but keep on and on trying to change our minds? Why can't we just agree to disagree?

How about Amazon/Costa/anynumberofothers  tax avoidance?  Is that OK because it's legal?

How far does you respect/tolerance for legal practices  extend?
.


----------



## palo1 (3 August 2022)

My disquiet about some farming practices is entirely personal and I would not and do not tell people that their choice to buy food that is farmed in a way distasteful to me is 'revolting' or 'sick' or any other kind of subjective judgement.  I am entirely comfortable with other people's distaste for the historic practice of fox hunting; I have no beef about that at all but I don't like seeing opinion touted as fact.   I have no problem at all with agreeing to disagree; I think  I have made that clear so many times but I don't want to see misrepresentation of facts around something that I both know about and care about. The usual anti-hunting tropes and emotive language are often simply very strongly worded personal opinion rather than that which is truly informed or based on facts.  That is not pointed at any individual btw but is an opinion and observation in general. 

As for tolerating distasteful but legal activities - well, I am glad I live in a democracy where the rule of law generally enables society to function safely for everyone. It is, however, not perfect of course.  There are some very worrying exceptions and instances where the law is an ass and results in people being endangered or disadvantaged in society but I would say I am someone that is pretty much bound by respect for the law in everything I do.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (3 August 2022)

I still don't understand why some folks peddle the myth that the choices for controlling fox numbers seems to be a straight up choice between hunting with hounds or indiscrimately shooting every fox in a given area. 

They're both equally awful options. So glad I live in a rural area where neither one is practiced.


----------



## moosea (3 August 2022)

Mrs_P said:



			Which, according to this thread should include the vast majority of the general public in the UK. Yet a quick Google search and according the vegan society website only 1.2% of the population are vegan, and 10% are vegetarian......
		
Click to expand...

The fox is/was killed in front of a gorup of spectators who paid for the days ' entertainment '. The fox was not eaten. It was killed for the sport for the spectators.




palo1 said:



			I am really not trying to aggravate you but fox cubs were killed in that way as part of a practice of vermin control.
		
Click to expand...




Fred66 said:



			Animal welfare/cruelty is not related to enjoyment. To me it is around ensuring that control of the fox numbers is done in a way that is as “uncruel” as it can be.
		
Click to expand...




palo1 said:



			I have not retrieved any dead foxes.  I could not say how many foxes I have seen killed by hounds before the Hunting Act - not many would be my general answer!  Since the ban I have seen no foxes killed by hounds but I have seen piles of foxes shot and left by the side of the road which I have found pretty sad.
		
Click to expand...

Palo, why is it that you ( pro hunters) constantly talk about vermin/ pest control but artificial earths are used to keep foxes in an area? You have not explained this to me, although I have asked before. If they are vermin then wouldn't you want fewer of them in an area that required you to chase them with a pack of dogs until they are too exhausted to run any more?


----------



## meleeka (3 August 2022)

After all these pages I still don’t get how  hunting on horseback with dogs was an effective method of pest control on one hand, but on the other, apparently hardly any foxes got killed. A whole day out, with all the inconvenience it caused to others, just to kill a couple of old/diseases foxes doesn’t seem like a very effective method at all.


----------



## Sandstone1 (4 August 2022)

moosea said:



			The fox is/was killed in front of a gorup of spectators who paid for the days ' entertainment '. The fox was not eaten. It was killed for the sport for the spectators.







Palo, why is it that you ( pro hunters) constantly talk about vermin/ pest control but artificial earths are used to keep foxes in an area? You have not explained this to me, although I have asked before. If they are vermin then wouldn't you want fewer of them in an area that required you to chase them with a pack of dogs until they are too exhausted to run any more?[
/QUOTE]
Exactly,   If the fox is such a pest and vermin that needs to be controlled why are they fed and encouraged by the hunt????
The answer is very clear.  Its so the hunt has something to chase, to give the hunt their " Sport"   You will not get a sensible answer because the truth is not what hunting people want people to know.    Hunting people encourage foxes so they have something to chase.   They will drone on about fox welfare etc etc but its just so they have something to chase.
People go on about legal hunting but in truth fox hunting goes on pretty much as it did before the ban,  certainly in my area.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Koweyka (4 August 2022)

In one of the areas I cover we have found 37 artificial earths all in coverts the hunts go to, every so often the hunts try refurbish some of them, they don’t last long. These are just the ones we are aware of you can be sure there are others we aren’t. It makes you wonder why if foxes are such an issue why the hunts are having to encourage foxes to live in the areas they hunt.


----------



## Tiddlypom (4 August 2022)

Pre ban, foxes were indeed encouraged and protected out of season purely to provide sport for the hunt during the hunting season.

A farmer would keep a protective eye on a litter of fox cubs growing up on his land over the spring and summer, but then have no qualms about later directing the huntsman to the covert in cubbing season. The covert would be 'held up' by the hunt, hounds put in, and the young foxes would be prevented from escaping so that the young hounds could get easy kills.

It's a disconnect. Foxes were generally better protected pre ban simply to later provide sport in what many regard as an utterly appalling pastime for a minority.

Sensibilities have changed. There will be no repeal.

ETA Though I did hunt pre ban, I didn't ever go cubbing. I have witnessed the practice of 'holding up' a number of times, though. Mostly, but not always pre ban, though tbf not for for a number of years now.


----------



## palo1 (4 August 2022)

moosea said:



			The fox is/was killed in front of a gorup of spectators who paid for the days ' entertainment '. The fox was not eaten. It was killed for the sport for the spectators.







Palo, why is it that you ( pro hunters) constantly talk about vermin/ pest control but artificial earths are used to keep foxes in an area? You have not explained this to me, although I have asked before. If they are vermin then wouldn't you want fewer of them in an area that required you to chase them with a pack of dogs until they are too exhausted to run any more?
		
Click to expand...

I have never (knowingly) hunted in any country or with any hunt that has used artificial earths; where I am familiar with foxes there has never been any reason to create those and I would say that this is a practice that should have certainly gone out with the ban. There could be no possible reason for any hunt to now need to create an artificial earth fgs!!  Personally, I would suggest that when fox hunting was legal, artificial earths would have been anathema to the kind of hunting I was familiar with and the use of them has always seemed pretty ghastly to me.   If foxes needed that kind of 'help' or management then there was no need for them to be controlled with hounds.  Other people who have hunted where artificial earths have been used may have felt differently but that is how people I know think.  I would certainly never have found any need or any desire to hunt foxes in that situation.   The use of other strategies such as using a bagged fox were utterly degenerate and no one I know personally would have wanted anything to do with that.  The community I am familiar with was pretty traditional and foxes were genuinely hunted as a form of management.  The sport element was in watching hounds work the scent of a fox and for riders to try to keep up with hounds.  It was never contrived through the use of artificial earths or bagged (captive) foxes.  In fact, also, the technique of holding up is not something I have seen  often historically - perhaps once or twice as a child. I haven't seen anything like that for many, many years in these parts.

In areas I am familiar with foxes were hunted as part of control strategy and that has been very well explained many times.  The hunting of foxes with hounds was not about killing them in large numbers but about managing both the number of foxes in a particular place and their behaviour.  This has had considerable attention over the years and is increasingly borne out in other studies of how having large predators in an area has far more impact than just reducing the number of any prey species.  That isn't necessarily how fox hunting was designed originally when in fact the only strategy for managing them without the presence of bigger predators, was to hunt them with hounds, but it was the effect on them which is now better understood in that context.


----------



## Mrs_P (4 August 2022)

moosea said:



			The fox is/was killed in front of a gorup of spectators who paid for the days ' entertainment '. The fox was not eaten. It was killed for the sport for the spectators.
		
Click to expand...

So if the fox was eaten afterwards would that make it more acceptable? And why is killing "for sport" unacceptable but killing other animals such as pigs for example, for us to unnecessarily stuff our faces is ok? The end result is the same and both are arguably killed for the enjoyment of humans. 
As I say I eat meat so I am not passing judgment but I do find it an interesting moral question.


----------



## Clodagh (4 August 2022)

Millionwords said:



			She did say Cubbing. Not "legal autumn hunting". We all know the difference.
		
Click to expand...

Because when I did it it was called cubbing. Why would I have called it legal autumn hunting? Surely that’s a post ban expression?


----------



## Tiddlypom (4 August 2022)

Clodagh was, I'm sure, referring to cubbing as it was widely and legally practised pre ban. The hunting fraternity have since decided to ditch the term 'cubbing' as it was too close to the truth, and instead substituted it with the fluffier term 'autumn hunting'.

Call it what you will, cubbing still goes on in some parts. It's one of the easiest Hunting Act transgressions to spot, as holding up tends to be fairly static and noisy, and it's pretty clear what is going on.

A reminder of what the Sinnington Hunt had to say on the practice re the 2019/20 season, courtesy of hunting leaks. They are wondering if they are wise to continue with holding up. Plus they refer to both the Police and the Hunting Act as being their 'opponents'. And they worry whether hunting trails will affect the ability of their hounds to still be effective at hunting 'the real thing' when required.

https://huntingleaks.is/sinnington-hunt-interpretation-of-mfha-guidance/


----------



## Koweyka (4 August 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Clodagh was, I'm sure, referring to cubbing as it was widely and legally practised pre ban. The hunting fraternity have since decided to ditch the term 'cubbing' as it was too close to the truth, and instead substituted it with the fluffier term 'autumn hunting'.

Call it what you will, cubbing still goes on in some parts. It's one of the easiest Hunting Act transgressions to spot, as holding up tends to be fairly static and noisy, and it's pretty clear what is going on.

A reminder of what the Sinnington Hunt had to say on the practice re the 2019/20 season, courtesy of hunting leaks. They are wondering if they are wise to continue with holding up. Plus they refer to both the Police and the Hunting Act as being their 'opponents'. And they worry whether hunting trails will affect the ability of their hounds to still be effective at hunting 'the real thing' when required.

https://huntingleaks.is/sinnington-hunt-interpretation-of-mfha-guidance/

View attachment 97093

Click to expand...

Literally from the horses mouth about how they try and circumnavigate the law and continue to hunt foxes whenever they think they can get away with it.


----------



## Tiddlypom (4 August 2022)

Re the convicted fox stabber Paul O'Shea again. The East Essex Hunt are denying that he was ever employed by the hunt.

https://www.itv.com/news/2022-08-01...nimal-abuse-in-attack-on-fox-with-garden-fork_

“We fiercely condemn the actions of this individual who is no longer welcome to follow our hounds. 

"The activities that were investigated took place on a non-hunting day and the person found guilty of these offences was not acting on behalf of any hunt. The East Essex Hunt has never employed the individual that has been sentenced.”_

Ahem, E.Essex Hunt, you are being very economical with the truth.

Paul O'Shea is listed as an E.Essex countryman in the Horse and Hound report. Additionally, the H&H report states that he sometimes whipped in for the hunt. Not to mention his wife being a joint master, and his son being a fellow countryman.

Not an employee, eh? Maybe he did it all this for the love of it .

Any governing body of mettle would be going through the organisation of this hunt with a fine tooth comb.


----------



## Fred66 (4 August 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Re the convicted fox stabber Paul O'Shea again. The East Essex Hunt are denying that he was ever employed by the hunt.

https://www.itv.com/news/2022-08-01...nimal-abuse-in-attack-on-fox-with-garden-fork

_“We fiercely condemn the actions of this individual who is no longer welcome to follow our hounds. _

_"The activities that were investigated took place on a non-hunting day and the person found guilty of these offences was not acting on behalf of any hunt. The East Essex Hunt has never employed the individual that has been sentenced.”_

Ahem, E.Essex Hunt, you are being very economical with the truth.

Paul O'Shea is listed as an E.Essex countryman in the Horse and Hound report. Additionally, the H&H report states that he sometimes whipped in for the hunt. Not to mention his wife being a joint master, and his son being a fellow countryman.

Not an employee, eh? Maybe he did it all this for the love of it .

Any governing body of mettle would be going through the organisation of this hunt with a fine tooth comb.
		
Click to expand...

They might be telling the truth but also obfuscating. Countrymen and Whipper In‘s are not always paid positions and therefore it is highly possible that he was not an employee of the hunt, but did previously perform the roles you mention.


----------



## Tiddlypom (4 August 2022)

Indeed, perhaps Paul O'Shea was not paid for his efforts, but he certainly held named positions of responsibility within the hunt structure.

Btw, 'obfuscating' - love that word, and I'm filing it away for future reference!


----------



## Clodagh (4 August 2022)

ycbm said:



			It wasn't in all rural areas,  please don't write as if it was.  The area I used to live in was not fox hunted.  Pest foxes were shot by a local marksman. Foxes not causing problems were left alone.

.
		
Click to expand...

Genuine question, how do they know who are the problem foxes? 
When we had a farm, which was hunted, we didn’t shoot the foxes. For many years we had a distinctive bob tailed fox we saw regularly but he was no bother and we left them all be.
When we started losing chickens we went out and shot the lot. Obviously you shoot the one in your garden in the daytime if possible but if not you go and clear them out.
How can your marksmen identify the specific fox that is causing bother?


----------



## Millionwords (4 August 2022)

Clodagh said:



			Because when I did it it was called cubbing. Why would I have called it legal autumn hunting? Surely that’s a post ban expression?
		
Click to expand...

No I was agreeing with you @Clodagh , I was responding to @palo1 who suggested it was "legal autumn hunting" that you expressed you enjoyed :



palo1 said:



			I am not going to speak for @Clodagh but I read the post to mean that elements of the legal autumn hunting experience (not necessarily all aspects of hunting) were magical.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Millionwords (4 August 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Re the convicted fox stabber Paul O'Shea again. The East Essex Hunt are denying that he was ever employed by the hunt.

https://www.itv.com/news/2022-08-01...nimal-abuse-in-attack-on-fox-with-garden-fork

_“We fiercely condemn the actions of this individual who is no longer welcome to follow our hounds. _

_"The activities that were investigated took place on a non-hunting day and the person found guilty of these offences was not acting on behalf of any hunt. The East Essex Hunt has never employed the individual that has been sentenced.”_

Ahem, E.Essex Hunt, you are being very economical with the truth.

Paul O'Shea is listed as an E.Essex countryman in the Horse and Hound report. Additionally, the H&H report states that he sometimes whipped in for the hunt. Not to mention his wife being a joint master, and his son being a fellow countryman.

Not an employee, eh? Maybe he did it all this for the love of it .

Any governing body of mettle would be going through the organisation of this hunt with a fine tooth comb.
		
Click to expand...


Do they really think people are that stupid? Paid or not, he is part and parcel of the hunt, and acting as a member.  Hunts when caught continually treat the public as if they are beyond stupid. Its frankly embarassing and pretty disgusting.

(edited for clarity, its been a really long day at work and it made no sense)


----------



## palo1 (4 August 2022)

Millionwords said:



			No I was agreeing with you @Clodagh , I was responding to @palo1 who suggested it was "legal autumn hunting" that you expressed you enjoyed :
		
Click to expand...

That is strange as I understood that @Clodagh was talking about cubbing; I think I was talking about elements other than the death of the fox that could have happened pre-ban maybe?


----------



## moosea (4 August 2022)

Mrs_P said:



			So if the fox was eaten afterwards would that make it more acceptable?
		
Click to expand...

I don't know. It would, imho, make it less pointless and and a little less bloodthirsty. But I think that it's a combination of things which makes killing an animal for sport totaly and instantly wrong for me.
It's partly the chase. I think the fox would probably be scared and after a while it would be tired. Do I think it is thinking of its family and home in it's last minutes running? No, of course not. But it would be afraid? and as humans who have the ability to show empathy do any of us think an animal we cause to die should do so in a state of fear or exhaustion?

It's also huntings complete inability to say we f***d up when someones pet is killed, or their animals are terrorised, or their property damaged. Hunting just turns their nose up and blame anyone else they can. They don't pubish a public reveiw, they don't discapline or even denounce anyone for these negligent mistakes. Nothing changes.



Mrs_P said:



			And why is killing "for sport" unacceptable but killing other animals such as pigs for example, for us to unnecessarily stuff our faces is ok?
		
Click to expand...

It's not really is it? When we look at it. However most beef cows don't have to have an extended period of fear - extended deliberately by humans - prior to slaughter. I don't eat meat so I don't think its acceptable to kill animals,although it is sometimes necessary.






Mrs_P said:



			The end result is the same and both are arguably killed for the enjoyment of humans.
As I say I eat meat so I am not passing judgment but I do find it an interesting moral question.
		
Click to expand...

The result is the same.

But sometimes the bit before the result is more important. And for most people who were involved in any way in an animals death, they'd want to make it quick and humane. And while hunting will fall back on reports that hunting with hounds is not cruel it certainly isn't the quickest possible way if you include the chase.


----------



## Clodagh (4 August 2022)

palo1 said:



			That is strange as I understood that @Clodagh was talking about cubbing; I think I was talking about elements other than the death of the fox that could have happened pre-ban maybe?
		
Click to expand...

Well it’s been a long day at Honiton show and I’m lost!


----------



## ycbm (4 August 2022)

Clodagh said:



			Genuine question, how do they know who are the problem foxes?
When we had a farm, which was hunted, we didn’t shoot the foxes. For many years we had a distinctive bob tailed fox we saw regularly but he was no bother and we left them all be.
When we started losing chickens we went out and shot the lot. Obviously you shoot the one in your garden in the daytime if possible but if not you go and clear them out.
How can your marksmen identify the specific fox that is causing bother?
		
Click to expand...


The main guy who shoots fox will go to any farm in the area reporting stock losses and/or sight of foxes near lambs. He sits and waits and when the fox turns up he shoots it.  There is another guy who specialises in the problem deer, so has a similar technique but he stalks them. 
.


----------



## Koweyka (6 August 2022)

So the Tetcott Hunt has folded due to lack of finances and support, when pushed on the fate of the hounds the hunt committee stated they won’t guarantee the hounds will not be destroyed, so much for the hounds all having loving homes when they retire (nobody believed that anyway) more like a bullet in the head prior to a trip to an incinerator.

“The Regional representative of the MFHA Paul Hancock who was present was asked by the floor would the MFHA oversee and commit to the safe re-homing of hounds and ensure no hounds were destroyed?, a Mr RICHARD TYACKE Director of the MFHA stood up and explained he would answer this question on behalf of Mr. Hancock (Four Burrow Hunt) and the MFHA and said whilst they would do their very best they simply were not able to commit or guarantee that hounds would not be DESTROYED should the Tetcott Hunt Fold.”


----------



## CanteringCarrot (6 August 2022)

I mean, it's a waste of a life, but being humanely euthanized (and that can include via a bullet to the head), isn't the worst fate. I think many if not all of these hounds would need a specific type of home and owner. Which won't be so easy to find.

IME, many of the hounds that belong to various hunts don't live the best lives in the best of conditions anyway. Of course there's always someone with a tale saying that so and so loves the hounds and exercises them. Well of course, so and so needs them for his/her "sport" and enjoyment of that "sport" so will do just above the minimum to ensure that those hounds can live and do their job. They're not pets.

I do think that the hunt should do their due diligence and attempt to rehome the hounds, but if there are no suitable homes, or no suitable person can be found for them, then it's their responsibility to humanely dispatch them. Of course they can't guarantee homes for all of them, and of course no one is beating down their door to have one of these hounds, I imagine. 

It sucks for the hounds, but they don't/won't know that. So there's that.


----------



## Tiddlypom (6 August 2022)

The Tetcott Hunt seems to be having a rather acrimonious implosion if the informal minutes of the recent EGM as reported to Hunting Leaks are accurate.

https://huntingleaks.is/news/

The main thing is that the hounds must continue to be properly cared for and exercised until such time as their ultimate future is decided, whether that is to be draughted to another pack or to be culled.


----------



## palo1 (6 August 2022)

Hounds welfare must be the first priority but of course suspension of a hunt is not the same (quite) as folding.  They may fold of course but many hunts have suspended activities for one reason or another and come back from the brink of extinction.


----------



## Koweyka (26 August 2022)

Just no words or excuses for this is there …

https://www.itv.com/news/2022-08-26...R9i1zpAmiZyZhfTe8wvBucAdaywldcKSGtOjurQEIGBfA


----------



## Sandstone1 (26 August 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Just no words or excuses for this is there …

https://www.itv.com/news/2022-08-26...R9i1zpAmiZyZhfTe8wvBucAdaywldcKSGtOjurQEIGBfA

Click to expand...

No doubt the pro hunters will be along with some B S excuses


----------



## Tiddlypom (26 August 2022)

Remind me again, how is it that foxhounds are trained to follow fox scent now that hunting foxes is banned?

Oh, that's how.

Bagged foxes an antis myth, eh?

Utterly grim. Thank goodness for video.


----------



## Clodagh (26 August 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			No doubt the pro hunters will be along with some B S excuses
		
Click to expand...

Don’t be silly.


----------



## Clodagh (26 August 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Just no words or excuses for this is there …

https://www.itv.com/news/2022-08-26...R9i1zpAmiZyZhfTe8wvBucAdaywldcKSGtOjurQEIGBfA

Click to expand...

That’s appalling. Bagged foxes are the very lowest, even when hunting a wild found one was legal.


----------



## Sandstone1 (26 August 2022)

Clodagh said:



			Don’t be silly.
		
Click to expand...

Really?    They have form.  Dont be rude.


----------



## Clodagh (26 August 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Really?    They have form.  Dont be rude.
		
Click to expand...

Well I am pro hunting and I don’t think I’ve ever come up with a BS excuse. No doubt you’ll trawl back and find one now 😃


----------



## ycbm (26 August 2022)

I sure there will be hunting people trying to tell us this is a one off.  I'm equally sure it isn't. 
.


----------



## Tiddlypom (26 August 2022)

_Avon and Somerset Police confirmed to ITV News that “a man in his 20s has attended a voluntary police interview in connection with a report made to police concerning alleged illegal hunting"._

Just the one person being interviewed by the police? There's at least 6 people present, all of whom seem to be in on it.


----------



## Sandstone1 (26 August 2022)

Clodagh said:



			Well I am pro hunting and I don’t think I’ve ever come up with a BS excuse. No doubt you’ll trawl back and find one now 😃
		
Click to expand...

I really can not be bothered.


----------



## Koweyka (26 August 2022)

Clodagh said:



			That’s appalling. Bagged foxes are the very lowest, even when hunting a wild found one was legal.
		
Click to expand...

We can always tell bagged ones, they stand stock still trying to get their bearings which of course they can’t, this hunt needs to be disbanded and all the hunt staff should never be employed in that capacity again.


----------



## Sandstone1 (15 September 2022)

Cub hunting?  Thought that was illegal?   Oh sorry, they are " Trail hunting"    
chttps://www.facebook.com/WestMidsHuntSabs/videos/539202924694253


----------



## ycbm (15 September 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Cub hunting?  Thought that was illegal?   Oh sorry, they are " Trail hunting"   
chttps://www.facebook.com/WestMidsHuntSabs/videos/539202924694253

Click to expand...


Cub hunting unmistakably. How can it possibly be anything else? 

The single most disgusting thing I've ever done in my life.  I still blame my younger self for not having the guts to ride away (and tell the people I was out with at the time what I thought).


----------



## Sandstone1 (15 September 2022)

ycbm said:



			Cub hunting unmistakably. How can it possibly be anything else?

The single most disgusting thing I've ever done in my life.  I still blame my younger self for not having the guts to ride away (and tell the people I was out with at the time what I thought).
		
Click to expand...

Why are they allowed to get away with it?   Its clear what they are doing.  No way are they following a trail but still they continue to break the law and get away with it.


----------



## ycbm (15 September 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Why are they allowed to get away with it?   Its clear what they are doing.  No way are they following a trail but still they continue to break the law and get away with it.
		
Click to expand...


Because we don't have enough police to police burglaries, never mind fraud.  And because the moment anyone in uniform turned up,  they'd just stop and there would be no evidence. So it would require covert (no pun intended)  surveillance which  needs official  approval and big resources.  
.


----------



## Sandstone1 (15 September 2022)

ycbm said:



			Because we don't have enough police to police burglaries, never mind fraud.  And because the moment anyone in uniform turned up,  they'd just stop and there would be no evidence. So it would require covert (no pun intended)  surveillance which  needs official  approval and big resources. 
.
		
Click to expand...

Warwickshire police has a rural crime dept, surely they should be interested in this?


----------



## ycbm (15 September 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Warwickshire police has a rural crime dept, surely they should be interested in this?
		
Click to expand...

How many staff has it got and what else are they covering? ATV theft is rife,  for example. They are uniformed staff on Rural Crime in Cheshire. The moment someone in uniform appears they will simply stop turning the foxes back.  And if they stop that there is no evidence whatsoever to prosecute them with.  
.


----------



## Tiddlypom (15 September 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Cub hunting?  Thought that was illegal?   Oh sorry, they are " Trail hunting" 
chttps://www.facebook.com/WestMidsHuntSabs/videos/539202924694253

Click to expand...

That certainly looks like 'holding up' to me - and holding up has no place whatsoever in post ban legal trail hunting. It's old fashioned and definitely now illegal cubbing.

How brazen are they thinking that they can get away with it?


----------



## ycbm (15 September 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			That certainly looks like 'holding up' to me - and holding up has no place whatsoever in post ban legal trail hunting. It's old fashioned and definitely now illegal cubbing.

How brazen are they thinking that they can get away with it?
		
Click to expand...


It's also confirmation, for me,   that the Warwickshire  intend to fox hunt for the entire coming season.  I hope they get the sabbing they deserve. 
.


----------



## Tiddlypom (15 September 2022)

Well, rather than relying on sabs this is a case for the brand new separate Regulatory Authority – the Hound Sports Regulatory Authority (HSRA) - which administers all regulation and disciplinary matters for members and member hunts, in accordance with the rules set by the BHSA.

If the HSRA has any teeth and actually means to regulate hunting from within, rather than being complicit in supporting illegal practice...

The Warwickshire Hunt should be suspended pending a robust investigation into its activities by the HSRA.


----------



## Sandstone1 (15 September 2022)

ycbm said:



			It's also confirmation, for me,   that the Warwickshire  intend to fox hunt for the entire coming season.  I hope they get the sabbing they deserve.
.
		
Click to expand...

Their arrogance is astounding.   I can only hope that it will eventually lead to their demise.


----------



## Sandstone1 (16 September 2022)

Quite noticeable that all the normal pro hunters on here have nothing to say on this is it not.....  I have reported this to the Police for all the good it will do.


----------



## shortstuff99 (16 September 2022)

I don't think many pro hunters post on this thread much anymore. 

Although for balance I did see an article in horse and hound yesterday that 5 sabs had been found guilty of assault.


----------



## Gallop_Away (16 September 2022)

For goodness sake is this still going.

Again I'm not sure who all these "pro hunters" are? Perhaps I've been following a different thread but all I have seen are those who hunt LEGALLY such as myself offer balance to the argument rolled out by some that all hunts are hunting illegally and also condemn frequently the practice of illegal hunting. I'm not sure what you expect us "pro hunting" lot (as you deem us) to say any further on the matter? Illegal hunting and bad behaviour by hunts has been condemned throughout this thread. 

That video is blatantly showing illegal cub hunting, a practice I have always found appalling. The footage should be submitted to the police for them to investigate.


----------



## ycbm (16 September 2022)

shortstuff99 said:



			I don't think many pro hunters post on this thread much anymore.
		
Click to expand...

To be fair,  we've never had any hunters who are openly pro illegal hunting on this thread and there's not much anyone can say about this except "is wrong,  it shouldn't be happening".

I wonder if people who did hunt fox legally, and want a return to it,  want this kind of cubbing back too. I understand that not all hunts did it.  
.


----------



## ycbm (16 September 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Well, rather than relying on sabs this is a case for the brand new separate Regulatory Authority – the Hound Sports Regulatory Authority (HSRA) - which administers all regulation and disciplinary matters for members and member hunts, in accordance with the rules set by the BHSA.

If the HSRA has any teeth and actually means to regulate hunting from within, rather than being complicit in supporting illegal practice...

The Warwickshire Hunt should be suspended pending a robust investigation into its activities by the HSRA.
		
Click to expand...

I won't be holding my breath! 
.


----------



## Tiddlypom (16 September 2022)

ycbm said:



			I won't be holding my breath!
.
		
Click to expand...

Me neither, but if hunting has any genuine desire to reform and kick out the bad 'uns from within, this is the time to step up and take action and suspend this hunt forthwith. 

Over to you, the new structure for the governance of hunting.

Are you there to allow the continuation of illegal hunting, or are you there to stamp it out? This is when you will show your true colours. Anything less than the immediate suspension of the licence of the Warwickshire to hunt pending enquiries is a cop out.


----------



## Miss_Millie (16 September 2022)

How they keep getting away with this, I just don't know...


----------



## Koweyka (16 September 2022)

I personally believe the Warwickshire are the most disgusting law breaking hunt in the country, certainly last season and it seems nothing has changed this season and The Portman Hunt are following close behind with another disgusting display of deliberately hunting a fox. The “new” governing body needs to put it’s money where it’s mouth is and suspend both hunts if it wants to be taken seriously.


----------



## Sandstone1 (16 September 2022)

How can they say thats trail hunting in any shape or form?   I can not understand why the Police do nothing when its as blatant as this.


----------



## Tiddlypom (16 September 2022)

The police really should respond to that footage. I've posted earlier in the thread about how holding up is one of the most blatant and obvious transgressions of the Hunting Act. I'm fairly gobsmacked that any pack thinks that they can still get away with holding up in the 2022/23 season.

Although the hunt followers (as opposed to the hunt staff and officials) are not technically commiting an offence by knowingly following a law breaking pack, they can still be found guilty of illegal hunting if they knowingly commit an illegal act while doing so - such as trying to head a fleeing fox back to the hounds.




From the Stratford Herald.

_'Sam Butler, of Warwickshire Hunt, confirmed to the Herald that the video does show footage of Warwickshire Hunt members out on Monday, 12th September in Ashorne.'_


----------



## Koweyka (16 September 2022)

The give it a fancy name “autumn hunting” they don’t use a “trail” They usually panic and go for a trot around the roads when sabs or the police show up. It’s vile and disgusting and the reason they pack up when caught is because they have no defence for it.


----------



## Sandstone1 (16 September 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			The police really should respond to that footage. I've posted earlier in the thread about how holding up is one of the most blatant and obvious transgressions of the Hunting Act. I'm fairly gobsmacked that any pack thinks that they can still get away with holding up in the 2022/23 season.

Although the hunt followers (as opposed to the hunt staff and officials) are not technically commiting an offence by knowingly following a law breaking pack, they can still be found guilty of illegal hunting if they knowingly commit an illegal act while doing so - such as trying to head a fleeing fox back to the hounds.

From the Stratford Herald.

_'Sam Butler, of Warwickshire Hunt, confirmed to the Herald that the video does show footage of Warwickshire Hunt members out on Monday, 12th September in Ashorne.'_

Click to expand...

I reported to the Police but no response so far.


----------



## sakura (16 September 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			For goodness sake is this still going.
		
Click to expand...

This thread will continue as long as hunts are breaking the law.


----------



## Gallop_Away (16 September 2022)

sakura said:



			This thread will continue as long as hunts are breaking the law.
		
Click to expand...

OK but I do not see the point raking over the same arguments again and again and expecting further responses from posters who have already explained their views clearly throughout this thread. It's simply flogging a dead horse. "Pro hunt" as we have been labelled have made it quite clear that we do not support illegal hunting throughout this discussion.


----------



## Sandstone1 (16 September 2022)

I had a reply.  " Our team is investigating a alleged offence but can not comment further at this time"


----------



## Sandstone1 (16 September 2022)

ycbm said:



			To be fair,  we've never had any hunters who are openly pro illegal hunting on this thread and there's not much anyone can say about this except "is wrong,  it shouldn't be happening".

I wonder if people who did hunt fox legally, and want a return to it,  want this kind of cubbing back too. I understand that not all hunts did it. 
.
		
Click to expand...

Anyone that wants cubbing brought back needs to have a look at themselves.


----------



## Amymay (16 September 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			OK but I do not see the point raking over the same arguments again and again and expecting further responses from posters who have already explained their views clearly throughout this thread. It's simply flogging a dead horse. "Pro hunt" as we have been labelled have made it quite clear that we do not support illegal hunting throughout this discussion.
		
Click to expand...

Does that mean that you’d rather posters didn’t continue to draw attention to recent illegal activity?


----------



## Gallop_Away (16 September 2022)

Amymay said:



			Does that mean that you’d rather posters didn’t continue to draw attention to recent illegal activity?
		
Click to expand...

At no point did I say anything of the sort. My comments are regarding a certain poster continuing to demand responses from those they have labelled pro-hunt when I am unsure what more we can possibly say that has not already been said, many times throughout this thread. To continue to label us "pro-hunt" is at best tedious and at worst insulting as I think illegal hunting has been clearly condemned by all in this thread. To be honest I'm not surprised why so many "pro-hunt" posters don't wish to contributing further.


----------



## stangs (16 September 2022)

Good that people are keeping this thread up-to-date with news, but why expect “pro-hunt” folk to join in when their arguments tend to get misrepresented, especially when they’re not arguing for any illegal activity, but rather providing context and a different point-of-view on rural lifestyles?


----------



## moosea (16 September 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			At no point did I say anything of the sort. My comments are regarding a certain poster continuing to demand responses from those they have labelled pro-hunt when I am unsure what more we can possibly say that has not already been said, many times throughout this thread. To continue to label us "pro-hunt" is at best tedious and at worst insulting as I think illegal hunting has been clearly condemned by all in this thread. To be honest I'm not surprised why so many "pro-hunt" posters don't wish to contributing further.
		
Click to expand...

I think it's quite common to call someone 'pro' if they support hunting and 'anti' if they don't.

That's not to say the pro hunt posters would support illegal activities - just that they support hunting in one form or another.


----------



## Gallop_Away (17 September 2022)

moosea said:



			I think it's quite common to call someone 'pro' if they support hunting and 'anti' if they don't.

That's not to say the pro hunt posters would support illegal activities - just that they support hunting in one form or another.
		
Click to expand...

With respect if you look back through the thread you will see the aggression and rudeness this particular poster has directed at those they call pro-hunt so I think it's quite clear how they feel towards us and the intent behind continuing to call us pro hunt.

Also, why would those of us who hunt LEGALLY and have condemned illegal hunting over and over in this thread, need to continue to comment further on the matter? Why continue to expect a response unless this poster once again is hoping for an argument which they seem to relish.


----------



## ycbm (17 September 2022)

Can I just gently point out that there's no need to answer?

I would like to know how those who would support a return to legal fox hunting feel about a return to legal cubbing (for killing,  not dispersal). 

Again,  no need to answer of people don't want to.   
.


----------



## Sandstone1 (17 September 2022)

Well as pro is the opposite of anti in this context what else would you like me to call people who would like a return to hunting with hounds?
I would only be interested in their thoughts on the video of obvious cubbing, thats all.
No one needs to answer if they do not wish too.
In fact I have remembered I have most of the most prolific pro hunters on UI anyway!
I just find it disgusting that the Warwickshire continue clearly cubbing, clearly breaking the law as if the ban never happened.
Whats the justification for that if they do not think they are above the law?
They are not following a trail, thats obvious.   Fox hunting is bad enough but cubbing is disgusting and I would question the mental state of people that want to do it.
People can answer or not as they wish.  I just want to bring it to peoples attention that this is still happening.


----------



## Sandstone1 (17 September 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			With respect if you look back through the thread you will see the aggression and rudeness this particular poster has directed at those they call pro-hunt so I think it's quite clear how they feel towards us and the intent behind continuing to call us pro hunt.

Also, why would those of us who hunt LEGALLY and have condemned illegal hunting over and over in this thread, need to continue to comment further on the matter? Why continue to expect a response unless this poster once again is hoping for an argument which they seem to relish.
		
Click to expand...

As I said do not answer unless you wish.   You probably have no answer to that video other than its illegal hunting.  I do not relish a argument as you put it.  I just want to bring it to peoples attention that this vile and disgusting "sport" is still going on as much as people bang on about trail and legal hunting.  Yes some trail hunting happens and I have no problem with legal trail and drag hunting at all.... Except when its used as a smokescreen for hunting and cubbing as in this video.   I was simply interested in how certain people would try to justify the actions of this hunt.     Do you think this should be swept under the carpet and allowed to continue?   No need to answer if you do not want to.   I am not talking about legal trail hunting here.  I am talking about clear and blatant cub hunting by the warwickshire hunt as seen in this video.
I am not aggressive and rude as you accuse me of.  I just do not like clear and blatant breaking of the law.
Why is it seen as rude to call out a illegal and cruel activity?    Please get this straight in your head.  I am talking about illegal hunting here.  Not drag hunting not genuine trail hunting.    I have no problem with that at all.  What I do have a big problem with is illegal hunting and the sort of trail hunting used as a smokescreen for fox hunting.


----------



## Gallop_Away (17 September 2022)

ycbm said:



			Can I just gently point out that there's no need to answer?

I would like to know how those who would support a return to legal fox hunting feel about a return to legal cubbing (for killing,  not dispersal).

Again,  no need to answer of people don't want to.  
.
		
Click to expand...

I understand that but it is again tedious when this poster gleefully claims our silence is assumed to mean that we support this horrible practice. Surely you can understand why we feel the need to correct such a statement.

In any event I had this poster on UF so I'm unsure why they have suddenly reappeared. I will be placing them back on UF as I find them particularly unpleasant and so won't be commenting on this issue any further.


----------



## Sandstone1 (17 September 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			I understand that but it is again tedious when this poster gleefully claims our silence is assumed to mean that we support this horrible practice. Surely you can understand why we feel the need to correct such a statement.

In any event I had this poster on UF so I'm unsure why they have suddenly reappeared. I will be placing them back on UF as I find them particularly unpleasant and so won't be commenting on this issue any further.
		
Click to expand...

As I had you on UI so I am not sure why you popped up either.   You have not in fact corrected any statement as I did not ever say you supported it??  I find hunting and hunters extremely unpleasant and the people that support it.  Back on UI you go.  As for "WE" is that the royal we or are you just speaking for others without their consent?  Again do not bother to reply as I will not see it anyway.


----------



## Regandal (17 September 2022)

Why would you expect pro-legal hunting people to defend blatantly illegal hunting???


----------



## ycbm (17 September 2022)

Regandal said:



			Why would you expect pro-legal hunting people to defend blatantly illegal hunting???
		
Click to expand...


I don't want to put words in Sandstone's mouth but I don't think she does.  I think she is actually asking, maybe too provocatively,  the same question as me.  "For those who want to see a return to legal fox hunting,  do you also wish to see a return to legal cub hunting of the type the Warwickshire have been caught doing?"

I can competely understand why nobody who does think it's right to train young hounds to kill by trapping young foxes inside a covert would dare try and explain why they think that,  in the face of what will undoubtedly be huge hostility. 

I can't understand why anyone who is pro legal fox hunting but against the killing version of cub hunting wouldn't be OK to say so.


----------



## Tiddlypom (17 September 2022)

On a change of tack, the New Forest Hounds have completed their transition from trail (fox scent) hunting to hunting the clean boot ie following a human runner for the 2022/3 season.

https://www.foxhuntinglife.com/news...st-hounds-have-converted-to-a-bloodhound-pack

They have needed to switch their hounds from foxhounds to bloodhounds to do this.

The NFH were, post the webinar leaks, no longer permitted to trail hunt on Forestry England owned land so had lost all their country.

I wish them all the best with this new venture - which might well be the only way forward for hunting with hounds if the governing body of hunting doesn't pull its finger out and deal with the law breaking packs still operating under its umbrella. Or even if it does.

Adapt or fail.


----------



## Sandstone1 (17 September 2022)

ycbm said:



			I don't want to put words in Sandstone's mouth but I don't think she does.  I think she is actually asking, maybe too provocatively,  the same question as me.  "For those who want to see a return to legal fox hunting,  do you also wish to see a return to legal cub hunting of the type the Warwickshire have been caught doing?"

I can competely understand why nobody who does think it's right to train young hounds to kill by trapping young foxes inside a covert would dare try and explain why they think that,  in the face of what will undoubtedly be huge hostility.

I can't understand why anyone who is pro legal fox hunting but against the killing version of cub hunting wouldn't be OK to say so.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you, that is pretty much what I do mean.


----------



## moosea (17 September 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			With respect if you look back through the thread you will see the aggression and rudeness this particular poster has directed at those they call pro-hunt so I think it's quite clear how they feel towards us and the intent behind continuing to call us pro hunt.
		
Click to expand...

With respect, if you choose to support a 'sport' where illegal activity which includes killing animals with packs of dogs, is common place ( as seen on this thread with video evidence and news reports) then you really can't expect people not to be angry with people who support the legal activities not coming out to shout very loudly when illegal activity occurs.
Perhaps the lack of voice from pro hunters (legal hunting ) is why nothing ever changes. Perhaps if you boycotted hunts caught engaging in illegal activities then the hunting hierachy may take a bit more notice??




Gallop_Away said:



			Also, why would those of us who hunt LEGALLY and have condemned illegal hunting over and over in this thread, need to continue to comment further on the matter? Why continue to expect a response unless this poster once again is hoping for an argument which they seem to relish.
		
Click to expand...

Because most 'normal' people who were associated with a sport so intent on self destruction would be the ones posting the videos and telling people how disgusting that behaviour is?


----------



## Sandstone1 (17 September 2022)

moosea said:



			With respect, if you choose to support a 'sport' where illegal activity which includes killing animals with packs of dogs, is common place ( as seen on this thread with video evidence and news reports) then you really can't expect people not to be angry with people who support the legal activities not coming out to shout very loudly when illegal activity occurs.
Perhaps the lack of voice from pro hunters (legal hunting ) is why nothing ever changes. Perhaps if you boycotted hunts caught engaging in illegal activities then the hunting hierachy may take a bit more notice


Because most 'normal' people who were associated with a sport so intent on self destruction would be the ones posting the videos and telling people how disgusting that behaviour is?
		
Click to expand...

Quite.


----------



## stangs (17 September 2022)

moosea said:



			Perhaps if you boycotted hunts caught engaging in illegal activities then the hunting hierachy may take a bit more notice??
		
Click to expand...

Presuming Gallop_Away doesn’t live in Warwickshire and ride with their hunt, they can’t boycott a hunt anymore than you or I could.

Unfortunately, there’s not much that an outsider can do about a hunt breaking the law.


----------



## moosea (17 September 2022)

stangs said:



			Presuming Gallop_Away doesn’t live in Warwickshire and ride with their hunt, they can’t boycott a hunt anymore than you or I could.

Unfortunately, there’s not much that an outsider can do about a hunt breaking the law.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, that's why I'm suggesting that it's time those inside took some action, before it's too late.

Obviously it would need to be people local to the offending hunt that would boycott that particular hunt. If all of the hunters in this thread are a typical group then their posts make it appear that a majority of those who wish to continue to hunt legally are strongly against illegal hunting. If that is the case then that majority should be taking action and calling out the illegal actions and demanding some form of reprimand and supervised change.


----------



## Sandstone1 (17 September 2022)

Hunts like the Warwickshire are fast bringing about the demise of legal trail hunting if they could only but see it.


----------



## SilverLinings (17 September 2022)

Apologies if this has already been posted about and I missed it:

In the Times yesterday they reported that the Quantock Staghounds have been videoed pursuing a stag (a field of riders and a pack of hounds) for three hours, before cornering it when it was exhausted and finally shooting it (there is a picture of this with the article). Apparently in 2020 the QS ended up in court on a charge of holding an illegal stag hunt but the case was dismissed as the judge said the people involved could not be clearly identified from the footage. They don't appear to have learnt anything from that experience. The photograph in yesterday's Times looks fairly clear, so hopefully those responsible this time will be convicted if they are proven to have been hunting illegally.


----------



## Gallop_Away (17 September 2022)

moosea said:



			With respect, if you choose to support a 'sport' where illegal activity which includes killing animals with packs of dogs, is common place ( as seen on this thread with video evidence and news reports) then you really can't expect people not to be angry with people who support the legal activities not coming out to shout very loudly when illegal activity occurs.
Perhaps the lack of voice from pro hunters (legal hunting ) is why nothing ever changes. Perhaps if you boycotted hunts caught engaging in illegal activities then the hunting hierachy may take a bit more notice??




Because most 'normal' people who were associated with a sport so intent on self destruction would be the ones posting the videos and telling people how disgusting that behaviour is?
		
Click to expand...

I do not now, nor have I ever, chosen to hunt with an illegal pack, something I have repeatedly stated throughout this thread. Nor would I ever take part in cubbing or any form of illegal hunting which I find appalling.
I completely agree legal hunting as a whole needs to shout the loudest when condemning illegal hunting. Do you not think we are outraged that their continued selfish actions are bringing an end to a legal sport that we love? I agree that the Warwickshire should be suspended with immediate effect.
I will also state again that it has been made very clear by myself and other posters on this particular thread what we also think about illegal hunting.


----------



## Quigleyandme (17 September 2022)

I’m confused. The damning footage upthread of a bagged (presumably) fox has been identified in the ITV link as the Seavington Hunt whose country is in Somerset and Dorset. The Avon and Somerset Police are investigating. What has the Warwickshire Hunt done?


----------



## skinnydipper (17 September 2022)

Quigleyandme said:



			I’m confused. The damning footage upthread of a bagged (presumably) fox has been identified in the ITV link as the Seavington Hunt whose country is in Somerset and Dorset. The Avon and Somerset Police are investigating. What has the Warwickshire Hunt done?
		
Click to expand...

See post 3737


----------



## Tiddlypom (17 September 2022)

The Seavington were caught by covert filming releasing a bagged fox.

The Warwickshire were caught by covert filming holding up a corn field and trying to head off a fleeing fox by riding at it. In other words old style and now completely illegal cubbing.


----------



## Quigleyandme (17 September 2022)

I‘ve seen the footage now thanks. Nothing ambiguous or accidental there.


----------



## Tiddlypom (21 September 2022)

If the anti reports are true, the Warwickshire are still hunting.

So the new disciplinary body has shown its true colours, then. Get caught out by covert filming blatantly cubbing? Oh, do carry on 🙄.

Not much of a surprise, that.


----------



## Dexter (21 September 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			If the anti reports are true, the Warwickshire are still hunting.

So the new disciplinary body has shown its true colours, then. Get caught out by covert filming blatantly cubbing? Oh, do carry on 🙄.

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

Its such a shame. Hunting is going to be completley banned. They are just too short sighted to see it.


----------



## Sandstone1 (24 September 2022)

Apparently Police are appealing for witnesses to the illegal cubbing.   As they have it clearly on film I cant see how they need more witnesses?    The footage is a long piece unedited.    The Warwickshire are still hunting.....


----------



## Koweyka (26 September 2022)

https://www.wiltshire999s.co.uk/thr...lJjoF0koAGUIKeb5_uMJb3jIY#l8j3lmb1ywndupprx9s


----------



## Gallop_Away (2 October 2022)

Horrid behaviour from another so called "animal lover". Not condoning if this hunt was illegally hunting or trespassing, but driving her car at horses and hounds and then kicking a hound..... awful behaviour and not at all acceptable.

https://www.facebook.com/1000128386...B1JLSHzGaY34gUUnKzpeo3s6GQrghznnbmarfBpmkEXl/

Totally unacceptable behaviour and I'm glad to see that shropshire hunt sabs at least have completely condemned this behaviour.

But still sad to see other sab groups are actually defending this horrid woman...


----------



## Tiddlypom (2 October 2022)

That woman was well out of order. There are rough elements on both sides of the hunting divide. The hound did pee on her leg, though .

As credited above, the local sab group has rightly condemned her actions. There is no excuse for such behaviour.


----------



## Gallop_Away (2 October 2022)

The hound was clearly a very good judge of character....


----------



## Steerpike (11 October 2022)

Genuine question as I do not know if this happens, does the hunting fraternity not have  someone who goes around checking the welfare of those hunts under their umbrella?
https://www.cambrian-news.co.uk/new...ASz27R_cutxAPact634G8XlnLc#Echobox=1665475689


----------



## YorksG (11 October 2022)

Steerpike said:



			Genuine question as I do not know if this happens, does the hunting fraternity not have  someone who goes around checking the welfare of those hunts under their umbrella?
https://www.cambrian-news.co.uk/new...ASz27R_cutxAPact634G8XlnLc#Echobox=1665475689

Click to expand...

Given that this was not a named hunt, I'm supposing that they are not a registered pack and so not affiliated with any hunting organisation.


----------



## Tiddlypom (11 October 2022)

The pack has been named as the Dwyryd Hunt in other reports. It is/was a registered pack under the auspices of the MFHA, though not one of the well known packs.

I posted this back on 19/11/21 on another thread.



Tiddlypom said:



			I'd never heard of the Dwyryd Hunt before , and tbh when the news item came up I presumed that it was one of the unregistered/unregulated Welsh packs that seem to exist.

But no, as above, it comes under MFHA auspices 🙄. Which will we all now know to be at best, and being very charitable, useless at enforcing good and legal practice.

What on earth was the Dwyryd Hunt really doing with a captive fox in a cage? Any answers suggesting that this was somehow in the best interests of the captive fox will be treated with the contempt they deserve.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Clodagh (11 October 2022)

Steerpike said:



			Genuine question as I do not know if this happens, does the hunting fraternity not have  someone who goes around checking the welfare of those hunts under their umbrella?
https://www.cambrian-news.co.uk/new...ASz27R_cutxAPact634G8XlnLc#Echobox=1665475689

Click to expand...

They do, yes. As with all inspections though I dare say it all looked great on the day it needed to.
The hounds the RSPCA took, I wonder if they will be rehomed? I assume not until after the court case?


----------



## minesadouble (11 October 2022)

Clodagh said:



			They do, yes. As with all inspections though I dare say it all looked great on the day it needed to.
The hounds the RSPCA took, I wonder if they will be rehomed? I assume not until after the court case?
		
Click to expand...

I am very doubtful the hounds will be rehomed, I'd be surprised if most of them aren't PTS long before the case comes to court, and unsurprised if the RSPCA claims keep for them after their demise. Remember the Arab horses anyone?!.


----------



## Velcrobum (11 October 2022)

It is not the first time Mr Thomas has been in trouble!!

https://theecologist.org/2018/feb/0...sent-prison-landmark-case-reports-ecomontague

https://huntingleaks.is/2021/11/17/...x-hunters-who-are-still-registered-with-mfha/


----------



## Steerpike (11 October 2022)

I'm actually a bit flummoxed why the MHFA would allow of think it's a good idea someone with so many criminal convictions to be a member in charge of a hunt.
Edited for spelling!


----------



## Gallop_Away (26 October 2022)

Just seen some very shocking footage on social media of a Sab being hit by a car. It is apparently hunt support driving and it looks like it was very much intentional. 

*DO NOT WATCH IF YOU DON'T HAVE A VERY STRONG STOMACH*

https://fb.watch/go_qsW3uJH/

I am no fan of sabs but I felt absolutely sick watching that! This madness must cease before someone on either side is killed.


----------



## Koweyka (26 October 2022)

It’s sickening, it should be treated as attempted murder by the landowner.


----------



## Gallop_Away (26 October 2022)

Koweyka said:



			It’s sickening, it should be treated as attempted murder by the landowner.
		
Click to expand...

Koweyka is the poor woman OK do you know?


----------



## limestonelil (26 October 2022)

Must be attempted murder, so deliberate. 
So appalling. Hope the lady recovers. Words fail me.


----------



## Tiddlypom (26 October 2022)

Much more than a glancing blow, and whether or not the car driver intentionally mowed the sab down they cannot have been unaware of what they had done 😳. But they drove off at speed.

Gallop_Away, I fervently hope that I am wrong on this, but I have been fearing a human fatality near here for some time now. Not involving my local pack, and not the hunt featured on that clip, but one not far away.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (26 October 2022)

That's attempted murder, no getting away from that. 

Hope the vile twat has the whole library thrown at them book by book and brick by brick.


----------



## Tiddlypom (26 October 2022)

According to the Daily Mail on line, the sab (a woman in her 40s) is in hospital and her injuries are not life threatening.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...FW1iFbiWAhba5MEiDUhQCsZdScLbU5d9qFtKTnXCOWZio


----------



## Burnttoast (26 October 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			This madness must cease before someone on either side is killed.
		
Click to expand...

Sabs already have been killed by hunt supporters' vehicles, and no charges brought, so I don't imagine it will be any different now. Perhaps hunts should be disbanded when this kind of thing happens on their patch.


----------



## Clodagh (26 October 2022)

That was awful to see. Poor woman, was the car driver arrested? He can hardly have not noticed that he drove into someone at speed.


----------



## Koweyka (26 October 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			Koweyka is the poor woman OK do you know?
		
Click to expand...

As far as I know she is still in hospital and her injuries aren’t life threatening, but after an impact like that she will be incredibly sore. She is lucky to be alive. 

Words fail me on this, we are used to horses knocking into us and quad bikes running into us, but a car at that speed is just a whole other level.


----------



## Sandstone1 (26 October 2022)

Driver should be arrested.   Even if that was a accident they must have known they had hit someone.   Disgusting and dangerous behaviour.


----------



## Gallop_Away (26 October 2022)

I have been on the receiving end of verbal abuse by sabs, I understand things can get heated on both sides, but this...... the woman was simply running up the lane. It looks to be a completely unprovoked (not that any sort of provocation could justify this) and so calculated that the driver was a fair way back and then sped up the lane, seemingly aiming for her. 

She is lucky to be alive and escaped serious injury. As for the evil person who did this.... I think if I say what I truly think I will get banned. That image of her being hit and slamming into the ground has truly sickened me to my core.


----------



## Tiddlypom (26 October 2022)

The police are aware of who the driver is.


----------



## Archangel (26 October 2022)

You can see by the angle and sound of the car (as it hit her) that it was intentional.
Whoever was driving that car needs a lifelong driving ban - they used that car as a weapon.  
Sickening. 

Poor woman.


----------



## Clodagh (26 October 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			The police are aware of who the driver is.
		
Click to expand...

But are they actually doing anything about it?


----------



## Tiddlypom (26 October 2022)

Clodagh said:



			But are they actually doing anything about it?
		
Click to expand...

_Leicestershire Police has confirmed that officers were called to the scene shortly before midday and has launched an investigation._

_They said the driver of the car has been identified by officers._

Whether that means that the police are actually doing anything about it, like arresting the driver and bringing them in for questioning, is another thing...🙄.


----------



## Annagain (26 October 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



_Leicestershire Police has confirmed that officers were called to the scene shortly before midday and has launched an investigation._

_They said the driver of the car has been identified by officers._

Whether that means that the police are actually doing anything about it, like arresting the driver and bringing them in for questioning, is another thing...🙄.
		
Click to expand...

There's no way they'll be doing nothing about that. They won't make an announcement until (s)he's charged and there will be a lot of work going on to decide what the charges will be. At the very least it will be leaving the scene of an accident, at worst attempted murder with everything from causing serious injury by careless driving to GBH in between.


----------



## palo1 (26 October 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			Just seen some very shocking footage on social media of a Sab being hit by a car. It is apparently hunt support driving and it looks like it was very much intentional.

*DO NOT WATCH IF YOU DON'T HAVE A VERY STRONG STOMACH*

https://fb.watch/go_qsW3uJH/

I am no fan of sabs but I felt absolutely sick watching that! This madness must cease before someone on either side is killed.
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely ghastly.  No idea whether this was intentional or not (as in the driver actually aiming to hit that person) - certainly it was dangerous driving and beyond appalling to not stop after hitting that woman.  It is hard to believe that her injuries are not life threatening but the driver should have everything thrown at them.  Last week my neighbour had to report a well known sab vehicle that hit a horse and child. Again, only a matter of 'luck' that these incidents are not tragedies. This behaviour has to stop.


----------



## Gallop_Away (26 October 2022)

palo1 said:



			Absolutely ghastly.  No idea whether this was intentional or not (as in the driver actually aiming to hit that person) - certainly it was dangerous driving and beyond appalling to not stop after hitting that woman.  It is hard to believe that her injuries are not life threatening but the driver should have everything thrown at them.  Last week my neighbour had to report a well known sab vehicle that hit a horse and child. Again, only a matter of 'luck' that these incidents are not tragedies. This behaviour has to stop.
		
Click to expand...

Awful! Will it genuinely take someone being killed to make this madness stop, from both sides 😞 I hope the horse and child are OK?


----------



## palo1 (26 October 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			Awful! Will it genuinely take someone being killed to make this madness stop, from both sides 😞 I hope the horse and child are OK?
		
Click to expand...

Yes, they are ok; frightened and furious but 'only pushed' by the vehicle.  A young horse with a 13 year old girl riding.   I hope the poor woman in the video is ok; utterly traumatic for all concerned.


----------



## Sealine (26 October 2022)

Horrendous! I hope the victim is OK.   It doesn't look like a public road. I wonder if the driver thought they could do what they liked if it wasn't on a public highway.


----------



## palo1 (26 October 2022)

Sealine said:



			Horrendous! I hope the victim is OK.   It doesn't look like a public road. I wonder if the driver thought they could do what they liked if it wasn't on a public highway.
		
Click to expand...

I absolutely cannot defend the driver of the vehicle for their driving and for not stopping but I wonder if that carelessness meant they didn't see the woman because their attention was ahead of them and they were driving recklessly.  There is a problem with dark clothing against a hedgerow as we know but in that situation that poor woman should have been seen surely?


----------



## SEL (26 October 2022)

palo1 said:



			I absolutely cannot defend the driver of the vehicle for their driving and for not stopping but I wonder if that carelessness meant they didn't see the woman because their attention was ahead of them and they were driving recklessly.  There is a problem with dark clothing against a hedgerow as we know but in that situation that poor woman should have been seen surely?
		
Click to expand...

There's so much activity around that surely any driver should have been at a crawl. Awful footage. I hope she recovers and they throw the book at the driver


----------



## PurBee (26 October 2022)

Shocking to see some of these videos on the sab fb pages - from both sides there’s an awful aggressive atmosphere. Constant yelling and shouting. 
To hear its escalated to GBH is utterly disgraceful.

I feel sorry for the horses caught in the middle of all this human commotion. Them being mostly naturally placid herd animals inherently find safety in a group - but the modern hunting experience teaches them its stressful being in a group - no wonder their faces show confusion, and stress - raised necks, tight mouths, wild eyes.


----------



## Quigleyandme (26 October 2022)

Even if they didn’t see her, unless they came back, that is a hit and run.


----------



## Red-1 (26 October 2022)

Sickening. 

I hope the driver goes to prison.


----------



## palo1 (26 October 2022)

SEL said:



			There's so much activity around that surely any driver should have been at a crawl. Awful footage. I hope she recovers and they throw the book at the driver
		
Click to expand...

I totally agree.  Driving like that on a rural road is reckless regardless of what is going on.  With so much activity about and people in hard to see clothing, it would be utterly ridiculous.  Poor woman - terrifying footage.


----------



## Sandstone1 (26 October 2022)

__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=5500878096657352



    Was this a accident?


----------



## Millionwords (27 October 2022)

Sandstone1 said:






__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=5500878096657352



    Was this a accident?
		
Click to expand...

Oh.my.dog.
Absolute clear intent from that angle.
They need locking up.


----------



## scats (27 October 2022)

Good god, that poor lady!
That was absolutely intentional and I hope the driver is charged with attempted murder.  They hit her hard and could have easily killed her.


----------



## Sandstone1 (27 October 2022)

It is just mind blowing that things like this are still happening.   Yes there are rights and wrongs on both sides.  Bad behaviour at times on both sides.  However, the reality is that hunting foxes with hounds is illegal but it is still going on.   People have died in the past because of this and clearly from that video some people are prepared to endanger the lives of others that disagree with this illegal activity.
To my mind there really is no other option but to stop all hunting with hounds.   No more trail hunting as its just a smokescreen.  This has to stop.   Can anyone really say that this  " Sport"  is worth the life of a single human being?


----------



## Tiddlypom (27 October 2022)

Sheesh. Whilst I appreciate that the police need time to make enquiries, that woman needs at least to be prevented from driving right now. That was premeditated attempted murder. The sabs were in clear sight right in front of her, and she revved the car up and aimed for them.

Car reg clearly visible.

This is yet another pickle for the Cottesmore Hunt, and for wider hunting with hounds in general.


----------



## Sandstone1 (27 October 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Sheesh. Whilst I appreciate that the police need time to make enquiries, that woman needs at least to be prevented from driving right now. That was premeditated attempted murder. The sabs were in clear sight right in front of her, and she revved the car up and aimed for them.

Car reg clearly visible.

This is yet another pickle for the Cottesmore Hunt, and for wider hunting with hounds in general.
		
Click to expand...

With a child in the car too....


----------



## southerncomfort (27 October 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			With a child in the car too....
		
Click to expand...

Seriously???  Oh my God.


----------



## palo1 (27 October 2022)

southerncomfort said:



			Seriously???  Oh my God.
		
Click to expand...

Yeah, WTAF...??


----------



## palo1 (27 October 2022)

The Cottesmore Hunt have released a statement on fb.


----------



## OldNag (27 October 2022)

Cottesmore aren't doing too well with their PR, are they..... 

I hope the lady is OK.


----------



## babymare (27 October 2022)

Dear god that was horrifying regardless on what side of the fence you sit.


----------



## Quigleyandme (27 October 2022)

Police have charged a 59 year old woman with attempted wounding with intent and released her pending investigation.


----------



## ester (27 October 2022)

OldNag said:



			Cottesmore aren't doing too well with their PR, are they.....

I hope the lady is OK.
		
Click to expand...

not us guv….


----------



## Quigleyandme (27 October 2022)

I don’t understand how the police could charge her with suspicion of attempted wounding with intent. Where was the attempt to wound which suggests to me she didn’t wound the sab? She absolutely did wound her by skittling her with her speeding Mercedes.


----------



## Tiddlypom (27 October 2022)

I sincerely hope that the police are pinning that charge on her now with the firm intention of pressing more serious charges on her shortly.

Attempted wounding my @rse.

In the meantime, her driving licence should be revoked - who needs to come across that amount of anger and lack of self control in charge of a vehicle?


----------



## Quigleyandme (27 October 2022)

The Beeb has reported “suspicion of attempted wounding with intent”. Leicestershire Live has reported “suspicion of wounding with intent”.
whichever, I agree 100% with TP, that woman should not be in charge of a vehicle.


----------



## SaddlePsych'D (27 October 2022)

My god! I know G_A warned but I still let out an involuntary shout on seeing that.

I would be amazed if there were no brain/spinal/neuro injuries after an impact and fall like that. 'Attempted wounding with intent' makes no sense to me but it says pending investigation so perhaps with evidence more closely reviewed/gathered as well as extent of injuries not immediately apparent, I wonder if that could change.


----------



## Tiddlypom (27 October 2022)

ester said:



			not us guv….
		
Click to expand...

Indeed.

And unsurprisingly they have limited who can comment on this post on their Facebook page...🙄


----------



## Burnttoast (27 October 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Indeed.

And unsurprisingly they have limited who can comment on this post on their Facebook page...🙄

View attachment 101389

Click to expand...

But not on the post immediately under it, which is where the comments are already appearing.


----------



## Millionwords (27 October 2022)

Burnttoast said:



			But not on the post immediately under it, which is where the comments are already appearing.
		
Click to expand...

They're deleting thone as they appear


----------



## Annagain (27 October 2022)

BBC is reporting the woman who was hit has non-life changing/threatening injuries and has been released from hospital. I wonder if the "attempted wounding" is because the injuries aren't deemed to be serious enough? I don't mean to downplay it in any way by saying that, the victim has been incredibly lucky in not being more seriously injured, I'm just trying to work out how it could be "attempted". The offence carries life imprisonment as maximum sentence and rightly so.


----------



## Tiddlypom (27 October 2022)

Hard core pro hunt hunt opine that 'we all have thought about doing this' but concede that it 'doesn't do anyone any favour'. This is a screen shot of the post, I have edited out the poster's name.

Just wow .


----------



## Annagain (27 October 2022)

So the only reason not to do it is it doesn't do hunting any favours? 

Jesus Christ.


----------



## Wishfilly (27 October 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Hard core pro hunt hunt opine that 'we all have thought about doing this' but concede that it 'doesn't do anyone any favour'. This is a screen shot of the post, I have edited out the poster's name.

Just wow .

View attachment 101391

Click to expand...

That is an insane thing to say publicly!


----------



## Burnttoast (27 October 2022)

Wishfilly said:



			That is an insane thing to say publicly!
		
Click to expand...

Well, it's certainly a revealing thing to say publicly...


----------



## Millionwords (27 October 2022)

Burnttoast said:



			Well, it's certainly a revealing thing to say publicly...
		
Click to expand...

I don't think the sorts of people that say these things understand the general populations perceptions of statements like these and how they attribute that same sentiment to everyone involved in the pursuits. Or they're so arrogant that they don't care.


----------



## Koweyka (27 October 2022)

Well knowing the idiot that runs that page seeing statements like that doesn’t surprise me.


----------



## OldNag (27 October 2022)

ester said:



			not us guv….
		
Click to expand...

'course not.... never is, is it <whistles>


----------



## Sandstone1 (27 October 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Hard core pro hunt hunt opine that 'we all have thought about doing this' but concede that it 'doesn't do anyone any favour'. This is a screen shot of the post, I have edited out the poster's name.

Just wow .

View attachment 101391

Click to expand...

Just about says it all really does it not...


----------



## palo1 (27 October 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Just about says it all really does it not...
		
Click to expand...

What has happened to that poor woman is horrifying.  The comment from some total a$se that you have referenced is dire but be in no doubt whatsoever that sab language is often no better or even worse.  On the tragic death of a child do you remember the outrage that sab comments caused?  

One idiot's comments does NOT reflect the view of any community on any issue.


----------



## Millionwords (27 October 2022)

palo1 said:



			One idiot's comments does NOT reflect the view of any community on any issue.
		
Click to expand...

Whether it does or doesn't it seems like the supporters can't help themselves, and don't have the nouse to realise the impact is has on the whole community. The same way aggressive sabs don't represent MOST sabs, but pro hunt still tar them all with the same brush. Hunts can't have it both ways.

Other comments have been;
"Whos to say it wasn't a sab driving the vehicle to make the hunt look bad"

"She shouldn't have been on private property then"

"Sabs do worse"

The community doesn't help itself.


----------



## Sandstone1 (27 October 2022)

Millionwords said:



			Whether it does or doesn't it seems like the supporters can't help themselves, and don't have the nouse to realise the impact is has on the whole community. The same way aggressive sabs don't represent MOST sabs, but pro hunt still tar them all with the same brush. Hunts can't have it both ways.

Other comments have been;
"Whos to say it wasn't a sab driving the vehicle to make the hunt look bad"

"She shouldn't have been on private property then"

"Sabs do worse"

The community doesn't help itself.
		
Click to expand...

Quite, examples all ready on here.


----------



## Clodagh (27 October 2022)

Someone who steals a car doesn’t represent the belief of everyone who knows how to drive.
Not a good example but taking SM comments as a large scale example of peoples beliefs is not really representative.
The driver of that car needs prosecuting. Radical views on either side are not typical.
I hope when that child was killed out hunting the anti hunting people on here felt the sabs celebrating her death was as awful.


----------



## Koweyka (27 October 2022)

Anyone celebrating the death of a child regardless of any circumstance, are the absolute dregs of humanity and should be treated as such.


----------



## Wishfilly (27 October 2022)

Actually, though, I do think that comment reflects something more widely in the community of people who hunt illegally- a lack of respect for the law. Once you've started breaking the law around fox hunting, I think breaking the law in other ways becomes more normalised. See the hunts who allow their hounds to behave dangerously in other ways, who block public roads etc.

Yes, not all people who hunt feel this way, but I think there is something to be said about normalising breaking the law or perhaps thinking one is above the law.


----------



## palo1 (27 October 2022)

Wishfilly said:



			Actually, though, I do think that comment reflects something more widely in the community of people who hunt illegally- a lack of respect for the law. Once you've started breaking the law around fox hunting, I think breaking the law in other ways becomes more normalised. See the hunts who allow their hounds to behave dangerously in other ways, who block public roads etc.

Yes, not all people who hunt feel this way, but I think there is something to be said about normalising breaking the law or perhaps thinking one is above the law.
		
Click to expand...

Well yes, but in this context, a disregard for the law is equally demonstrated by many sabs and sab groups: trespass, criminal damage, assault, doxxing etc


----------



## Millionwords (27 October 2022)

palo1 said:



			Well yes, but in this context, a disregard for the law is equally demonstrated by many sabs and sab groups: trespass, criminal damage, assault, doxxing etc
		
Click to expand...

Oh well that's alright then, hunt followers absolved.🤔


----------



## Wishfilly (27 October 2022)

palo1 said:



			Well yes, but in this context, a disregard for the law is equally demonstrated by many sabs and sab groups: trespass, criminal damage, assault, doxxing etc
		
Click to expand...

But, ultimately, if people stopped hunting illegally, sabs would either disappear or move on to other activities. I have to say, in my local area, hunts pose far more of a danger to the general public (and their pets) than sabs do- and let's be realistic, sabs have only resorted to the tactics they use because illegal hunting has been ignored for so long by certain police forces. 

I'm not actually interested in the harm caused by sabs to hunt supporters. I'm interested in the impact both have on the general public. And for all the "whataboutery" from hunt supporters claiming sabs are awful, I don't know anyone who's not involved with (one specific) hunt in my local area who has had a bad experience with sabs. But I do know several people who have had to e.g. swerve on a main road to avoid hounds.

The sabs/hunt monitors in my county became a lot more active after there were some high profile cases involving local hunts either intimidating dog walkers or in one case killing a family pet (which the huntmaster was prosecuted over). Unfortunately, the backlash against really one or two hunts has spread to other hunts in the area acting legally (as far as I am aware). 

But I would say, in my county, it is the bad behaviour of one specific hunt that has led to people setting up an organisation to "sab" them- and yes, I believe they do commit trespass. But if the hunt hadn't been hunting illegally and breaking the law in other ways, I don't believe this would have happened. 

Obviously I won't generalise to the whole country, but I do believe in my local area, a specific hunt are to blame, and by behaving poorly they have arguably hurt everyone (and the perception of hunting in the county).


----------



## moosea (27 October 2022)

palo1 said:



			What has happened to that poor woman is horrifying.  The comment from some total a$se that you have referenced is dire but be in no doubt whatsoever that sab language is often no better or even worse.  On the tragic death of a child do you remember the outrage that sab comments caused? 

One idiot's comments does NOT reflect the view of any community on any issue.
		
Click to expand...


Still trying to defend them with retaliation about sabs behaviour.


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 October 2022)

moosea said:



			Still trying to defend them with retaliation about sabs behaviour.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, just goes to show the mentality you are dealing with here.   Someone pretty much uses a car as a weapon and only does not kill them by luck and its ok because sabs have done worse..... One big difference is that sabs are trying to stop a illegal activity.  That person should be being charged with attempted murder.  Its clearly on video that she drove at the sab on purpose.   If the sab was not seriously hurt or killed it was by pure luck.   If the driver does not go to jail its a farce.    I hope the sab takes out a private prosecution.


----------



## Fred66 (28 October 2022)

moosea said:



			Still trying to defend them with retaliation about sabs behaviour.
		
Click to expand...

Palo has not tried to defend them at all, in fact has condemned whom ever it was that hit the person with the car. 

Palo also condemned those that have made SM comments that reference the incident in anything other than a sympathetic light. What Palo did do was add to say that derogatory and unacceptable comments are not restricted to the hunting fraternity and shows that both sides have idiots (for want of a more appropriate word).

I also condemn the actions of the woman driving the car and have no sympathy for her whatsoever and hope the book is thrown at her. I believe the hunt concerned have equally condemned the drivers actions but they have also denied that she is anything to do with them, I don’t know whether the denial is true or not but I am sure this will come out in due course.

Lastly I hope the injured woman is not too badly injured and makes a swift recovery


----------



## stangs (28 October 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Yes, just goes to show the mentality you are dealing with here.   Someone pretty much uses a car as a weapon and only does not kill them by luck and its ok because sabs have done worse..... One big difference is that sabs are trying to stop a illegal activity.  That person should be being charged with attempted murder.  Its clearly on video that she drove at the sab on purpose.   If the sab was not seriously hurt or killed it was by pure luck.   If the driver does not go to jail its a farce.    I hope the sab takes out a private prosecution.
		
Click to expand...

That’s not what palo said at all, and, by misrepresenting their argument, you only make your side look worse.

Palo merely commented on the fact that, on both sides, there are extremists (that’s how I read it) whose involvement in the debate has escalated to the point they’re unable to show compassion or even a basic understanding of the law.

The more people take on this polarised viewpoint, the more likely things like the aforementioned alleged hit-and-run are to happen.


----------



## Wishfilly (28 October 2022)

stangs said:



			That’s not what palo said at all, and, by misrepresenting their argument, you only make your side look worse.

Palo merely commented on the fact that, on both sides, there are extremists (that’s how I read it) whose involvement in the debate has escalated to the point they’re unable to show compassion or even a basic understanding of the law.

The more people take on this polarised viewpoint, the more likely things like the aforementioned alleged hit-and-run are to happen.
		
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but this is victim blaming in the extreme. As far as we are aware, the person involved in the hit and run has not committed any illegal acts. The fact that other  sabs (who she may not be directly associated with) have sometimes behaved badly does not justify this behaviour at all.

The behaviour of the driver is extremely dangerous (which I think we can all agree on). It wouldn't be a proportionate reaction to trespass, it's clearly not self defence. 

And the fact remains, sabs in their current form would very likely not exist if all hunts followed the law. Hunts have the power to de-escalate completely by behaving at all times in a law abiding way (not just following the hunting act, but also in terms of things like keeping their dogs under close control and not allowing them to kill or chase people's pets and livestock). 

Also, and I know rural police forces are ridiculously over-stretched, I think in some cases, the police haven't helped, because they have ignored reports of dangerous/problematic behaviour until something goes seriously wrong. I don't fully blame the police, because hunting is obviously very difficult to police and their resources have been cut to the bone.


----------



## Gallop_Away (28 October 2022)

I must admit that we have had no issues with Sabs for a while now. We were last visited early last season but since then nothing. We had our opening meet last weekend and it was a fabulous day. Again no sign of the sabs. Perhaps they final believe us when we say that we are not illegally hunting but genuinely trail hunting. Time will tell.

Ultimately there are rights and wrongs and law breaking on both sides. I think we all agree on that. I do think it's naive to say that sabs would not exist bar for illegal hunting as, correct me if I'm wrong but it is the moral issue of animal rights that I think most sabs take issue with as opposed to the law breaking. If the hunting ban was lifted tomorrow, sabs would not disappear, and whilst my experience has taught me that not all sabs are in it for the protection of animals, I'm sure a great many are, and they would continue to want to put a stop to hunting, legal or not. I also think that if hunting is truly and completely banned in all forms, sabs will likely target other areas of legal hunting and activities involving the use of animals such as horse racing, and the meat and dairy industries.


----------



## sunleychops (28 October 2022)

I'd have a lot more sympathy for sabs if they didnt insist on covering their faces and harassing children


----------



## Koweyka (28 October 2022)

sunleychops said:



			I'd have a lot more sympathy for sabs if they didnt insist on covering their faces and harassing children
		
Click to expand...

We would have more respect for hunters if you weren’t deliberately trying to harm wildlife and kill Sabs 🤷‍♀️


----------



## Millionwords (28 October 2022)

sunleychops said:



			I'd have a lot more sympathy for sabs if they didnt insist on covering their faces and harassing children
		
Click to expand...

Exactly the sort of comment we're talking about. 🙄
What has this added to the talk of a hunt follower deliberately hitting a sab with their car? Comments like these make it sound like you think they deserved it...and if not, it doesn't lend itself to a useful dialogue either.


----------



## palo1 (28 October 2022)

I have some sympathy with Sabs actually and have no issue with hunt monitors.  Like @Gallop_Away , we have had monitors (and sabs) who have found nothing to 'do' and have ceased visiting.   I understand that Sabs feel they must stop an activity for a variety of reasons but not all of those reasons or methods are, to me, appropriate or justified.  Thankfully we are entitled to have different opinions. 

However,  I have certainly come across sabs for whom the 'struggle/fight' is far more important than an actual truth or the victim of that struggle (foxes, badgers etc).  Last weekend, as I said, a neighbour had to report a well known sab and sab vehicle for hitting a child on a pony.  That child and pony were hacking down the road; no hounds in sight, no animal in danger, no active participation in any form of hunting activity at that point.  It was a very rural road too.  The same sab vehicle insisted on driving right up behind my mare's ample bum as I was hacking to meet a friend (not in hunting dress at all).  They also overtook at speed and very dangerously later on in the day.  None of that behaviour is about animal welfare or applying any UK law.    Those sabbing individuals in the car were fully masked and be-camered, filming me as I hacked about and later, filming children who were not involved in any form of hunting activity.  There could be no justification for any of that behaviour nor the threatening appearance of those sabs, who were, in fact looking for a visiting hunt but were lost at the point I encountered them and at the point they hit the child and pony (and shouted some hair curling abuse at someone else...).

What was on the video of that poor woman being hit is appalling.  There can be no justification for that in any way.  What I was getting at was the context in which this vile battle in the countryside has developed; where elements of both sides feel that law breaking and dangerous behaviour are 'justified' in their 'struggle'.   Those are NOT values that are held by everyone in both communities (sabs and hunters) and it is unrealistic to suggest that sab or hunting communities subscribe to the extreme in the way that certain individuals do.  I hope the person driving the car that hit that sab has the book comprehensively thrown at them and I am utterly revolted on several levels that a child was in that car.  I am not in any way sympathetic to that behaviour nor is anyone else I associate with.  I would hope that most sabs, too, would not think that harassing me, hitting a child on a pony or shouting vile abuse at someone is ok either.


----------



## sakura (28 October 2022)

I'll be honest, I have never had any problems with sabs or hunt monitors - not to say others haven't. I've had countless problems with the hunt though. As has already been said on this post - sabs, in the capacity being discussed here, simply wouldn't exist if hunts weren't illegally harming and killing wildlife. 

The simple fact that sabs were bought into the discussion about the poor woman being intentionally hit by a car is, I think, the point being made. It didn't need to be mentioned at all because it had nothing to do with what happened to the poor woman.


----------



## palo1 (28 October 2022)

sakura said:



			I'll be honest, I have never had any problems with sabs or hunt monitors - not to say others haven't. I've had countless problems with the hunt though. As has already been said on this post - sabs, in the capacity being discussed here, simply wouldn't exist if hunts weren't illegally harming and killing wildlife.

The simple fact that sabs were bought into the discussion about the poor woman being intentionally hit by a car is, I think, the point being made. It didn't need to be mentioned at all because it had nothing to do with what happened to the poor woman.
		
Click to expand...

The problem is, I fear, that the identity of that woman that was hit, as a 'sab' has everything to do with it.


----------



## sakura (28 October 2022)

palo1 said:



			The problem is, I fear, that the identity of that woman that was hit, as a 'sab' has everything to do with it.
		
Click to expand...

It shouldn't though. And do we have proof that she is a "sab", a hunt monitor or just someone accompanying the group?


----------



## Koweyka (28 October 2022)

palo1 said:



			I have some sympathy with Sabs actually and have no issue with hunt monitors.  Like @Gallop_Away , we have had monitors (and sabs) who have found nothing to 'do' and have ceased visiting.   I understand that Sabs feel they must stop an activity for a variety of reasons but not all of those reasons or methods are, to me, appropriate or justified.  Thankfully we are entitled to have different opinions.

However,  I have certainly come across sabs for whom the 'struggle/fight' is far more important than an actual truth or the victim of that struggle (foxes, badgers etc).  Last weekend, as I said, a neighbour had to report a well known sab and sab vehicle for hitting a child on a pony.  That child and pony were hacking down the road; no hounds in sight, no animal in danger, no active participation in any form of hunting activity at that point.  It was a very rural road too.  The same sab vehicle insisted on driving right up behind my mare's ample bum as I was hacking to meet a friend (not in hunting dress at all).  They also overtook at speed and very dangerously later on in the day.  None of that behaviour is about animal welfare or applying any UK law.    Those sabbing individuals in the car were fully masked and be-camered, filming me as I hacked about and later, filming children who were not involved in any form of hunting activity.  There could be no justification for any of that behaviour nor the threatening appearance of those sabs, who were, in fact looking for a visiting hunt but were lost at the point I encountered them and at the point they hit the child and pony (and shouted some hair curling abuse at someone else...).

What was on the video of that poor woman being hit is appalling.  There can be no justification for that in any way.  What I was getting at was the context in which this vile battle in the countryside has developed; where elements of both sides feel that law breaking and dangerous behaviour are 'justified' in their 'struggle'.   Those are NOT values that are held by everyone in both communities (sabs and hunters) and it is unrealistic to suggest that sab or hunting communities subscribe to the extreme in the way that certain individuals do.  I hope the person driving the car that hit that sab has the book comprehensively thrown at them and I am utterly revolted on several levels that a child was in that car.  I am not in any way sympathetic to that behaviour nor is anyone else I associate with.  I would hope that most sabs, too, would not think that harassing me, hitting a child on a pony or shouting vile abuse at someone is ok either.
		
Click to expand...

Did you have a hat cam ? Behaviour like that near a child or an animal is deplorable, it’s not the values my group or all the people I know have, in fact we stop traffic if hounds are loose and if the hunt is emerging onto a busy road to avoid any potential accidents. Even when we are deliberately being held up by riders we have to sit and suffer so we don’t scare the horses. If you have the evidence of that behaviour then it should be reported and book thrown at them.


----------



## Koweyka (28 October 2022)

I would also point out that woman that was hit wasn’t even masked up as some on this thread think that’s justification…. “masked up sabs”


----------



## Annagain (28 October 2022)

Annagain said:



			BBC is reporting the woman who was hit has non-life changing/threatening injuries and has been released from hospital. I wonder if the "attempted wounding" is because the injuries aren't deemed to be serious enough? I don't mean to downplay it in any way by saying that, the victim has been incredibly lucky in not being more seriously injured, I'm just trying to work out how it could be "attempted". The offence carries life imprisonment as maximum sentence and rightly so.
		
Click to expand...

I know the conversation has moved on but in case anyone's interested, I checked with OH last night and I was right - the "attempted" would be because the injuries are not serious enough (thankfully) for the offence to be "wounding with intent". For it to be "wounding" it has to involve broken skin (usually a knife or other stab/slash wound) and for GBH it has to involve at least a broken bone. The victim was incredibly lucky that neither of these things occurred. He said the police could possibly have gone down the ABH route but attempted wounding with intent carries a far longer sentence. In the eyes of the law, the "intent" is the important part so whether it's "attempted wounding" or "wounding" doesn't make much difference to the sentence but can mean a conviction is more likely as there is no benefit to the defence in arguing the nature of the injuries doesn't warrant the charge.


----------



## palo1 (28 October 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Did you have a hat cam ? Behaviour like that near a child or an animal is deplorable, it’s not the values my group or all the people I know have, in fact we stop traffic if hounds are loose and if the hunt is emerging onto a busy road to avoid any potential accidents. Even when we are deliberately being held up by riders we have to sit and suffer so we don’t scare the horses. If you have the evidence of that behaviour then it should be reported and book thrown at them.
		
Click to expand...

No hat cam but a vehicle reg and several witnesses.   It has been reported and is being taken seriously.  Thankfully no-one was hurt. It would never occur to me, or feel necessary for me to ride with a hat cam actually here though I know in other places riders do use that to help reinforce respect from drivers etc.  Usually here horse riders are treated well.   I think you would be frustrated if you as an anti-hunt activist were lumped in with this kind of bad behaviour?  As I am when accused of illegal activity, as I am when accused of supporting appalling attitudes on social media.  I think it would be much more productive if more respect was offered generally but then pigs might fly...


----------



## palo1 (28 October 2022)

Annagain said:



			I know the conversation has moved on but in case anyone's interested, I checked with OH last night and I was right - the "attempted" would be because the injuries are not serious enough (thankfully) for the offence to be "wounding with intent". For it to be "wounding" it has to involve broken skin (usually a knife or other stab/slash wound) and for GBH it has to involve at least a broken bone. The victim was incredibly lucky that neither of these things occurred. He said the police could possibly have gone down the ABH route but attempted wounding with intent carries a far longer sentence. In the eyes of the law, the "intent" is the important part so whether it's "attempted wounding" or "wounding" doesn't make much difference to the sentence but can mean a conviction is more likely as there is no benefit to the defence in arguing the nature of the injuries doesn't warrant the charge.
		
Click to expand...

I hope that the case stays the journey although of course, that may impact on children


----------



## sunleychops (28 October 2022)

Koweyka said:



			We would have more respect for hunters if you weren’t deliberately trying to harm wildlife and kill Sabs 🤷‍♀️
		
Click to expand...

I dont hunt, I think its a pointless activity where people dress up and push horses too far personally.

Doesn't mean I think wearing face coverings and starting fights to then play the victim card is acceptable behaviour.

I also think the woman driving should be charged with attempted murder.


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 October 2022)

sunleychops said:



			I'd have a lot more sympathy for sabs if they didnt insist on covering their faces and harassing children
		
Click to expand...

Try having a look at members of the hunt,  In my area their " Terrier men" wear masks.   This as always will go round in circles so I am not even going to bother.  Most sane reasonable human beings will know whos in the wrong here.


----------



## Koweyka (28 October 2022)

sunleychops said:



			I dont hunt, I think its a pointless activity where people dress up and push horses too far personally.

Doesn't mean I think wearing face coverings and starting fights to then play the victim card is acceptable behaviour.

I also think the woman driving should be charged with attempted murder.
		
Click to expand...

And are you referring to Sabs or the Terriermen ?


----------



## Koweyka (28 October 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Try having a look at members of the hunt,  In my area their " Terrier men" wear masks.   This as always will go round in circles so I am not even going to bother.  Most sane reasonable human beings will know whos in the wrong here.
		
Click to expand...

Well of course the terrier men have to wear masks because it’s cold on a quad according to Pinocchio Portwin, nothing to do with them wanting to hide their faces when for example they are digging out badger setts (two Wynnstay terrier men just found guilty of this) and not wanting to be caught or the East Kent hunt have just been filmed releasing a bagged fox yesterday by masked up terrier men, or assaulting people happened to my group a few weeks ago oh no it’s just the Sabs that wear masks to hide their identity so they aren’t targeted by pro hunt, happens a lot, for example details posted of where Sabs kids go to school, what time they are picked up was posted on that Facebook page that was referred to earlier, because the sab in question didn’t wear a mask.

This victim shaming is disgusting, the girl that was run over wasn’t even wearing a mask, but even if she was there is no justification for it and some of the comments on here are very inflammatory.


----------



## palo1 (28 October 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Well of course the terrier men have to wear masks because it’s cold on a quad according to Pinocchio Portwin, nothing to do with them wanting to hide their faces when for example they are digging out badger setts (two Wynnstay terrier men just found guilty of this) and not wanting to be caught or the East Kent hunt have just been filmed releasing a bagged fox yesterday by masked up terrier men, or assaulting people happened to my group a few weeks ago oh no it’s just the Sabs that wear masks to hide their identity so they aren’t targeted by pro hunt, happens a lot, for example details posted of where Sabs kids go to school, what time they are picked up was posted on that Facebook page that was referred to earlier, because the sab in question didn’t wear a mask.

This victim shaming is disgusting, the girl that was run over wasn’t even wearing a mask, but even if she was there is no justification for it and some of the comments on here are very inflammatory.
		
Click to expand...

THere is no justification for what happened to that poor woman.  It isn't to do with covered faces either.  As for the assault and criminality, 5 sabs were convicted of threatening behaviour - including towards a young girl only in August this year.  That incident also included physical assault by sabs.  It is clear that there is appalling and dangerous behaviour on both sides here.


----------



## Sandstone1 (28 October 2022)

Exactly,  but some on here will never see that.  I just hope the girl that was knocked down is ok.


----------



## moosea (28 October 2022)

stangs said:



			That’s not what palo said at all, and, by misrepresenting their argument, you only make your side look worse.

Palo merely commented on the fact that, on both sides, there are extremists (that’s how I read it) whose involvement in the debate has escalated to the point they’re unable to show compassion or even a basic understanding of the law.

The more people take on this polarised viewpoint, the more likely things like the aforementioned alleged hit-and-run are to happen.
		
Click to expand...

If you post on a public forum then other members are going to interpret things in their own way. I think 'misrepresenting their argument' is just a ridiculous thing to say - I represented the comment in the way I read it, that the woman being hit by the car was wrong but sabs have done worse.
So thanks for your comment but I am perfectly capable and allowed to interpret comments how I please.



Gallop_Away said:



			I must admit that we have had no issues with Sabs for a while now. We were last visited early last season but since then nothing. We had our opening meet last weekend and it was a fabulous day. Again no sign of the sabs. Perhaps they final believe us when we say that we are not illegally hunting but genuinely trail hunting. Time will tell.

Ultimately there are rights and wrongs and law breaking on both sides. I think we all agree on that. I do think it's naive to say that sabs would not exist bar for illegal hunting as, correct me if I'm wrong but it is the moral issue of animal rights that I think most sabs take issue with as opposed to the law breaking. If the hunting ban was lifted tomorrow, sabs would not disappear, and whilst my experience has taught me that not all sabs are in it for the protection of animals, I'm sure a great many are, and they would continue to want to put a stop to hunting, legal or not. I also think that if hunting is truly and completely banned in all forms, sabs will likely target other areas of legal hunting and activities involving the use of animals such as horse racing, and the meat and dairy industries.
		
Click to expand...

If you think that sabs would still sab hunts if there was no illegal activity why do you think that your hunt is no longer being attended?
Do you think anyone sabs pleasure rides? If it is all about animal rights surely they would sab pleasure rides too??
Genuine questions - not asked with malice, just with curiosity.


----------



## palo1 (28 October 2022)

moosea said:



			If you post on a public forum then other members are going to interpret things in thier own way. I think 'misrepresenting their argument' is just a ridiculous thing to say - I represented the comment in the way I read it, that the woman being hit by the car was wrong but sabs have done worse.
So thanks for your comment but I am perfectly capable and allowed to interpret comments how I please.



If you think that sabs would still sab hunts if there was no illegal activity why do you think that your hunt is no longer being attended?
Do you think anyone sabs pleasure rides? If it is all about animal rights surely they would sab pleasure rides too??
Genuine questions - not asked with malice, just with curiosity.
		
Click to expand...

Well yes, they do sab pleasure rides and all sorts of other activities...


----------



## moosea (28 October 2022)

palo1 said:



			Well yes, they do sab pleasure rides and all sorts of other activities...
		
Click to expand...

I've never ever heard of anyone sabing a pleasure ride!

Have you any links to reports of this?

Has anyone else heard of this??!!!


ETA: Sat here giggling at the idea of a group of sabs turning up at a pleasure ride! Do they hold signs that say ' no more fun on horses'??!!!!! lol!!!!


----------



## Tiddlypom (28 October 2022)

If a pleasure ride is put on to raise funds for an illegally fox hunting hunt, then yes, the antis are bound to be interested.

ETA The antis might picket the entrance to the pleasure ride venue holding anti hunt banners, etc.

There are indeed unpleasant nutters on both sides. It was worth pointing out that they exist on the pro hunt side of the divide, too.


----------



## palo1 (28 October 2022)

moosea said:



			I've never ever heard of anyone sabing a pleasure ride!

Have you any links to reports of this?

Has anyone else heard of this??!!!
		
Click to expand...

A huge number of fun rides are actually organised by hunts or related pony clubs and there are numerous news reports about sabs targeting them.  A small selection: https://www.horseandhound.co.uk/new...anner-waving-sabs-target-hunt-fun-ride-749794

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/local-news/hunt-saboteur-attacked-car-two-6747856

https://metro.co.uk/2017/12/01/hang-on-why-are-hunt-saboteurs-targeting-drag-hunts-7111818/


----------



## moosea (28 October 2022)

palo1 said:



			A huge number of fun rides are actually organised by hunts or related pony clubs and there are numerous news reports about sabs targeting them.  A small selection: https://www.horseandhound.co.uk/new...anner-waving-sabs-target-hunt-fun-ride-749794

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/local-news/hunt-saboteur-attacked-car-two-6747856

https://metro.co.uk/2017/12/01/hang-on-why-are-hunt-saboteurs-targeting-drag-hunts-7111818/

Click to expand...


OK! So pleasure rides organised by hunts then!!! 

So excluding pleasure rides organised by hunts have you any links to non hunt related pleasure rides being sabbed? 

Lol!!!


----------



## palo1 (28 October 2022)

moosea said:



			OK! So pleasure rides organised by hunts then!!!

So excluding pleasure rides organised by hunts have you any links to non hunt related pleasure rides being sabbed?

Lol!!!
		
Click to expand...

Well I did include incidents of sabbing drag hounds, which have NEVER hunted animals.  The other thing is that a huge number of pleasure rides are organised by hunts.  Racing is regularly and increasingly targeted as are country shows and even...pony painting parties here: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...-rights-activists_uk_5b6d5f19e4b0530743c8ed9f.  As one of the anti hunt posters on here has said, many sabs are activist in a number of ways.


----------



## palo1 (28 October 2022)

moosea said:



			OK! So pleasure rides organised by hunts then!!!

So excluding pleasure rides organised by hunts have you any links to non hunt related pleasure rides being sabbed?

Lol!!!
		
Click to expand...

You are making the assumption there that all hunts are guilty of illegal hunting and so sabbing their fun rides might be 'justified'.


----------



## moosea (28 October 2022)

palo1 said:



			Well I did include incidents of sabbing drag hounds, which have NEVER hunted animals.  The other thing is that a huge number of pleasure rides are organised by hunts.  Racing is regularly and increasingly targeted as are country shows and even...pony painting parties here: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...-rights-activists_uk_5b6d5f19e4b0530743c8ed9f.  As one of the anti hunt posters on here has said, many sabs are activist in a number of ways.
		
Click to expand...

OK. So do you have any links to non hunt related pleasure rides being sabbed please?

The pony party 'sabbing' link you have put up was not only from 2018, but also the 'sabbing' appears to be a petition against pony parties. Hardened animal rights nutters at their worst!!!!



palo1 said:



			You are making the assumption there that all hunts are guilty of illegal hunting and so sabbing their fun rides might be 'justified'.
		
Click to expand...

The second link you posted was a link to a pleasure ride being sabbed for the hunt at which a lady was just run over!!!!! Come on palo at some point you ( Hunt supportes, not the actual you!) are going to have to admit that you've backed yourselves into a corner - maybe you'll understand how the fox felt during all those days cubbing??


Bring on the full ban asap. Hunts, in general, just can't be trusted to stay within the law.


----------



## palo1 (28 October 2022)

moosea said:



			ok. So do you have any links to non hunt related pleasure rides being sabbed please?



The second link you posted was a link to a pleasure ride being sabbed for the hunt at which a lady was just run over!!!!! Come on palo at some point you ( Hunt supportes, not the actual you!) are going to have to admit that you've backed yourselves into a corner - maybe you'll understand how the fox felt during all those days cubbing??


Bring on the full ban asap. Hunts, in general, just can't be trusted to stay within the law.
		
Click to expand...

Yes I know that one of those sab protests was at a hunt with a distinctly poor record  at the time (let alone after this week's news) but the fun ride was still involving a huge number of people that don't go out hunting and included children.   The fun ride activity was in no way a danger to wildlife but the sabbing was intended to upset and intimidate those taking part.  I understand the 'point' of that.   Sabbing of Drag Hounds is simply dumb as is the sabbing of country shows because they parade hounds and have 'working hunter' classes.   I have been accosted at the gates of a country show for exactly those reasons and tried politely to explain that a Working Hunter class was not quite what they thought.  But would those folk listen?  Nah!!  The levels of ignorance and prejudice I have encountered at protest level is genuinely surprising.


----------



## YorksG (28 October 2022)

moosea said:



			OK. So do you have any links to non hunt related pleasure rides being sabbed please?

The pony party 'sabbing' link you have put up was not only from 2018, but also the 'sabbing' appears to be a petition against pony parties. Hardened animal rights nutters at their worst!!!!



The second link you posted was a link to a pleasure ride being sabbed for the hunt at which a lady was just run over!!!!! Come on palo at some point you ( Hunt supportes, not the actual you!) are going to have to admit that you've backed yourselves into a corner - maybe you'll understand how the fox felt during all those days cubbing??

Bring on the full ban asap. Hunts, in general, just can't be trusted to stay within the law.
		
Click to expand...

Are you aware of the violent sabbing pre the hunting ban? Or the sabbing of legal shoots?


----------



## moosea (28 October 2022)

palo1 said:



			Yes I know that one of those sab protests was at a hunt with a distinctly poor record  at the time (let alone after this week's news) but the fun ride was still involving a huge number of people that don't go out hunting and included children.   The fun ride activity was in no way a danger to wildlife but the sabbing was intended to upset and intimidate those taking part.  I understand the 'point' of that.   Sabbing of Drag Hounds is simply dumb as is the sabbing of country shows because they parade hounds and have 'working hunter' classes.   I have been accosted at the gates of a country show for exactly those reasons and tried politely to explain that a Working Hunter class was not quite what they thought.  But would those folk listen?  Nah!!  The levels of ignorance and prejudice I have encountered at protest level is genuinely surprising.
		
Click to expand...

I have edited your comment - as that hunt continues to drag hunting through the mud with it's behavior.

For someone who hunts regularly I find it amazing that you are not already used to high levels of ignorance and prejudice.

So the sabs have sabbed hunts at country side shows. And drag hounds - This is a bit daft, but perhaps they thought it was fake,like trail hunting??

Am I to assume then that the sabs actually don't sab pleasure rides if they are not organised by hunts since no links have been provided??


----------



## moosea (28 October 2022)

YorksG said:



			Are you aware of the violent sabbing pre the hunting ban? Or the sabbing of legal shoots?
		
Click to expand...

Of course I am. If you choose to ocupy your free time killing living animals then you should expect to get a bit of sh*t over it!!!


----------



## YorksG (28 October 2022)

moosea said:



			Of course I am. If you choose to ocupy your free time killing living animals then you should expect to get a bit of sh*t over it!!!
		
Click to expand...

So you are saying that anyone who is not vegan deserves to be followed and intimidated by masked people, while going about their lawful business?


----------



## moosea (28 October 2022)

YorksG said:



			So you are saying that anyone who is not vegan deserves to be followed and intimidated by masked people, while going about their lawful business?
		
Click to expand...

No! I'm saying if you choose to take up a hobby that involves killing animals for fun then you must expect to be given a bit of sh*t for it!!


----------



## palo1 (28 October 2022)

moosea said:



			No! I'm saying if you choose to take up a hobby that involves killing animals for fun then you must expect to be given a bit of sh*t for it!!
		
Click to expand...

Is that right? I mean, you disagree with 'killing animals for fun' so that justifies  some people being given 'a bit of sh*t for it'! (regardless of that activity being legal in the case of shooting, fishing, killing animals for food etc etc) !  What happens, say, if someone who disagreed with something that you do, decided that you deserved 'a bit of sh*t' for that?  That would be ok I guess...That would help to build a better world wouldn't it?


----------



## YorksG (28 October 2022)

moosea said:



			No! I'm saying if you choose to take up a hobby that involves killing animals for fun then you must expect to be given a bit of sh*t for it!!
		
Click to expand...

But animals are killed to provide pleasure for people, as good, so take that to its logical conclusion, then anyone none vegan should expect to be stalked by masked activists


----------



## moosea (28 October 2022)

palo1 said:



			Is that right? I mean, you disagree with 'killing animals for fun' so that justifies  some people being given 'a bit of sh*t for it'! (regardless of that activity being legal in the case of shooting, fishing, killing animals for food etc etc) !  What happens, say, if someone who disagreed with something that you do, decided that you deserved 'a bit of sh*t' for that?  That would be ok I guess...That would help to build a better world wouldn't it?
		
Click to expand...

That is how the world works Palo! People disagree with the government and protest about it. They disagree with using petrol cars - and protest about it.
They disagree with hunting - they protest about it.

So if I thought dog fighting was cool and was something I wanted to take up for example? Yeah, I'd expect to get lots of sh*t for that!
If I decided that hamsters made better balls than tennis balls then I'd expect to get sh*t for that.
Or if I wanted to go fishing - for fun - then yeah I'd expect to get sh*t for that too!
You make your choices and live with the consequences. 
I do things in my life that others don't agree with - I'm prepared for others to voice their opinions and happy to give my opinion back or happy to carry on regardless. 
I don't run them over in my car!  

No links to non hunt related pleasure rides being sabbed yet??



YorksG said:



			But animals are killed to provide pleasure for people, as good, so take that to its logical conclusion, then anyone none vegan should expect to be stalked by masked activists
		
Click to expand...

Yeah I get that, but if there is a final reason and its done as quickly and humanely as possible and then the animal is eaten, their hides tanned and used I suppose it gives a reason and makes it somewhat less disgusting to me than someone killing for the pure joy or entertainment value of it.
If all the cows that were killed for meat were chased around the supermarket car park by a gang of lads in hoodies for several hours and then torn apart by a pack of pitbulls then I'd protest against that!


----------



## Clodagh (28 October 2022)

I don’t know if you own any animals, moosea, but would you agree it would be fair and right for someone who disagreed with horses being ridden, or the ownership of pets, to sab you while going about your daily business? 
Animal rights people recently shut down a rabbit farm by, it appears, hounding the family until they cried enough. So if that’s all good then you think we should all intimidate people who we disagree with?
I’m very against many of the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Should I sab nuns?


----------



## SilverLinings (28 October 2022)

moosea said:



			So if I thought dog fighting was cool and was something I wanted to take up for example? Yeah, I'd expect to get lots of sh*t for that!
If I decided that hamsters made better balls than tennis balls then I'd expect to get sh*t for that.
Or if I wanted to go fishing - for fun - then yeah I'd expect to get sh*t for that too!
You make your choices and live with the consequences.
I do things in my life that others don't agree with - I'm prepared for others to voice their opinions and happy to give my opinion back or happy to carry on regardless.
I don't run them over in my car! 

No links to non hunt related pleasure rides being sabbed yet??
		
Click to expand...

All the things listed apart from fishing would be illegal, so that isn't the same as protesting against something just because you don't agree with it? And I'm a bit concerned about what you mean by 'get sh*t for that'? If you mean legal protesting then fine, but if you mean the violent behaviour carried out by some sabs then I am shocked.

Regarding the fun rides, I used to live on the border between two counties and attended a lot of fun rides in both counties. Only one was run by someone other than a hunt (a RC, and without 'hunt' in their name) and that was the only one sabs ever turned up at. They turned up two years in a row and refused to believe it wasn't a hunt, hung around in bushes all day to try to get some evidence and scared several horses by doing so. They also caused traffic problems and resulted in the land owner refusing permission for the RC to use the land for a fun ride again.

I am pro-LEGAL hunting, but only in the (IMO unfortunately few) cases where the hunts attempt to kill/chase nothing (just follow an artificial scent), 'accidentally' kill/chase no animal, the hunts don't trespass, and they behave politely towards anyone they encounter. I am against hunting being made legal again, and I am definitely against hunts operating illegally now.

I appreciate that you feel passionate Moosea; I have debated with Palo and others on this thread before and (IMO) we had a useful and constructive conversation, but I don't think using extreme imaginary examples (e.g. killing hamsters) is achieving anything or helping prove a point.


----------



## stangs (28 October 2022)

moosea said:



			If you post on a public forum then other members are going to interpret things in their own way. I think 'misrepresenting their argument' is just a ridiculous thing to say - I represented the comment in the way I read it, that the woman being hit by the car was wrong but sabs have done worse.
So thanks for your comment but I am perfectly capable and allowed to interpret comments how I please.
		
Click to expand...

True, you can interpret anything anyway you want. I can interpret your post as meaning that you’re secretly in love with FAT, but doesn’t make it true. And worse than not true, this kind of strawman argument means there’s no possibility of any real or constructive discussion. So then what could have been an insightful and educational thread - for both sides - just becomes polarised, thinly veiled name-calling. And that’s the tragedy of it.


----------



## moosea (28 October 2022)

Clodagh said:



			I don’t know if you own any animals, moosea, but would you agree it would be fair and right for someone who disagreed with horses being ridden, or the ownership of pets, to sab you while going about your daily business?
		
Click to expand...


Of course I would - if they disagree with it that much then they should protest about it!





Clodagh said:



			Animal rights people recently shut down a rabbit farm by, it appears, hounding the family until they cried enough.
		
Click to expand...

Well that family chose to factory farm animals and force their will onto those animals but they should be free to do so with no one allowed to disagree with it?? 




Clodagh said:



			So if that’s all good then you think we should all intimidate people who we disagree with?
		
Click to expand...

I think we should be allowed to disagree with other peoples actions, particularly when it endangers others ( people or animals) or it kills tham in a way that is not humane as possible and as quick as possible. 



Clodagh said:



			I’m very against many of the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Should I sab nuns?
		
Click to expand...

Of course you should - if you feel that strongly - protest within the boundaries of the law. You should get a group of other nun haters together and go stand out side the nunnery shouting 'down with nuns'  It's your right to do that  You go girl! Go give them nuns some stick over all their faults!




SilverLinings said:



			All the things listed apart from fishing would be illegal, so that isn't the same as protesting against something just because you don't agree with it? And I'm a bit concerned about what you mean by 'get sh*t for that'? If you mean legal protesting then fine, but if you mean the violent behaviour carried out by some sabs then I am shocked.
		
Click to expand...

It's legal to drive petrol cars but it's also legal to protest about it - it's how change occurs.

Of course I mean legally protest. I'm not an uncivilised barbarian. I have never protested illegally or tried to run people over, or accidently killed their pets, or accidently trespassed onto their land and disrupted their livestock....



SilverLinings said:



			Regarding the fun rides, I used to live on the border between two counties and attended a lot of fun rides in both counties. Only one was run by someone other than a hunt (a RC, and without 'hunt' in their name) and that was the only one sabs ever turned up at. They turned up two years in a row and refused to believe it wasn't a hunt, hung around in bushes all day to try to get some evidence and scared several horses by doing so. They also caused traffic problems and resulted in the land owner refusing permission for the RC to use the land for a fun ride again.
		
Click to expand...

Well they are allowed to protest. Shame it took them 2 years to realise it was not hunt related!
I've had horses spook at people in bushes too ... on a bridle path - keeps you alert I suppose. Thats the fun of riding 'off site' you never know what will happen.



SilverLinings said:



			I am pro-LEGAL hunting, but only in the (IMO unfortunately few) cases where the hunts attempt to kill/chase nothing (just follow an artificial scent), 'accidentally' kill/chase no animal, the hunts don't trespass, and they behave politely towards anyone they encounter. I am against hunting being made legal again, and I am definitely against hunts operating illegally now.

I appreciate that you feel passionate Moosea; I have debated with Palo and others on this thread before and (IMO) we had a useful and constructive conversation, but I don't think using extreme imaginary examples (e.g. killing hamsters) is achieving anything or helping prove a point.
		
Click to expand...

I used to be very, very pro hunt. However more recently I have seen how hunts behave and am disgusted.
And if truth be known its not killing foxes that bothers me. Shoot them, do it fast, do it clean. I'm not a bunny hugger - but I really don't believe that any living thing should have a drawn out death. It's partly the attitude that hunts are above the law and do nothing to oust those repeat offender hunts that bothers me. And partly the attitude that ' sabs do worse' - it's a tedious attitude and reminds me of kids in a playground.

I used the absurd examples to highlight how, when you choose to do an activity which is abhorrent to a large section of the population, you should be prepared to defend those actions.


----------



## moosea (28 October 2022)

stangs said:



			True, you can interpret anything anyway you want. I can interpret your post as meaning that you’re secretly in love with FAT, but doesn’t make it true. And worse than not true, this kind of strawman argument means there’s no possibility of any real or constructive discussion. So then what could have been an insightful and educational thread - for both sides - just becomes polarised, thinly veiled name-calling. And that’s the tragedy of it.
		
Click to expand...

You could interpret  it to mean that! I may be in love with FAT!!!
But I didn't write that you misinterpreted my post because you interpreted it how you did.
That would have been thinly veiled name calling


----------



## Gallop_Away (28 October 2022)

moosea said:



			If you post on a public forum then other members are going to interpret things in their own way. I think 'misrepresenting their argument' is just a ridiculous thing to say - I represented the comment in the way I read it, that the woman being hit by the car was wrong but sabs have done worse.
So thanks for your comment but I am perfectly capable and allowed to interpret comments how I please.



If you think that sabs would still sab hunts if there was no illegal activity why do you think that your hunt is no longer being attended?
Do you think anyone sabs pleasure rides? If it is all about animal rights surely they would sab pleasure rides too??
Genuine questions - not asked with malice, just with curiosity.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry perhaps I didn't word it very well. I didn't mean that sabs would continue to sab legal hunts if all illegal hunting stopped. I think they would simply focus elsewhere. The reason I say that is that I do not think sabs sab illegal hunting simply because it is illegal. I think that many do it because they have a moral objection to animals being killed. So if the hunting ban was lifted tomorrow and fox hunting was no longer illegal, I do not think sabs would stop doing what they do and would continue to sab hunts, with the majority doing it with the intent to protect animals. So I'm hoping our hunt is no longer sabbed because they are satisfied that we aren't hunting foxes. 

So what I mean to say is, if all illegal hunting stopped, I think these same sabs are likely to move on to other "sports" where animals are killed/used e.g. shooting, fishing, horse racing etc. I do not think sabs would dissappear if all illegal fox hunting stopped. I think they would simply move on and target other pursuits instead.

I'm not saying all sabs are in it for the love of animals. I have witnessed sabs strike out at hounds and attempt to scare horses and I do not believe these individuals do it for the love of animals. In fact I'm not sure why they do what they do.


----------



## moosea (28 October 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			Sorry perhaps I didn't word it very well. I didn't mean that sabs would continue to sab legal hunts if all illegal hunting stopped. I think they would simply focus elsewhere. The reason I say that is that I do not think sabs sab illegal hunting simply because it is illegal. I think that many do it because they have a moral objection to animals being killed. So if the hunting ban was lifted tomorrow and fox hunting was no longer illegal, I do not think sabs would stop doing what they do and would continue to sab hunts, with the majority doing it with the intent to protect animals. So I'm hoping our hunt is no longer sabbed because they are satisfied that we aren't hunting foxes.

So what I mean to say is, if all illegal hunting stopped, I think these same sabs are likely to move on to other "sports" where animals are killed/used e.g. shooting, fishing, horse racing etc. I do not think sabs would dissappear if all illegal fox hunting stopped. I think they would simply move on and target other pursuits instead.

I'm not saying all sabs are in it for the love of animals. I have witnessed sabs strike out at hounds and attempt to scare horses and I do not believe these individuals do it for the love of animals. In fact I'm not sure why they do what they do.
		
Click to expand...

I think you are absolutly right. Sabs would move onto other targets.  And while I obviously condone any illegal activity, I also understand their need to 'protect' animals so it's kind of hard for me. On one hand you are legally allowed to pertake in an activity but for me morally it's wrong. It will never be resolved.
I do think hunting will be banned in all forms soon. And I do think hunts could have save it. But I think that it's past that point now.


----------



## Koweyka (28 October 2022)

Fun rides organised by hunts where all the profits go back into the hunts to fund the illegal activities are often protested at.

Fun rides organised by riding clubs and not hunt related why would they be sabbed.?

Drag hunts, never known one to be sabbed, we are often invited by the drag hunts to see what they do and they are happy for us to turn up unannounced as they have nothing to hide.

Country shows were hunts that have been blatantly killing foxes are parading like they are gods gift, yep protested those may the  sound of boo’s never die !


----------



## Millionwords (28 October 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			Sorry perhaps I didn't word it very well. I didn't mean that sabs would continue to sab legal hunts if all illegal hunting stopped. I think they would simply focus elsewhere. The reason I say that is that I do not think sabs sab illegal hunting simply because it is illegal. I think that many do it because they have a moral objection to animals being killed. So if the hunting ban was lifted tomorrow and fox hunting was no longer illegal, I do not think sabs would stop doing what they do and would continue to sab hunts, with the majority doing it with the intent to protect animals. So I'm hoping our hunt is no longer sabbed because they are satisfied that we aren't hunting foxes.

So what I mean to say is, if all illegal hunting stopped, I think these same sabs are likely to move on to other "sports" where animals are killed/used e.g. shooting, fishing, horse racing etc. I do not think sabs would dissappear if all illegal fox hunting stopped. I think they would simply move on and target other pursuits instead.

I'm not saying all sabs are in it for the love of animals. I have witnessed sabs strike out at hounds and attempt to scare horses and I do not believe these individuals do it for the love of animals. In fact I'm not sure why they do what they do.
		
Click to expand...

I think most do love animals. Plenty of people find shooting and racing (horse or greyhound) abhorrent, because of the suffering of animals. Its just that sabs, like any activist, are the ones that protest it.
 I'm against shooting and racing, but I'd never protest as in; out on streets (over any topic) because it fills me with horror and I think there are more useful ways to affect change. In the case of sabbing, they are at least trying to save foxes lives in the moment, rather than JUST protest.

 I can see their thinking, but I don't know how useful at affecting long term change it is. In the short term a life is saved (if there's illegal hunting occurring or if hounds "riot")


----------



## palo1 (28 October 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Fun rides organised by hunts where all the profits go back into the hunts to fund the illegal activities are often protested at.

Fun rides organised by riding clubs and not hunt related why would they be sabbed.?

Drag hunts, never known one to be sabbed, we are often invited by the drag hunts to see what they do and they are happy for us to turn up unannounced as they have nothing to hide.

Country shows were hunts that have been blatantly killing foxes are parading like they are gods gift, yep protested those may the  sound of boo’s never die !
		
Click to expand...

In my post above I put a link to an article about sabs at a drag hunt.  As for country shows,  my experience is at the larger ones where any number of hunts may be parading hounds or showing hounds.  Why would sabs at the gate not know what the classes etc were about?  It just feels like an 'anti-everything rural' sort of protest as often gets conflated with other hot topics such as farming, animal based foods etc etc.  But, yeah I agree with the right to protest with placards, leaflets and chanting (preferably not abusive to individuals) - I just think it is very odd that in my experience those protesters don't actually know much about what they are doing there!!


----------



## SilverLinings (28 October 2022)

I think a large part of the problem is that there are reasonable people on both sides, and extremists on both sides. And then there are the people - on both sides - for whom aggression/violence/intimidation is a large part of why they do what they do. The reasonable people on both sides are the ones who need to come together and work on how to stop those (on both sides) who behave badly/unlawfully/violently. The ones who behave badly are doing nothing in the long term except harm their 'cause'.


----------



## Millionwords (28 October 2022)

palo1 said:



			In my post above I put a link to an article about sabs at a drag hunt.  As for country shows,  my experience is at the larger ones where any number of hunts may be parading hounds or showing hounds.  Why would sabs at the gate not know what the classes etc were about?  It just feels like an 'anti-everything rural' sort of protest as often gets conflated with other hot topics such as farming, animal based foods etc etc.  But, yeah I agree with the right to protest with placards, leaflets and chanting (preferably not abusive to individuals) - I just think it is very odd that in my experience those protesters don't actually know much about what they are doing there!!
		
Click to expand...

There are a lot of fact/science deniers in the countryside too though,  because it is at odds with their established view of the world and farming practice. But science doesnt care about feelings,  yet they all pat each other on the back telling each other how science is wrong and they are doing the right thing.

That's the same with some of the sabs I'm sure. There's too much polarisation and not enough real objective dialogue. At least those with the loudest voices in either "side" are the minority. We can hope that the quiet majority are more considered and objective.


----------



## moosea (28 October 2022)

palo1 said:



			In my post above I put a link to an article about sabs at a drag hunt.  As for country shows,  my experience is at the larger ones where any number of hunts may be parading hounds or showing hounds.  Why would sabs at the gate not know what the classes etc were about?  It just feels like an 'anti-everything rural' sort of protest as often gets conflated with other hot topics such as farming, animal based foods etc etc.  But, yeah I agree with the right to protest with placards, leaflets and chanting (preferably not abusive to individuals) - I just think it is very odd that in my experience those protesters don't actually know much about what they are doing there!!
		
Click to expand...

I suppose they just see the words 'hunter class' and think it is prep for hunting - if you asked any of your non horsey friends they would probably think the same.

I don't think it is anti everything rural. Not at all. I think you're right about it all getting lumped in together. 

For me personally, I think there is a lot of room for improvement in how we raise, handle and kill animals. 
I don't eat meat - haven't since I was about 3 and found out what it was! My husband eats anything! If it has walked, crawled or swum he's probably eaten it at some point!! However he cooks it himself ( mainly because I'm awful at cooking meat!!)

It surprises many people that as a vegetraian one of the things I'd love to do is run an abattoir! But only because I know it could be done so much better.


----------



## palo1 (28 October 2022)

Millionwords said:



			There are a lot of science deniers in the countryside too though,  because it is at odds with their established view of the world and farming practice. But science doesnt care about feelings,  yet they all pat each other on the back telling each other how science is wrong and they are doing the right thing.

That's the same with some of the sabs I'm sure. There's too much polarisation and not enough real objective dialogue. At least those with the loudest voices in either "side" are the minority. We can hope that the quiet majority are more considered and objective.
		
Click to expand...

There may be science deniers in the countryside and they come at you from all angles in my experience lol!!  I have met folk who are as bonkers as anything in any number of ways both in the city and the countryside.  On the whole, farmers, even those such as ourselves are VERY aware of science, of climate change, of animal welfare issues; not least because many feel absolutely on the front line of these issues as well as regularly being fed information from a variety of sources that they cannot avoid coming into contact with: vets, market practices and organisations, governmental organisations, environment organisations, nature organisations etc.  For example, our hill grazing rights are on a hill that is a conservation area; there are a number of vested interests in the hill and it's management.  The graziers that have grazed the hill their whole life have seen change that they are keen to reverse at the same time as pondering the sense in some policies and ideas that are being forced in their direction.  I am not sure that pure science has anything like the impact it should; perhaps I am cynical but money seems to have more sway... There is an additional layer of information and 'pressure' that comes via subsidy and govt intervention in farming.  FWIW we do not claim any subsidy (we are rare beasts but not totally reliant on the pitiful finances of hill farming thankfully!).  Most farmers I speak to, certainly my neighbours who are graziers are only too aware of the impact of science on their way of life and livelihood.  I am not sure about other people that live in the countryside tbh; second home owners, retired urbanites - everyone has a different perspective on the countryside of course.


----------



## palo1 (28 October 2022)

moosea said:



			I suppose they just see the words 'hunter class' and think it is prep for hunting - if you asked any of your non horsey friends they would probably think the same.

I don't think it is anti everything rural. Not at all. I think you're right about it all getting lumped in together.

For me personally, I think there is a lot of room for improvement in how we raise, handle and kill animals.
I don't eat meat - haven't since I was about 3 and found out what it was! My husband eats anything! If it has walked, crawled or swum he's probably eaten it at some point!! However he cooks it himself ( mainly because I'm awful at cooking meat!!)

It surprises many people that as a vegetraian one of the things I'd love to do is run an abattoir! But only because I know it could be done so much better.
		
Click to expand...

God, it could be done so much better; with many smaller, more local abbatoirs with less stock going through them, more care, less stress.  One of the grim things about big, commercially viable abbatoirs (aside from the distances that animals have to travel to get there and certain conditions in the system) is the brutalisation of abbatoir staff because of the conditions of factory killing.  It could be so, so much better if more people were prepared to pay for both a better death for food destined animals and a better life for those people doing that job.


----------



## Clodagh (28 October 2022)

I think it’s a bit sad saying rural people are science deniers. Just as well urban people are all well educated, critical thinkers isn’t it.


----------



## Millionwords (28 October 2022)

Clodagh said:



			I think it’s a bit sad saying rural people are science deniers. Just as well urban people are all well educated, critical thinkers isn’t it.
		
Click to expand...

I was only referring to the comment @palo1 made insinuating the antis etc dont know what they're protesting about really.

There are science deniers on both sides and suggesting it is only antis is disingenuous.

Take that idiot Welsh sheep farmer  thats always on TV, he never has any comebacks to actual science, he just shouts loudly about the opposing view being wrong,  despite the facts being otherwise.

As I said, the same problem exists on both sides.


----------



## Koweyka (28 October 2022)

A Portman hunt supporter has just been found guilty of assaulting a sab, he grabbed a lanyard around her neck and drove off dragging her by the neck after he had driven into another sab, this was after he beat a sab with a stick. He got a 16 week community resolution order.


----------



## moosea (28 October 2022)

palo1 said:



			God, it could be done so much better; with many smaller, more local abbatoirs with less stock going through them, more care, less stress.  One of the grim things about big, commercially viable abbatoirs (aside from the distances that animals have to travel to get there and certain conditions in the system) is the brutalisation of abbatoir staff because of the conditions of factory killing.  It could be so, so much better if more people were prepared to pay for both a better death for food destined animals and a better life for those people doing that job.
		
Click to expand...


^^^ All of this, a thousand times over.

Saddens me to think of the whole thing.

Part of the reason I am no longer really buying meat for OH. I don't want to be part of that system.


----------



## stangs (28 October 2022)

Koweyka said:



			A Portman hunt supporter has just been found guilty of assaulting a sab, he grabbed a lanyard around her neck and drove off dragging her by the neck after he had driven into another sab, this was after he beat a sab with a stick. He got a 16 week community resolution order.
		
Click to expand...

That seems a utterly gross miscarriage of justice. I don’t suppose you have any information on the court case, do you?


----------



## blitznbobs (28 October 2022)

I never really understand the objections to shooting… unless you are vegan.. it’s taking an animal quickly out of its own environment with out the stress associated with being transported to kill… the ultimate free range.


----------



## palo1 (28 October 2022)

blitznbobs said:



			I never really understand the objections to shooting… unless you are vegan.. it’s taking an animal quickly out of its own environment with out the stress associated with being transported to kill… the ultimate free range.
		
Click to expand...

I think people object to the 'sporting' element of it; there is a moral outrage that anyone should develop a skill for fun that involves any animal, even if that skill does not result in a worse outcome. That was, in part, the downfall of hunting and is still referenced with absolute regularity -including on this thread; that the outrage is not about the manner of death of the fox but that people should enjoy the skill involved in hunting with hounds or riding to watch those hounds.  I know there are those that object on the grounds of it being wrong to kill any animal and I respect that view but there are a great many people who feel more strongly about people finding sport in any interaction with animals. It is coming to equestrianism generally too.  FWIW I would prefer to only eat shot game tbh for the reason you have identified.


----------



## ycbm (29 October 2022)

blitznbobs said:



			I never really understand the objections to shooting… unless you are vegan.. it’s taking an animal quickly out of its own environment with out the stress associated with being transported to kill… the ultimate free range.
		
Click to expand...

The death isn't quick. The birds are scared into flight,  shot in flight,  fall to the ground alive and fetched by a dog,  taken to a human who then wrings the neck. If you did that to any other animal,  you'd be prosecuted.  

It's also my understanding that many shot birds are dumped,  not eaten, (though i stand to be corrected if someone can give actual numbers) , in which case this killing is done entirely for fun.  
.


----------



## Clodagh (29 October 2022)

ycbm said:



			The death isn't quick. The birds are scared into flight,  shot in flight,  fall to the ground alive and fetched by a dog,  taken to a human who then wrings the neck. If you did that to any other animal,  you'd be prosecuted. 

It's also my understanding that many shot birds are dumped,  not eaten, (though i stand to be corrected if someone can give actual numbers) , in which case this killing is done entirely for fun. 
.
		
Click to expand...

Not many fall to the ground alive, and it’s never the intention.


----------



## Clodagh (29 October 2022)

I think the objections to shooting are mainly to big bag driven shoots. SFAIA indivials shooting for the pot are only rarely villified.


----------



## ycbm (29 October 2022)

Clodagh said:



			Not many fall to the ground alive, and it’s never the intention.
		
Click to expand...

I have watched them shooting commercial  moors, and I see lots falling to the ground alive. It's unavoidable if you are trying to kill a flying bird while keeping the flesh edible.
.


----------



## blitznbobs (29 October 2022)

ycbm said:



			I have watched them shooting commercial  moors, and I see lots falling to the ground alive. It's unavoidable if you are trying to kill a flying bird while keeping the flesh edible.
.
		
Click to expand...

I’ve been to quite a few shoots and have the opposite experience I can think of only a couple of times when something hit the ground alive. And the intention of the shooter is to kill the bird outright… winging a bird is seen as a very bad thing … the flesh is edible… its why you end up picking shot out of your meal.


----------



## ycbm (29 October 2022)

Maybe the shoots I've seen,  on a big commercial shoot, paying an eye watering amount to be there,  are inept?
.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (29 October 2022)

Shooting also generally involves the release of staggering numbers of non-native birds into the countryside at the expense of native wildlife in the case of pheasant shooting. 

Most of the birds don't actually make it into the human foodchain with many of them dying on roads where I am. Destructive and wasteful.

Dont get me started on the driven grouse shoots. Plenty of them where I am, and nothing good to say about them.


----------



## Tiddlypom (29 October 2022)

Big commercial shoots with inept guns paying huge sums of dosh to aim vaguely at intellectually challenged fat mass produced non native birds which have to be frightened into the air by paid plebs are a very different prospect to individuals shooting for the pot.

IMHO commercial shooting is more morally dubious than fox hunting, and brings precious few benefits to the countryside, apart from lining the pockets of a few.

Is the widely touted figure of 50 million game birds raised annually to be shot at for fun genuine, anyone know?


----------



## palo1 (29 October 2022)

CrunchieBoi said:



			Shooting also generally involves the release of staggering numbers of non-native birds into the countryside at the expense of native wildlife in the case of pheasant shooting.

Most of the birds don't actually make it into the human foodchain with many of them dying on roads where I am. Destructive and wasteful.

Dont get me started on the driven grouse shoots. Plenty of them where I am, and nothing good to say about them.
		
Click to expand...

I think there are issues with driven grouse but grouse are a native bird and whilst I am sure you will contest this, many, many times over the last few years it  has been proven that traditional keepering on the moors for grouse shooting, is doing a 'better' job (in spite of some very sickening killing of rare raptors) than the charities that try to take them on and please everyone.  There is plenty of evidence for this though I know it will be dismissed and I will be told I know nothing.  I am not a regular shot and do not participate in organised shooting but I am passionately interested in the health and restoration of moorland and it is something that directly concerns our own hill though we don't have shooting there.


----------



## Clodagh (29 October 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Big commercial shoots with inept guns paying huge sums of dosh to aim vaguely at intellectually challenged fat mass produced non native birds which have to be frightened into the air by paid plebs are a very different prospect to individuals shooting for the pot.

IMHO commercial shooting is more morally dubious than fox hunting, and brings precious few benefits to the countryside, apart from lining the pockets of a few.

Is the widely touted figure of 50 million game birds raised annually to be shot at for fun genuine, anyone know?
		
Click to expand...

I’ve no idea of the numbers. But an awful lot of people in the countryside get their money from shooting, not only the shoot owners. I’m working today and there will be maybe 40 people there getting paid. And it’s all at least minimum wage now. Let alone the hotel where the guns stayed last night and all their staff.


----------



## Clodagh (29 October 2022)

The killing of raptors is absolutely incredibly rare now, although much publicised. Anyone who is found guilty is expelled from all shooting organisations. Amazingly, raptors do die of other means than shot and deliberate poison, although you’d never believe that from the media.


----------



## scats (29 October 2022)

I’m friends with the bloke who comes and shoots on our land and many of the local farms.  He’s in his 60s and has been shooting nearly all his life.
We had a discussion about peoples perceptions of shooting and I said that I thought that people wouldn’t mind as much because it’s a quick, clean kill and the birds are dead before they hit the ground.
He just gave me one of his looks!
He then went on to tell me that the majority are still alive when his dog fetches them and he finishes them off.  He said that’s how the majority of shooting is.  He even finished the discussion with “it’s horrible really, when you think about it!”


----------



## Millionwords (29 October 2022)

Clodagh said:



			The killing of raptors is absolutely incredibly rare now, although much publicised. Anyone who is found guilty is expelled from all shooting organisations. Amazingly, raptors do die of other means than shot and deliberate poison, although you’d never believe that from the media.
		
Click to expand...

Expelled only if they're caught and its made public. But how many people are caught, hardly any.
I have come across a raptor in a trap before now on a shooting estate...just happened to be in there by accident did it...


----------



## ycbm (29 October 2022)

Clodagh said:



			The killing of raptors is absolutely incredibly rare now, although much publicised. Anyone who is found guilty is expelled from all shooting organisations. Amazingly, raptors do die of other means than shot and deliberate poison, although you’d never believe that from the media.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think you're right on that Clodagh, sorry.  After wiping out the local buzzards, the shoot I used to live near asked me for permission to take magpies on my land.  I refused but they disappeared anyway. (I know magpie are not raptors!).


----------



## CrunchieBoi (29 October 2022)

palo1 said:



			I think there are issues with driven grouse but grouse are a native bird and whilst I am sure you will contest this, many, many times over the last few years it  has been proven that traditional keepering on the moors for grouse shooting, is doing a 'better' job (in spite of some very sickening killing of rare raptors) than the charities that try to take them on and please everyone.  There is plenty of evidence for this though I know it will be dismissed and I will be told I know nothing.  I am not a regular shot and do not participate in organised shooting but I am passionately interested in the health and restoration of moorland and it is something that directly concerns our own hill though we don't have shooting there.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not going to bother getting into a debate around it on here either, my background is in ecology and I've yet to see a study that makes an overall convincing case for the type of intensive management seen on the average grouse moor. Ridiculously intensive management is required to produce the bag sizes offered by these estates.

A few select species (anyhting that does not directly compete with or predade grouse) do well on keepered moors and that's pretty much it. Keepered grouse moors represent an unnatural monoculture habitat.

Up here the keeper organisations were recently publicly celebrating the success of a single hen harrier nest, a pathetic return for hundreds of square miles of suitable habitat. Our only native cat species and plenty others are now pretty much extinct due to unrelenting persecution by keepers whose attitudes somehow haven't changed over the years if the continual prosecutions for wildlife crime are anything to go by.

Google the recent case of Rhys Davies, a gamekeeper who operated up the road a bit from us. I don't know how to post a link here. It makes for grim reading, especially when it clicks that his colleagues on the estate would have been fully aware of what he got up to.


----------



## palo1 (29 October 2022)

Hmm, well I ride on an estate where there is large scale organised shooting and the bird life at the very least is incredibly rich.  That keeper is certainly aware of the necessity of ensuring raptor's safety but then the birds are grouse rather than pheasant.  Not sure if pheasant keepers are different; this isn't particularly rich in pheasant shooting here though it does occur on a smaller scale.


----------



## palo1 (29 October 2022)

CrunchieBoi said:



			I'm not going to bother getting into a debate around it on here either, my background is in ecology and I've yet to see a study that makes an overall convincing case for the type of intensive management seen on the average grouse moor. Ridiculously intensive management is required to produce the bag sizes offered by these estates.

A few select species (anyhting that does not directly compete with or predade grouse) do well on keepered moors and that's pretty much it. Keepered grouse moors represent an unnatural monoculture habitat.

Up here the keeper organisations were recently publicly celebrating the success of a single hen harrier nest, a pathetic return for hundreds of square miles of suitable habitat. Our only native cat species and plenty others are now pretty much extinct due to unrelenting persecution by keepers whose attitudes somehow haven't changed over the years if the continual prosecutions for wildlife crime are anything to go by.

Google the recent case of Rhys Davies, a gamekeeper who operated up the road a bit from us. I don't know how to post a link here.
		
Click to expand...

I hear you. At the same time, heather moorland is incredibly important and in order to maintain that the money from shooting provides a far better chance than any governmental or charitable organisation.   Grouse shooting is changing too; many, many people who want to shoot do so exactly because they want to spend time in that environment and very few people are now unaware of the issues around intensive management of any habitat.  There is, of course, a conflict but my experience directly compares a NT owned area of heather moorland/bog and that of a private grouse shooting estate and I know perfectly well which one is richer in diversity of plant, bird and mammal life and it's not the NT owned and managed one!  That is just my experience but it is quite stark tbh.

I have just seen too that the NT who own Powis Castle have this: https://www.powiscastleshoot.co.uk/  I am not clear of the mechanics of owning a shoot on land owned by the NT but it is an interesting contradiction.


----------



## palo1 (29 October 2022)

CrunchieBoi said:



			I'm not going to bother getting into a debate around it on here either, my background is in ecology and I've yet to see a study that makes an overall convincing case for the type of intensive management seen on the average grouse moor. Ridiculously intensive management is required to produce the bag sizes offered by these estates.

A few select species (anyhting that does not directly compete with or predade grouse) do well on keepered moors and that's pretty much it. Keepered grouse moors represent an unnatural monoculture habitat.

Up here the keeper organisations were recently publicly celebrating the success of a single hen harrier nest, a pathetic return for hundreds of square miles of suitable habitat. Our only native cat species and plenty others are now pretty much extinct due to unrelenting persecution by keepers whose attitudes somehow haven't changed over the years if the continual prosecutions for wildlife crime are anything to go by.

Google the recent case of Rhys Davies, a gamekeeper who operated up the road a bit from us. I don't know how to post a link here. It makes for grim reading, especially when it clicks that his colleagues on the estate would have been fully aware of what he got up to.
		
Click to expand...

I know that this info is from the Moorland Association but Natural England appear to have verified the figures :https://www.moorlandassociation.org...n today welcomes,highest figure for 100 years.  Can you explain why this isn't valid?


----------



## Burnttoast (29 October 2022)

palo1 said:



			I think there are issues with driven grouse but grouse are a native bird and whilst I am sure you will contest this, many, many times over the last few years it  has been proven that traditional keepering on the moors for grouse shooting, is doing a 'better' job (in spite of some very sickening killing of rare raptors) than the charities that try to take them on and please everyone.  There is plenty of evidence for this though I know it will be dismissed and I will be told I know nothing.  I am not a regular shot and do not participate in organised shooting but I am passionately interested in the health and restoration of moorland and it is something that directly concerns our own hill though we don't have shooting there.
		
Click to expand...

Better in terms of biodiversity? Or carbon capture? I just look at them and wonder where the trees are tbh. It is well understood that 'edge' habitats are most biodiverse but these are not provided by moorland in traditional management as far as I can see. I know that a lot is made of ground-nesting birds doing ok on grouse moors but that's at the expense of a lot of other species. In Scotland species like capercaillie and wild cat are absolutely on the brink and little effort is apparently made in traditional systems to provide habitat for them, as it doesn't suit grouse. It'd be interesting to see over a longer term how non-shooting management does, as most of it's pretty recent in relative terms.


----------



## ycbm (29 October 2022)

palo1 said:



			heather moorland is incredibly important and in order to maintain that the money from shooting provides a far better chance than any governmental or charitable organisation.
		
Click to expand...

I lived near extensive and commercially shot heather moors for over 30 years as you know because we've had this exact same conversation before. The only parts of the moor that appeared to be managed  were those that were shot and where the birds were bred.  Where the birds were bred there was hectare after hectare of ugly squares cut in the Heather,  completely ruining the magnificent view of the hillsides.  Where that didn't happen,  the heather appeared to function perfectly well on its own.  
.


----------



## palo1 (29 October 2022)

Burnttoast said:



			Better in terms of biodiversity? Or carbon capture? I just look at them and wonder where the trees are tbh. It is well understood that 'edge' habitats are most biodiverse but these are not provided by moorland in traditional management as far as I can see. I know that a lot is made of ground-nesting birds doing ok on grouse moors but that's at the expense of a lot of other species. In Scotland species like capercaillie and wild cat are absolutely on the brink and little effort is apparently made in traditional systems to provide habitat for them, as it doesn't suit grouse. It'd be interesting to see over a longer term how non-shooting management does, as most of it's pretty recent in relative terms.
		
Click to expand...

I don't know! But here, heather moorland is absolutely inextricably linked with precious peat bogs and we know how incredibly valuable they are in terms of carbon capture.  Ground nesting birds are also on the brink and our heather moorland is a vital habitat for them.  Do we just wave goodbye to those species in the interest of 'other' species or for the principle of not shooting/managing those habitats?   Certainly the upland heather moorlands here are totally unsuitable for trees and barely support any grazing animals; a few wild ponies do cope there though.  Ideally, perhaps the upland moorland would be left alone possibly.  BUT where an income can be made there is also the possibility of protection.  Loss of income, from shooting for example, seems far more likely to result in more sheep which will eventually destroy that moorland (whilst also not thriving actually but hill farming is not easy...) and all that goes with it.  Living, as I do, in this kind of area, that fills me with horror;  the sight of curlew, golden plover, ravens, hare, foxes, snipe and many other species of plants and animals; rare and specialist as well as iconic common ones make me think that we should tread incredibly lightly with both principle and action in these places.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (29 October 2022)

palo1 said:



			I know that this info is from the Moorland Association but Natural England appear to have verified the figures :https://www.moorlandassociation.org...n today welcomes,highest figure for 100 years.  Can you explain why this isn't valid?
		
Click to expand...

It isn't valid becaus shooting estates were entirely esponsible for the poor baseline numbers which make any small improvement look good in terms of percentages. 

Do you honestly believe that hen harriers as a species will be left alone to the extent that they'll be able to recover somewhat natural post-persecution numbers?


----------



## ycbm (29 October 2022)

This photo doesn't do justice to how ugly this is.  Left to it's own devices,  the moor in the distance would be covered in purple heather,  as large parts nearby are.  The areas cut in the heather to breed grouse spoil it completely.


----------



## palo1 (29 October 2022)

ycbm said:



			I lived near extensive and commercially shot heather moors for over 30 years as you know because we've had this exact same conversation before. The only parts of the moor that appeared to be managed  were those that were shot and where the birds were bred.  Where the birds were bred there was hectare after hectare of ugly squares cut in the Heather,  completely ruining the magnificent view of the hillsides.  Where that didn't happen,  the heather appeared to function perfectly well on its own. 
.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I know. But you also had a good population of curlew and presumably other species which are absolutely on the brink of extinction.  Those habitats and management may not have appealed to you but they seemed to work for the ground nesting birds at least...


----------



## palo1 (29 October 2022)

CrunchieBoi said:



			It isn't valid becaus shooting estates were entirely esponsible for the poor baseline numbers which make any small improvement look good in terms of percentages.

Do you honestly believe that hen harriers as a species will be left alone to the extent that they'll be able to recover somewhat natural post-persecution numbers?
		
Click to expand...

Well Red Kites have made an amazing recovery so yes, I believe it really is possible.


----------



## palo1 (29 October 2022)

CrunchieBoi said:



			It isn't valid becaus shooting estates were entirely esponsible for the poor baseline numbers which make any small improvement look good in terms of percentages.

Do you honestly believe that hen harriers as a species will be left alone to the extent that they'll be able to recover somewhat natural post-persecution numbers?
		
Click to expand...

Well, ok but even with poor baseline figures, a change in practices has resulted in improvement.  That is exactly what is needed and the money to implement that isn't going to be coming from the government any time soon!!


----------



## ycbm (29 October 2022)

palo1 said:



			Yes, I know. But you also had a good population of curlew and presumably other species which are absolutely on the brink of extinction.  Those habitats and management may not have appealed to you but they seemed to work for the ground nesting birds at least...
		
Click to expand...

I never saw curlew above the moorland line, only below it on my land and other people's. 

I nearly cried when the buyer of our house mowed my wild meadow. 
.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (29 October 2022)

palo1 said:



			Well Red Kites have made an amazing recovery so yes, I believe it really is possible.
		
Click to expand...

Kites are an entirely different kettle of fish, one with less specific needs in terms of habitat. Do you think that if the numbers of hen harriers were to magically recover to the same extent as the kites did that they would be tolerated? 
Bare in mind they'd generally be hanging around areas used for grouse shooting with an abundance of available prey and virtually zero predators of their own because the keepers have wiped them all out. 

I absolutely maintain the belief that a few years worth of data from such a poor baseline isn't an overall valid means of looking at things. I also don't believe for a moment that increasing numbers of hen harriers will be tolerated unless the upcoming licencing of shooting estates has the desired effect and wildlife crime esentially becomes a thing of the past on sporting estates. That seems unlikely when many seem to rely on it.


----------



## Sandstone1 (29 October 2022)

Clodagh said:



			I’ve no idea of the numbers. But an awful lot of people in the countryside get their money from shooting, not only the shoot owners. I’m working today and there will be maybe 40 people there getting paid. And it’s all at least minimum wage now. Let alone the hotel where the guns stayed last night and all their staff.
		
Click to expand...

And that makes animal abuse ok?


----------



## stangs (29 October 2022)

Had a look for some of the literature if anyone’s interested. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to find any papers comparing the biodiversity of grouse moors to areas managed for biodiversity, or anything on managed moors in Wales.

On peregrine falcons
On hen harriers
On meadow pipits
Government report


----------



## Burnttoast (29 October 2022)

Ecological tourism is the obvious successor to driven shooting in the uplands I suppose. That could involve management that doesn't include the aspects of grouse management that are really unnecessary and harmful in ecological terms (use of medicated grit, culling of mountain hares and non-target species such as hedgehogs, over-frequent and inappropriate burning) as well as reducing the problems of disease resulting from high densities of the grouse themselves (e.g. cryptosporidiosis, which is also affecting black grouse). I do find it odd that heather moorland is fetishised to such a degree. Its existence over a large fraction of the uplands is completely artificial and excludes large numbers of species (e.g. any bird that prefers not to nest on the ground and large numbers of plant species that don't thrive under intense management for grouse). Management aimed at a mosaic of habitats would benefit tourism and biodiversity without excluding say walked-up shooting.


----------



## suestowford (29 October 2022)

Bird flu is cutting a swathe through shoots around here - they apparently only have enough pheasants for two weeks' shooting as opposed to the usual 8 weeks.


----------



## Burnttoast (29 October 2022)

suestowford said:



			Bird flu is cutting a swathe through shoots around here - they apparently only have enough pheasants for two weeks' shooting as opposed to the usual 8 weeks.
		
Click to expand...

Largely because a lot (and more partridge) are usually imported from intensive rearing sheds on the continent but aren't being this year because of AI. A bit less of that would be a good thing all round, for all sorts of disease control as well as UK ecology.


----------



## palo1 (29 October 2022)

Burnttoast said:



			Ecological tourism is the obvious successor to driven shooting in the uplands I suppose. That could involve management that doesn't include the aspects of grouse management that are really unnecessary and harmful in ecological terms (use of medicated grit, culling of mountain hares and non-target species such as hedgehogs, over-frequent and inappropriate burning) as well as reducing the problems of disease resulting from high densities of the grouse themselves (e.g. cryptosporidiosis, which is also affecting black grouse). I do find it odd that heather moorland is fetishised to such a degree. Its existence over a large fraction of the uplands is completely artificial and excludes large numbers of species (e.g. any bird that prefers not to nest on the ground and large numbers of plant species that don't thrive under intense management for grouse). Management aimed at a mosaic of habitats would benefit tourism and biodiversity without excluding say walked-up shooting.
		
Click to expand...

Well, that is a view but tourism would only work effectively where there were few opportunities.  The example of Knepp estate where much income is now from tourism and educational courses (paid for) is interesting but I think it is widely understood that once more estates follow this  model there will be less income opportunities and if this kind of wilding were common then the tourism slice of the income pie would be very difficult to maintain.  I don't see the fetishisation of heather moorland though that is a view taken by some groups (thanks George Monbiot...).  We have seen this issue locally where low impact glamping etc has reached and gone beyond saturation point.  There are now too many glamping/eco tourism opportunities (related to dark skies and wildlife walking etc) for people to continue making an income.  Costs are high, expectations are high and competition is fierce so now we are starting to see, in the Brecon Beacons, rotting railway sheds and so forth.  Tourism I don't think, can replace either the employment or income of shooting or other managed land stuff.


----------



## palo1 (29 October 2022)

stangs said:



			Had a look for some of the literature if anyone’s interested. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to find any papers comparing the biodiversity of grouse moors to areas managed for biodiversity, or anything on managed moors in Wales.

On peregrine falcons
On hen harriers
On meadow pipits
Government report

Click to expand...

Thanks - these are quite interesting but it is frustrating and possibly telling that none of the key organisations have carried out biodiversity research.  I would think that for campaigning organisations that would be a first stop?


----------



## Burnttoast (29 October 2022)

palo1 said:



			Well, that is a view but tourism would only work effectively where there were few opportunities.  The example of Knepp estate where much income is now from tourism and educational courses (paid for) is interesting but I think it is widely understood that once more estates follow this  model there will be less income opportunities and if this kind of wilding were common then the tourism slice of the income pie would be very difficult to maintain.  I don't see the fetishisation of heather moorland though that is a view taken by some groups (thanks George Monbiot...).  We have seen this issue locally where low impact glamping etc has reached and gone beyond saturation point.  There are now too many glamping/eco tourism opportunities (related to dark skies and wildlife walking etc) for people to continue making an income.  Costs are high, expectations are high and competition is fierce so now we are starting to see, in the Brecon Beacons, rotting railway sheds and so forth.  Tourism I don't think, can replace either the employment or income of shooting or other managed land stuff.
		
Click to expand...

In that case perhaps it's time to accept that financialising every square foot of land is not essential for life (in fact is inimical to it). Public money should be put into maintaining (where maintenance is actually necessary) otherwise 'unproductive' land for the benefit of species we squeeze out elsewhere.


----------



## Burnttoast (29 October 2022)

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ibi.12356
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6802035/ The latter suggests that red grouse and ground-nesting waders both benefit from predator control but that red grouse benefit more - ie, a reduction in predator control on managed grouse moors would have less impact on GNW than on red grouse, so the amount of predator control deemed necessary for a high density of RG is not necessary for conservation of other birds. Burning was considered to have relatively little impact on upland bird species, so that a reduction in burning would not adversely impact those species.

ETA the Werritty Report contains a bibliography 21 pages long which brings together the previously published literature. Its conclusion was that grouse shooting and associated practices in Scotland weren't well-enough regulated, hence the govt's acceptance of the need for a licensing system.


----------



## PurBee (29 October 2022)

The trees are cut down on moors/bogs to facilitate a clear view and clear shot for bred bird shooting sports.
I live amongst a wild, unmanaged vast area mountain range of heather land, raised and blanket bogs with streams and rivers.

Before the government decided to grow monoculture spruce forests everywhere, the areas untouched by their ‘forestry management’ practices (purely due to access problems with the forestry machines or private land) are rich in a wild salix willow, holly, pine, birch and importantly, scot’s pine. 
(It has been discovered by dna research of tree species that the exact area im in, the ‘scots pine’ here are in fact ‘irish pine’ native to ireland, and not all brought here from scotland as previously thought)

The soil types vary enormously on moor/boglands and the willow thrive in the acidity. I have willow of varying ages, bushes aswell as massive trees, growing in a tested soil of ph 4! 
The subsoil is often lime/clay and a rich supply of minerals for all kinds of trees. The banks of blanket bogs are full of trees, and wildlife, with willow and birch growing within the bogs. The raised bog areas kept wild, likewise have varied native trees everywhere.

My land is majority blanket bog. Trees here host an amazing array of wildlife. There’s birds of prey here, im not a bird spotter but have seen what i think are marlins, hen harriers, and heard/seen larger hawk-like birds. 
I see very large hawk-types fly high with ravens flying near harassing it. 
I had a spotty golden bird of prey nest in my fenced, veg plot where i have areas of it wild, long grass. The baby chick that year was hopping around eating my strawberries, and mum was always perched on tall fencepost keeping an eye-out.

There were also nesting in the scots pine near me,  that later got illegally felled by a local farmer, on government land he doesnt own, and even when reported went unprosecuted/univestigated by the ‘forests fisheries and marine’ governing body.

During this tree-felling incident, which i filmed and protested while it was happening, while government employees stood and watched also!!…one was a local old boy who said the farm, once huge, the entire mountain, was covered in scots pine when he was a boy.
So within 1 generation, indigenous forestry of bogs and moors have been wiped-out, alongside many consequential species. 

The shooters love this mountain, because there’s everything to shoot here, but they hate it and rarely succeed due to the trees. 
Ive had shooters illegally night shoot in my back garden, as i have some acres clear.
Managed moorland doesnt have trees because theyve been felled for easier shooting sports. Trees prevent a clear shot, provide protection for birds to hide in, deer to hide behind etc etc. 
Get rid of trees and you’ve got a clear shot at everything, but the balance and richness of the natural species also falls alongside them. 


Truly, the wildlife of wild moors and bogs not managed at all is astoundingly rich with a huge array of plants/trees/birds/mammals. Unlike the moors of scotland ive visited that are huge bleak expanses of limited species due to tree felling.
Once the natural species trees go, many species are affected.
  I saw for the first time just the other day, a pair of otters swimming down the shallow river beside the land here. I never knew otters would/could be here as i didnt think fish were in the river as its very shallow mostly, with deeper parts.

Nature does a far better job at creating a perfect balance of rural regions than man ever could, as is proven by the difference between truly wild untouched moors and bogs compared to managed areas.

People shoot whatever for whatever reasons, i am not going to judge motives. But surely, to decimate many other species of wildlife for that sport, is a line we shouldn’t cross, imo. And if we choose to kill anything, we surely would want to do that as quickly and as painless as possible?
 “Do to others as you would want done to yourself” type of philosophy.


----------



## Clodagh (29 October 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			And that makes animal abuse ok?
		
Click to expand...

I was answering a post about people not making money from shooting. I eat meat and I’d far rather live as a pheasant than a broiler hen. This isn’t some Utopian existence where everything lives to its full span in a glorious natural manner.


----------



## Clodagh (29 October 2022)

Hen harriers are ground nesting birds. Look at Langholm Moor, they did far better when it was keepered.


----------



## palo1 (29 October 2022)

Burnttoast said:



			In that case perhaps it's time to accept that financialising every square foot of land is not essential for life (in fact is inimical to it). Public money should be put into maintaining (where maintenance is actually necessary) otherwise 'unproductive' land for the benefit of species we squeeze out elsewhere.
		
Click to expand...

I would love to see land that was not financialised to the last square foot too.  However it absolutely is and as climate change gets worse, so will land be ever more contested.  At the moment in areas I am familiar with, land is 'productive' at a low intensity; that enables both some farmed activity (such as hill grazing sheep, though it may be better if we were prepared to eat horses again as they may be better re: biodiversity) and a more biodiverse landscape.  There are no easy answers to this at all.


----------



## Burnttoast (29 October 2022)

Clodagh said:



			Hen harriers are ground nesting birds. Look at Langholm Moor, they did far better when it was keepered.
		
Click to expand...

But conversely they also co-existed with ground predators for thousands of years before keepering was even a thing, or they wouldn't be here now.


----------



## Burnttoast (29 October 2022)

palo1 said:



			I would love to see land that was not financialised to the last square foot too.  However it absolutely is and as climate change gets worse, so will land be ever more contested.  At the moment in areas I am familiar with, land is 'productive' at a low intensity; that enables both some farmed activity (such as hill grazing sheep, though it may be better if we were prepared to eat horses again as they may be better re: biodiversity) and a more biodiverse landscape.  There are no easy answers to this at all.
		
Click to expand...

Wilderculture are doing interesting things with cattle as upland grazers, probably better than both sheep (non-native after all) and equids https://wilderculture.com/outwintering-cattle-is-revolutionising-farming-in-the-uplands/

ETA Graeme Lyons (ecologist who does a lot of surveying on rewilding projects) sees low-intensity set stocking particularly of sheep as bad for invert populations (compared with traditional transhumance-type grazing systems, eg coastal grazing marshes/hay meadows). They remove forbs preferentially.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (29 October 2022)

PurBee said:



			The trees are cut down on moors/bogs to facilitate a clear view and clear shot for bred bird shooting sports.
I live amongst a wild, unmanaged vast area mountain range of heather land, raised and blanket bogs with streams and rivers.

Before the government decided to grow monoculture spruce forests everywhere, the areas untouched by their ‘forestry management’ practices (purely due to access problems with the forestry machines or private land) are rich in a wild salix willow, holly, pine, birch and importantly, scot’s pine. 
(It has been discovered by dna research of tree species that the exact area im in, the ‘scots pine’ here are in fact ‘irish pine’ native to ireland, and not all brought here from scotland as previously thought)

The soil types vary enormously on moor/boglands and the willow thrive in the acidity. I have willow of varying ages, bushes aswell as massive trees, growing in a tested soil of ph 4! 
The subsoil is often lime/clay and a rich supply of minerals for all kinds of trees. The banks of blanket bogs are full of trees, and wildlife, with willow and birch growing within the bogs. The raised bog areas kept wild, likewise have varied native trees everywhere.

My land is majority blanket bog. Trees here host an amazing array of wildlife. There’s birds of prey here, im not a bird spotter but have seen what i think are marlins, hen harriers, and heard/seen larger hawk-like birds. 
I see very large hawk-types fly high with ravens flying near harassing it. 
I had a spotty golden bird of prey nest in my fenced, veg plot where i have areas of it wild, long grass. The baby chick that year was hopping around eating my strawberries, and mum was always perched on tall fencepost keeping an eye-out.

There were also nesting in the scots pine near me,  that later got illegally felled by a local farmer, on government land he doesnt own, and even when reported went unprosecuted/univestigated by the ‘forests fisheries and marine’ governing body.

During this tree-felling incident, which i filmed and protested while it was happening, while government employees stood and watched also!!…one was a local old boy who said the farm, once huge, the entire mountain, was covered in scots pine when he was a boy.
So within 1 generation, indigenous forestry of bogs and moors have been wiped-out, alongside many consequential species. 

The shooters love this mountain, because there’s everything to shoot here, but they hate it and rarely succeed due to the trees. 
Ive had shooters illegally night shoot in my back garden, as i have some acres clear.
Managed moorland doesnt have trees because theyve been felled for easier shooting sports. Trees prevent a clear shot, provide protection for birds to hide in, deer to hide behind etc etc. 
Get rid of trees and you’ve got a clear shot at everything, but the balance and richness of the natural species also falls alongside them. 


Truly, the wildlife of wild moors and bogs not managed at all is astoundingly rich with a huge array of plants/trees/birds/mammals. Unlike the moors of scotland ive visited that are huge bleak expanses of limited species due to tree felling.
Once the natural species trees go, many species are affected.
  I saw for the first time just the other day, a pair of otters swimming down the shallow river beside the land here. I never knew otters would/could be here as i didnt think fish were in the river as its very shallow mostly, with deeper parts.

Nature does a far better job at creating a perfect balance of rural regions than man ever could, as is proven by the difference between truly wild untouched moors and bogs compared to managed areas.

People shoot whatever for whatever reasons, i am not going to judge motives. But surely, to decimate many other species of wildlife for that sport, is a line we shouldn’t cross, imo. And if we choose to kill anything, we surely would want to do that as quickly and as painless as possible?
 “Do to others as you would want done to yourself” type of philosophy.
		
Click to expand...

Excellent post!


----------



## palo1 (29 October 2022)

Burnttoast said:



			Wilderculture are doing interesting things with cattle as upland grazers, probably better than both sheep (non-native after all) and equids https://wilderculture.com/outwintering-cattle-is-revolutionising-farming-in-the-uplands/

ETA Graeme Lyons (ecologist who does a lot of surveying on rewilding projects) sees low-intensity set stocking particularly of sheep as bad for invert populations (compared with traditional transhumance-type grazing systems, eg coastal grazing marshes/hay meadows). They remove forbs preferentially.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I think the issues with sheep are well understood if not culturally accepted.  It is fine to suggest cattle for some areas but if people like us are to sustain any kind of life then, sadly, the cattle have to at least be cost free.  Many, many graziers have tried hardy cattle on the Brecon Beacons but in a difficult winter it simply creates welfare issues that are impossible to ignore.  It also means that farmers are running those cattle at considerable loss. There is no incentive to do that.  Ponies do MUCH better though there are casualties amongst the herds every winter.  Sheep do well on the hill and also work for farmers; that is the reality. If there was money to not run sheep I am sure many hill farmers would take that.


----------



## Burnttoast (29 October 2022)

palo1 said:



			Yes, I think the issues with sheep are well understood if not culturally accepted.  It is fine to suggest cattle for some areas but if people like us are to sustain any kind of life then, sadly, the cattle have to at least be cost free.  Many, many graziers have tried hardy cattle on the Brecon Beacons but in a difficult winter it simply creates welfare issues that are impossible to ignore.  It also means that farmers are running those cattle at considerable loss. There is no incentive to do that.  Ponies do MUCH better though there are casualties amongst the herds every winter.  Sheep do well on the hill and also work for farmers; that is the reality. If there was money to not run sheep I am sure many hill farmers would take that.
		
Click to expand...

I do find this interesting (no relevance to the thread of course!). When transhumance was practised in the uplands (much more associated with cattle rearing) nothing would have been pastured on the hill over winter, and the breakdown of that system will have had a big impact on biodiversity years before anyone worried about that kind of thing.


----------



## palo1 (29 October 2022)

Burnttoast said:



			I do find this interesting (no relevance to the thread of course!). When transhumance was practised in the uplands (much more associated with cattle rearing) nothing would have been pastured on the hill over winter, and the breakdown of that system will have had a big impact on biodiversity years before anyone worried about that kind of thing.
		
Click to expand...

Well that practice does still happen to an extent.  However, in order to make a living and to breed sheep that have both hardiness and marketable carcasses farmers have worked out that you really need to keep ewes on those hills in the winter; without that, you lose the hardiness.  Not everyone wants hardy ewes of course but they are still valued by many lowland sheep farmers  for breeding with bigger, less hardy sheep, because of the greater potential for easier lambing and a lower mortality.  In the days when everything was brought onto the farm for winter, the welfare issues of that, on relatively small acreage, would not be acceptable now.  There are other reasons too but yes, it is interesting.  2 weeks ago we went to a sale of hardy hill ewes - 7000 of them in a tiny village with many, many buyers.  I guess at least part of the reason, demand, is due to consumers not wanting to go without fresh meat for weeks at a time as well...


----------



## Millionwords (29 October 2022)

palo1 said:



			I guess at least part of the reason, demand, is due to consumers not wanting to go without fresh meat for weeks at a time as well...
		
Click to expand...

And therein lies the argument for less meat consumption; less livestock production and grazing.


----------



## palo1 (29 October 2022)

Millionwords said:



			And therein lies the argument for less meat consumption; less livestock production and grazing.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, in part.  IF people were prepared to pay more for their meet it would be possible for a variety of farming practices to be in place (as opposed to only practices that make farming possible).  It used to be that a farm of 100 acres could support an average family in terms of food and essentials.  Then it was a farm of 250 acres.  Now, you need considerably more than that to keep a family.  Farmers feel as trapped as anyone in all this I think.  If people were prepared to accept that lamb was really only available during certain months but that mutton was also worth eating, that would help too as it would give older sheep a value other than for breeding.  Beef is a whole other kettle of fish really, not least because of the madness of previous years that let to BSE and the 30 month cull requirement. That has intensified beef production and led to much less value to traditional hardy breeds of cattle (which need more than 30 months to mature to cull weight).   It is complicated and not helped by the very developed global food supply chain which means that meat on the hoof can always be sold and always bought.  That doesn't help in several ways.  I think, essentially, in terms of meat,  eating less meat, eating local, high quality meat and eating seasonally are some of the simplest environmentally friendly actions any of us can take.


----------



## suestowford (30 October 2022)

Yes, this is what we have been doing. Buy it straight from the farm that is. This farm is local, they produce meat from local native breeds of sheep & cattle, and they use the tiny abattoir just along the road. The food miles are therefore minimal, also the stress on the animals is minimal. It's very good meat but also expensive, so we don't eat it more than once a week.


----------



## Burnttoast (30 October 2022)

Me too. We spend a lot on meat (my IBS needs it and the ethical side is very important to me as I'm sure to everyone here) and get it from Knepp (buy venison from them, in bulk because of the delivery) and from a local farm that also does raw calf-at-foot milk.


----------



## Tiddlypom (30 October 2022)

Oh, I fully agree that people make money from shooting. That is what shooting is all about - providing a paid service to those who delight in standing around blasting artificially reared game birds out of the sky.

The shooting industry does nothing to benefit countryside management and natural life in the way that pre ban fox hunting with hounds did. It's all about the £££s.


----------



## palo1 (30 October 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Oh, I fully agree that people make money from shooting. That is what shooting is all about - providing a paid service to those who delight in standing around blasting artificially reared game birds out of the sky.

The shooting industry does nothing to benefit countryside management and natural life in the way that pre ban fox hunting with hounds did. It's all about the £££s.
		
Click to expand...

Well those £££s do benefit the rural economy and those local people who get paid employment in shooting.


----------



## Koweyka (31 October 2022)

What sort of trail puts a full pack of hounds on a train track and allows perhaps 60 hounds to be killed and potentially derail a train and kill potentially kill people.

Hounds and wildlife innocent victims of a god awful pastime, heartbreaking. 

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?st...fi2MX6AHhK2f8LDCynUgYuLFYl&id=689290157758386


----------



## Tiddlypom (31 October 2022)

I feel sick 😥.

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/dogs-hit-by-train-between-norwich-and-london-9351984

_A number of hunting dogs have been killed after being hit by a train on the Norwich to London line.

Services have been disrupted this morning (October 31) after the 8.30am Norwich to London Liverpool Street service struck the dogs on the track near Diss.

Greater Anglia said they are looking into how the dogs came to be on the tracks, with strong suggestions the dogs came from a local hunt.

According to some reports about 100 dogs crossed the line, with about 20 being struck.

A woman who was travelling on the train which hit the dogs said an announcer told travellers they had "hit a pack of dogs"._


----------



## Koweyka (31 October 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			I feel sick 😥.

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/dogs-hit-by-train-between-norwich-and-london-9351984

_A number of hunting dogs have been killed after being hit by a train on the Norwich to London line._

_Services have been disrupted this morning (October 31) after the 8.30am Norwich to London Liverpool Street service struck the dogs on the track near Diss._

_Greater Anglia said they are looking into how the dogs came to be on the tracks, with strong suggestions the dogs came from a local hunt._

_According to some reports about 100 dogs crossed the line, with about 20 being struck._

_A woman who was travelling on the train which hit the dogs said an announcer told travellers they had "hit a pack of dogs"._

Click to expand...

It’s awful, I am literally sat sobbing at this waste of life


----------



## Clodagh (31 October 2022)

That’s really awful. Poor, poor things. No hunt would hunt with 100 hounds though, unless it looked like a hundred which I guess is possible.


----------



## Burnttoast (31 October 2022)

Koweyka said:



			What sort of trail puts a full pack of hounds on a train track and allows perhaps 60 hounds to be killed and potentially derail a train and kill potentially kill people.

Hounds and wildlife innocent victims of a god awful pastime, heartbreaking.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?st...fi2MX6AHhK2f8LDCynUgYuLFYl&id=689290157758386

Click to expand...

Poor poor things, and poor train driver and passengers  And what a massive waste of the time and resources of other people cleaning up after this for what reason? The DH have a lot of form unfortunately.


----------



## Millionwords (31 October 2022)

I feel sick.
If they weren't hunting illegally, then whats their reason for crossing the tracks? 
"Confused hounds in difficult scenting conditions"? Even though the huntsman should know the route?

A horrific waste of life by some criminals who think they're above the law.


----------



## palo1 (31 October 2022)

That is awful.   I cannot imagine a huntsman worth the name allowing hounds anywhere near a railway line.  The number of hounds suggested in the pack is huge which is very odd too.  How awfully sad and utterly unnecessary.


----------



## ycbm (31 October 2022)

palo1 said:



			That is awful.   I cannot imagine a huntsman worth the name allowing hounds anywhere near a railway line.  The number of hounds suggested in the pack is huge which is very odd too.  How awfully sad and utterly unnecessary.
		
Click to expand...

Palo this is a problem in a lot of the discussions which I have with you about hunting.  What you experience when you hunt bears no relation to hunting in Cheshire,  where hounds are frequently near Intercity Railway lines,  Airport Runways and very fast roads including motorways.  Those hunts are also very popular and have large fields,  something else I don't think you experience? 
.


----------



## sakura (31 October 2022)

palo1 said:



			The number of hounds suggested in the pack is huge which is very odd too.
		
Click to expand...

Not to be too graphic, but the remains of the dogs hit by a train would make verifying the number quite difficult until facts are established. So I don’t think it’s odd.

Very, very sad but I’m also not surprised. Poor dogs, poor driver and poor passengers.


----------



## Burnttoast (31 October 2022)

palo1 said:



			That is awful.   I cannot imagine a huntsman worth the name allowing hounds anywhere near a railway line.  The number of hounds suggested in the pack is huge which is very odd too.  How awfully sad and utterly unnecessary.
		
Click to expand...

The main London line runs right through the middle of their country and the kennels are pretty close to it. Though you would think all the more reason to take care...


----------



## Koweyka (31 October 2022)

I have seen hounds on train tracks many times and it’s not the first time they have been killed


----------



## Clodagh (31 October 2022)

OH looked at something, somewhere and it sounds as though the pack rioted on exercise. How incredibly sad.


----------



## ElectricChampagne (31 October 2022)

News reports are saying up to 4 dogs hit, with others saying up to 6. 60 dogs is a huge number in a pack.


----------



## Clodagh (31 October 2022)

It sounds like up to 6. On morning exercise they went off from the pack.
Very different to 100.
Still very, very sad.


----------



## Koweyka (31 October 2022)

One is one too many 😞


----------



## Clodagh (31 October 2022)

Koweyka said:



			One is one too many 😞
		
Click to expand...

Well yes it is, of course, but animals and people get killed every day on transport networks. It was an awful accident and I imagine the hunt staff are devastated.


----------



## Koweyka (31 October 2022)

It’s not taken long for the pro hunt to blame it on the antis.


----------



## Sandstone1 (1 November 2022)

Koweyka said:



			It’s not taken long for the pro hunt to blame it on the antis.
		
Click to expand...

The whole thing disgusts me.   Hunting foxes with hounds is illegal.  Has been for years and yet still this farce is allowed to go on with animals and people being killed or injured.  When are people going to get that this has to stop.  Its not pest control, its people wanting to have their jollies.   Its about time that the people that do it are honest with themselves.   Its cruel and barbaric.  This is 2022 not 1922.  Times change.  Its not a nice ride across country, its not pest control its a barbaric and out dated ritual that needs to be consigned to history like bear baiting, badger baiting, cock fighting and all the other disgusting activities.
Come on, be honest with yourselves.   The world has changed the countryside has changed,  There is no place for this barbaric pass time.  You can blame sabs for this and that until the cows come home.   If you want to trail hunt thats all well and good but if you do its about time you stood up against all the hunts that are breaking the law because other wise ALL hunting will go and you only have yourselves to blame.


----------



## palo1 (1 November 2022)

I haven't seen anything to blame this tragic incident on Sabs and as hounds were exercising this had nothing to do with hunting illegally.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (1 November 2022)

Poor dogs, they have such miserably short lives under normal circumstances anyway, but to have it cut short in such a way is horrible. 

Hopefully the train driver and passengers are offered help of some kind.


----------



## Koweyka (1 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			I haven't seen anything to blame this tragic incident on Sabs and as hounds were exercising this had nothing to do with hunting illegally.
		
Click to expand...

Have a look on This is Hunting U.K. we are the hunting kind Facebook page.


----------



## Clodagh (1 November 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Have a look on This is Hunting U.K. we are the hunting kind Facebook page.
		
Click to expand...

I’ve read the most relevant comments, so not all, and no blame of sabs in this instance. They do blow hounds onto roads out hunting , which was said. Sabs were accused of misrepresentation, which was true.


----------



## ycbm (1 November 2022)

CrunchieBoi said:



			Poor dogs, they have such miserably short lives under normal circumstances anyway
		
Click to expand...

Short maybe,  but miserable I can't agree with.  They have,  in packs I've seen,  lived in same sex groups in big airy kennels,  behaving like the dogs they are. They have free roaming exercise in the pack,  not on a lead,  and  they absolutely adore chasing a scent.

Yes they are shot when no longer useful.  There is no cruelty in a quick death without a lingering old age. 
.


----------



## Tiddlypom (1 November 2022)

The Dunston Harriers kennels are situated in the village of Wacton, which is sandwiched between a railway line and an A road. So 100% control of these hounds at all times when on exercise is a must.



If I let my off leads dogs with suspect recall loose in such an area and they took off and got run over, I'd rightly be vilified for being a rubbish dog owner. Accident, my @rse. Negligence, more like.

Poor hounds. A couple of the more sensible remarks on the above mentioned pro hunt FB page.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (1 November 2022)

ycbm said:



			Short maybe,  but miserable I can't agree with.  They have,  in packs I've seen,  lived in same sex groups in big airy kennels,  behaving like the dogs they are. They have free roaming exercise in the pack,  not on a lead,  and  they absolutely adore chasing a scent.

Yes they are shot when no longer useful.  There is no cruelty in a quick death without a lingering old age. 
.
		
Click to expand...

I was referring to their expected lifespan rather than quality of life. A bullet in the head before you've even reached half your expected lifespan is a miserable fate to my mind.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Koweyka (1 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			I’ve read the most relevant comments, so not all, and no blame of sabs in this instance. They do blow hounds onto roads out hunting , which was said. Sabs were accused of misrepresentation, which was true.
		
Click to expand...

I have the screenshots of them, I also have many a videos of a huntsman stood on an A road blowing his horn calling hounds in front of cars causing chaos, cars slamming brakes on and swerving. There are many incidents of hounds being killed on roads when Sabs aren’t even there and I have seen a report of a harrier hound near this incident still loose and lost today on an A road.


----------



## ycbm (1 November 2022)

CrunchieBoi said:



			I was referring to their expected lifespan rather than quality of life. A bullet in the head before you've even reached half your expected lifespan is a miserable fate to my mind.
		
Click to expand...


Only if you have any comprehension of what your natural lifespan is.  
.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (2 November 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			The Dunston Harriers kennels are situated in the village of Wacton, which is sandwiched between a railway line and an A road. So 100% control of these hounds at all times when on exercise is a must.

View attachment 101645

If I let my off leads dogs with suspect recall loose in such an area and they took off and got run over, I'd rightly be vilified for being a rubbish dog owner. Accident, my @rse. Negligence, more like.

Poor hounds. A couple of the more sensible remarks on the above mentioned pro hunt FB page.

View attachment 101646

View attachment 101647

Click to expand...

Considering the huntsman responsible for the pack that mauled the wee cat was prosecuted under the dangerous dog act for allowing dogs to be dangerously out of control on public/private land, surely the same applies in this case?


----------



## palo1 (10 November 2022)

Taken from fb - from a pub toward a group of saboteurs.  (not in reply to posts immediately above but in relation to the wider discussion). 

I’m from The Bear Inn, it seems you’ve blocked our business page from being able to comment!
Last year when we took over the bear, the previous owner had already agreed for the trail hound group to park in the car park, we didn’t know what was happening nor what to expect - we explained this at the time but that didn’t seem to matter! The events that followed shocked me…
We found we have 2 very different groups of people;
1. The followers of the trail hounds who supported us by coming in for food and/or drinks, recommending us etc
2. Saboteurs who without ever stepping foot in the pub left bad reviews, booking then cancelling tables etc- having looked at their profiles most lived outside our area and as far as we could tell none were customers.
So when it came to the discussion on what to do this year, we considered the actions of both groups of people and decided that actually we should support our supporters not our haters. But I wanted to check we were doing the right thing so I also sat down with one of the members of the trail group and asked many relevant questions- at the end I was confident that nothing illegal takes place, I also spoke to as many of our regulars as I could - all of whom say “yes have them back”. So clearly no one in this group is a regular customer.
So, I extend my offer - if your group would like to come and have a meal with us, I will happily sit and listen to your views and consider any evidence you have of wrongdoing, if you also support our business by not leaving fake negative reviews, but instead by sharing our business information in a positive way then things could be different next year. However, if (as I suspect) you don’t take me up on this offer, then next year I’m sure our decision making process will be similar.
We are a business, it’s not for us to get involved with politics, but we will always be open minded and listen to all reasonable opinions.  we will always do what we feel is right for our business and will always support the people who support us.


----------



## Millionwords (10 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			Taken from fb - from a pub toward a group of saboteurs.  (not in reply to posts immediately above but in relation to the wider discussion).

I’m from The Bear Inn, it seems you’ve blocked our business page from being able to comment!
Last year when we took over the bear, the previous owner had already agreed for the trail hound group to park in the car park, we didn’t know what was happening nor what to expect - we explained this at the time but that didn’t seem to matter! The events that followed shocked me…
We found we have 2 very different groups of people;
1. The followers of the trail hounds who supported us by coming in for food and/or drinks, recommending us etc
2. Saboteurs who without ever stepping foot in the pub left bad reviews, booking then cancelling tables etc- having looked at their profiles most lived outside our area and as far as we could tell none were customers.
So when it came to the discussion on what to do this year, we considered the actions of both groups of people and decided that actually we should support our supporters not our haters. But I wanted to check we were doing the right thing so I also sat down with one of the members of the trail group and asked many relevant questions- at the end I was confident that nothing illegal takes place, I also spoke to as many of our regulars as I could - all of whom say “yes have them back”. So clearly no one in this group is a regular customer.
So, I extend my offer - if your group would like to come and have a meal with us, I will happily sit and listen to your views and consider any evidence you have of wrongdoing, if you also support our business by not leaving fake negative reviews, but instead by sharing our business information in a positive way then things could be different next year. However, if (as I suspect) you don’t take me up on this offer, then next year I’m sure our decision making process will be similar.
We are a business, it’s not for us to get involved with politics, but we will always be open minded and listen to all reasonable opinions.  we will always do what we feel is right for our business and will always support the people who support us.
		
Click to expand...

I may be giving myself away here. But I asked that manager specifically whether they would be hosting the hunt with their new management,  not aggressively,  not accusatory,  but because I was hopeful to return there as its a nice pub. They can do as they please, however I like to decide where I spend my money based upon that. They told me they would not host meets, so I returned to the pub spending money there regularly over summer, yet have continued to do so. 
Lying to customers in order to make money (both the hunts and mine/other patrons) is a crap thing to do as a business. 
Do what you like, but be transparent when asked.


----------



## Millionwords (10 November 2022)

Also asking a hunt if they're breakig the law when they're out of sight is only going to be answered one way...even if they are breaking the law.


----------



## Millionwords (10 November 2022)

I can't access the edit function so just to clarify that I meant to type giving away my location, however the site seems to go through phases of being really difficult to type into on a mobile...(as is now and it keeps overwriting the text...5his took forever)


----------



## Clodagh (10 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			I can't access the edit function so just to clarify that I meant to type giving away my location, however the site seems to go through phases of being really difficult to type into on a mobile...(as is now and it keeps overwriting the text...5his took forever)
		
Click to expand...

I really doubt any pro hunters will seek you out to proffer death threats. DW!
You are of course entitled to choose where you spend your money and the pub should not lie.
Nor should they be bullied and people try to destroy their business because they don’t like a once or twice a year event that takes place there.


----------



## palo1 (10 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			I can't access the edit function so just to clarify that I meant to type giving away my location, however the site seems to go through phases of being really difficult to type into on a mobile...(as is now and it keeps overwriting the text...5his took forever)
		
Click to expand...

I understand your feelings about making your location known - it is sad that both pro and anti hunters feel this way.  The vast majority of folk on either side of the debate have no interest in causing any individuals harm or offence thankfully.  I don't think you have posted anything that would cause you any risk; I certainly think pro hunting people on here would understand your caution and will not make you feel vulnerable.  I hope so in any case.


----------



## Millionwords (11 November 2022)

Thanks @palo1  its kind of you to make the effort to say this.


----------



## Sandstone1 (11 November 2022)

https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2022...g-29-dogs-in-flithy-kennels-full-of-excrement
Someone with connections to hunting.....  Awful, but at least hes gone to jail.


----------



## sunleychops (11 November 2022)

CrunchieBoi said:



			Shooting also generally involves the release of staggering numbers of non-native birds into the countryside at the expense of native wildlife in the case of pheasant shooting.

Most of the birds don't actually make it into the human foodchain with many of them dying on roads where I am. Destructive and wasteful.

Dont get me started on the driven grouse shoots. Plenty of them where I am, and nothing good to say about them.
		
Click to expand...

Without grouse moor shooting, there would be no moorland and they would rapidly become omnispecies, desolate wastelands


----------



## sunleychops (11 November 2022)

ycbm said:



			This photo doesn't do justice to how ugly this is.  Left to it's own devices,  the moor in the distance would be covered in purple heather,  as large parts nearby are.  The areas cut in the heather to breed grouse spoil it completely.

View attachment 101450

Click to expand...

Big fan of uncontrollable wildfires then are we?

Just admit you know absolutely jack shit about moorland management and be done with it.


----------



## sunleychops (11 November 2022)

Burnttoast said:



			Better in terms of biodiversity? Or carbon capture? I just look at them and wonder where the trees are tbh. It is well understood that 'edge' habitats are most biodiverse but these are not provided by moorland in traditional management as far as I can see. I know that a lot is made of ground-nesting birds doing ok on grouse moors but that's at the expense of a lot of other species. In Scotland species like capercaillie and wild cat are absolutely on the brink and little effort is apparently made in traditional systems to provide habitat for them, as it doesn't suit grouse. It'd be interesting to see over a longer term how non-shooting management does, as most of it's pretty recent in relative terms.
		
Click to expand...


Wild cat numbers are being hit predominantly with interbreeding with domestic cats.....


----------



## Millionwords (11 November 2022)

sunleychops said:



			Big fan of uncontrollable wildfires then are we?

Just admit you know absolutely jack shit about moorland management and be done with it.
		
Click to expand...

Why so rude, there are people that have posted in this thread with considerable ecological knowledge stating that them becoming desolate and single species is incorrect.

Accusing folk of knowing nothing whilst also not offering anything pertinent to the discussion is unhelpful and rude.


----------



## SilverLinings (11 November 2022)

sunleychops said:



			Big fan of uncontrollable wildfires then are we?

Just admit you know absolutely jack shit about moorland management and be done with it.
		
Click to expand...

That is not a useful or civilised contribution to this discussion, and certainly won't result in people agreeing with your side of the argument.


----------



## hairycob (11 November 2022)

My experience of hiking on grouse moorland is that I see much less wildlife, both in quantity & diversity, than I do in my intensively arable farmed area.


----------



## palo1 (11 November 2022)

hairycob said:



			My experience of hiking on grouse moorland is that I see much less wildlife, both in quantity & diversity, than I do in my intensively arable farmed area.
		
Click to expand...

That is such an interesting observation @hairycob as my experience (albeit in Wales) is completely the opposite.  Here on Grouse moorland there really does seem to be huge diversity, yet in similar areas that belong to the NT or local wildlife trusts there is noticeably and shockingly so, much less 'life'.  Our hill grazing is a conservation area and has locally important populations of several species of bird and plant life - it is grazed and managed how it has been for many, many years too; ponies and sheep (more sheep than ponies).  Several DEFRA policies and incentives damaged the hill (largely relating to grazing numbers and bracken)  but thankfully those have changed and there has been a restoration, particularly in recent years of a better natural balance.  

I don't think one size fits all and certainly in some areas, under some management, grouse moorland is performing better for some vulnerable species than under other management systems.  The NT and other organisations also, openly, rely on keepered moors for support during periods of crisis - for the expertise and manpower available for example during incidents of wild fire.  The area of NT bog and moorland that I am particularly familar with is eerily empty of the birds, mammals and plants that I see elsewhere which is both confusing and worrying in my view.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (11 November 2022)

sunleychops said:



			Wild cat numbers are being hit predominantly with interbreeding with domestic cats.....
		
Click to expand...

Only because the keepers made their population so vulnerable in the first place.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (11 November 2022)

sunleychops said:



			Without grouse moor shooting, there would be no moorland and they would rapidly become omnispecies, desolate wastelands
		
Click to expand...

Whit? 🤣


----------



## Burnttoast (11 November 2022)

sunleychops said:



			Wild cat numbers are being hit predominantly with interbreeding with domestic cats.....
		
Click to expand...

Now, yes. Historically, no. Replacing habitat must be part of any attempt to revive populations, along with a better effort at TNVR.


----------



## Burnttoast (11 November 2022)

Given that heather moorland is an anthropogenic landscape not a natural one I can't see what the objection would be to returning parts of the uplands to earlier ecologies. In Scotland pine woodland usually had a understorey containing heather, while birch-dominated woodland was characterised more by bilberry, which doesn't do well in a regime involving burning. I find the argument for grouse moor management being necessary for birds like the curlew to be specious. The management of land for driven grouse shooting only occurs in the UK but these birds exist across Eurasia, often in much more treed landscapes than we might assume.


----------



## palo1 (11 November 2022)

Burnttoast said:



			Given that heather moorland is an anthropogenic landscape not a natural one I can't see what the objection would be to returning parts of the uplands to earlier ecologies. In Scotland pine woodland usually had a understorey containing heather, while birch-dominated woodland was characterised more by bilberry, which doesn't do well in a regime involving burning. I find the argument for grouse moor management being necessary for birds like the curlew to be specious. The management of land for driven grouse shooting only occurs in the UK but these birds exist across Eurasia, often in much more treed landscapes than we might assume.
		
Click to expand...

Phew!!  That is difficult to read tbh, especially as whilst you are partially correct in saying that heather moorland is an anthropogenic landscape, it is still one that has value to nature.  I know that in rewilding circles there is an acceptance of 'winners and losers' (ie loss of some species) but that feels like an incredibly blunt tool and one that totally dismisses the human element and the cultures of our landscapes.  That I think it difficult philosophically, morally, economically notwithstanding the absolutely urgent need to support biodiversity and nature.   The 'objection' to returning parts of the uplands is visceral for those people who live and work there - I am not sure if you are part of one of those communities, but emblematic species such as the curlew are incredibly important to communities as well as within their own natural systems.  In part at least, it is a matter of identity.  It isn't at all easy to impose that level of change on communities and landscapes, even with the most aggressive rewilding agenda.  

It is likely too that birch dominated woodland would bring it's own issues, even if you remove upland grazing.  Birch can be horribly invasive and support specific ecosystems in the same way that heather moorlands do.  Why is that 'better' I wonder?  Is it because there is a desire to wipe out the impact of human activity?   It feels hard to read that communities and landscape level histories could be so easily and confidently dismissed to be honest, for what feels like rather 'remote' ideals.  I am generally a fan of rewilding and regenerative farming but the desire to see wholesale change in rural areas when there is so much basic work to be done on human culture, activities and attitudes toward nature more widely feels hurtful in a strange way.  

I confess that as part of an upland hill farming community, this all feels a bit personal too.


----------



## ycbm (11 November 2022)

sunleychops said:



			Without grouse moor shooting, there would be no moorland and they would rapidly become omnispecies, desolate wastelands
		
Click to expand...

🤣 

This comment is even more hilarious in the light of you later telling me that in spite of living in it and seeing it daily for over 3 decades,  I know absolutely nothing about moorland management. Only you were a lot less polite 

Let me guess,  you kill birds as a passtime or your salary is paid by people who do?
.


----------



## Burnttoast (11 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			Phew!!  That is difficult to read tbh, especially as whilst you are partially correct in saying that heather moorland is an anthropogenic landscape, it is still one that has value to nature.  I know that in rewilding circles there is an acceptance of 'winners and losers' (ie loss of some species) but that feels like an incredibly blunt tool and one that totally dismisses the human element and the cultures of our landscapes.  That I think it difficult philosophically, morally, economically notwithstanding the absolutely urgent need to support biodiversity and nature.   The 'objection' to returning parts of the uplands is visceral for those people who live and work there - I am not sure if you are part of one of those communities, but emblematic species such as the curlew are incredibly important to communities as well as within their own natural systems.  In part at least, it is a matter of identity.  It isn't at all easy to impose that level of change on communities and landscapes, even with the most aggressive rewilding agenda. 

It is likely too that birch dominated woodland would bring it's own issues, even if you remove upland grazing.  Birch can be horribly invasive and support specific ecosystems in the same way that heather moorlands do.  Why is that 'better' I wonder?  Is it because there is a desire to wipe out the impact of human activity?   It feels hard to read that communities and landscape level histories could be so easily and confidently dismissed to be honest, for what feels like rather 'remote' ideals.  I am generally a fan of rewilding and regenerative farming but the desire to see wholesale change in rural areas when there is so much basic work to be done on human culture, activities and attitudes toward nature more widely feels hurtful in a strange way. 

I confess that as part of an upland hill farming community, this all feels a bit personal too.
		
Click to expand...

Well, I did say parts. A mosaic of habitats is always biodiverse by its nature, including areas of heather. Woodland is what's currently missing from much of the uplands and the desire (insofar as I can call it that) in many quarters is for a more varied landscape (visually and ecologically). In Scotland the upland landscape has changed from almost entirely treed to almost entirely open over the course of the Holocene, and the vast majority of the changes have been driven by human activity. While subsistence farming was the norm in the late medieval/early modern periods woodland existed in different forms in the valleys, just above the head dyke and up on the hill, even though some of it seems to have been pretty degraded by winter grazing/use of woodland products, so the landscape was much more varied than that seen now and arguably more biodiverse. That landscape too was anthropogenic, just not one familiar to people alive now. Landlords had no trouble sweeping that 'inefficient' vernacular landscape away in the name of improvement. We could return to something like that, if the imperative was not to farm grouse.


----------



## palo1 (11 November 2022)

Burnttoast said:



			Well, I did say parts. A mosaic of habitats is always biodiverse by its nature, including areas of heather. Woodland is what's currently missing from much of the uplands and the desire (insofar as I can call it that) in many quarters is for a more varied landscape (visually and ecologically). In Scotland the upland landscape has changed from almost entirely treed to almost entirely open over the course of the Holocene, and the vast majority of the changes have been driven by human activity. While subsistence farming was the norm in the late medieval/early modern periods woodland existed in different forms in the valleys, just above the head dyke and up on the hill, even though some of it seems to have been pretty degraded by winter grazing/use of woodland products, so the landscape was much more varied than that seen now and arguably more biodiverse. That landscape too was anthropogenic, just not one familiar to people alive now. Landlords had no trouble sweeping that 'inefficient' vernacular landscape away in the name of improvement. We could return to something like that, if the imperative was not to farm grouse.
		
Click to expand...

Mmm well I can agree with parts of this, though my experience of living in an upland area gives me pause for thought about how realistic it is to hope to re-tree many parts.  But yes, a varied landscape is definitely desirable.  Although I understand a bit of why people become preoccupied with grouse moorland I can't get my head round why this is considered the most important issue, even on just a UK scale - those areas are minimally populated and managed with a degree of priviiege which I understand makes them an easy target but as a priority for biodiversity/improvement?  Really?  There are so many other, more impactful activities and agendas to pursue if we are serious about supporting nature and trying to do something about climate change.  I think we really need to prioritise rather than polarise.   I have no desire to lay blame at my neighbours door and I hate the way that that can so easily happen but some of the key issues for nature are more connected with intensive arable production (and yes, we need those crops too).  In the UK there is a very difficult equation to solve around land use more generally BUT uplands/moorlands/grouse moors are the wrong focus. 

 On a personal level I really struggle to stay level headed when I live somewhere that is considered a battle ground, we try incredibly hard to give room for and to support nature here, as do most of our neighbours yet when I drive to the nearest city, I am literally astounded by the wilful disregard for the environment; traffic pollution, plastic, unnecessary consumption, light pollution (which is a serious issue for biodiversity), a culture of 'smartness and neatness' that requires huge investment in artificiality (plastics and bleach/other cleaning and sanitisation products).  It is hard.  Our water comes out of the mountain.  We add nothing to it - we don't routinely purchase or wash synthetic fabrics, use our loo very considerately in relation to cleaners etc.  We know what our soil has in it and how to support invertebrate life so that we can feed our stock appropriately.  We have to be extremely careful with any animal medication (which we have to record in our records) and feed our stock on home grown fodder and limited externally bought in feeds, look after our land, cultivate hedgerows, trees and allow things to be all a bit wild and woolly.  We are not unusual in that - most of our neighbours are exactly the same yet just down the road, tarmac, bleach and plastic reign supreme.   Surely that is where we need to focus?


----------



## Burnttoast (11 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			Mmm well I can agree with parts of this, though my experience of living in an upland area gives me pause for thought about how realistic it is to hope to re-tree many parts.  But yes, a varied landscape is definitely desirable.  Although I understand a bit of why people become preoccupied with grouse moorland I can't get my head round why this is considered the most important issue, even on just a UK scale - those areas are minimally populated and managed with a degree of priviiege which I understand makes them an easy target but as a priority for biodiversity/improvement?  Really?  There are so many other, more impactful activities and agendas to pursue if we are serious about supporting nature and trying to do something about climate change.  I think we really need to prioritise rather than polarise.   I have no desire to lay blame at my neighbours door and I hate the way that that can so easily happen but some of the key issues for nature are more connected with intensive arable production (and yes, we need those crops too).  In the UK there is a very difficult equation to solve around land use more generally BUT uplands/moorlands/grouse moors are the wrong focus.

On a personal level I really struggle to stay level headed when I live somewhere that is considered a battle ground, we try incredibly hard to give room for and to support nature here, as do most of our neighbours yet when I drive to the nearest city, I am literally astounded by the wilful disregard for the environment; traffic pollution, plastic, unnecessary consumption, light pollution (which is a serious issue for biodiversity), a culture of 'smartness and neatness' that requires huge investment in artificiality (plastics and bleach/other cleaning and sanitisation products).  It is hard.  Our water comes out of the mountain.  We add nothing to it - we don't routinely purchase or wash synthetic fabrics, use our loo very considerately in relation to cleaners etc.  We know what our soil has in it and how to support invertebrate life so that we can feed our stock appropriately.  We have to be extremely careful with any animal medication (which we have to record in our records) and feed our stock on home grown fodder and limited externally bought in feeds, look after our land, cultivate hedgerows, trees and allow things to be all a bit wild and woolly.  We are not unusual in that - most of our neighbours are exactly the same yet just down the road, tarmac, bleach and plastic reign supreme.   Surely that is where we need to focus?
		
Click to expand...

I suppose the main cause of antagonism is the grouse moor, rather than moorland per se - one of the other places I visit regularly is Exmoor, and the scale of that landscape brings lots of different habitats up against one another, including the moor, which I suspect both soothes people's feelings about the treatment of the land and actually does help biodiversity. There's something about the apparent single-mindedness of the management of the driven grouse moor, and the appearance of much of the Scottish hills (too many deer too), that rankles with some people. And there is definitely room for improvement/change and some people living in those areas who do want to see that change (eg the Langholm community buy-out). I suspect but don't know that your uplands area is not quite like that?

I don't know how you get around the fact that most people aren't all that interested in nature, don't really understand it and have lives that don't/can't make room for it, but some people in urban areas are trying. And those that are interested have little scope for autonomous action, if all they have is a small garden, which must be part of why they become interested in what's happening 'over the fence'. I find it very depressing in general though. Before I became ill I was volunteering on a project to improve habitat connectivity in south Norfolk, planting new hedges and surveying existing hedges with a view to advising on their better management. There was lots of really degraded soil, maize planted as cover crops, essentially abandoned woodland and hedges, loads of pheasant-rearing-related plastic rubbish, plenty of winged crows flapping around in the brambles, all pretty sad. And that was on the participating farms.


----------



## sunleychops (14 November 2022)

ycbm said:



			🤣

This comment is even more hilarious in the light of you later telling me that in spite of living in it and seeing it daily for over 3 decades,  I know absolutely nothing about moorland management. Only you were a lot less polite 

Let me guess,  you kill birds as a passtime or your salary is paid by people who do?
.
		
Click to expand...

Neither, actually.

I just take an interest in these matters and enjoy arguing with the Packham brigade


----------



## Millionwords (14 November 2022)

sunleychops said:



			Neither, actually.

I just enjoy arguing
		
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you


----------



## sunleychops (14 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			Fixed that for you
		
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not going to just sit on my hands when a conversation about a psycho hunt supporter mowing someone down, transcends into a shooting bashing session.

This is exactly why country sports are absolutely doomed, So much division and in-fighting.


----------



## Millionwords (14 November 2022)

sunleychops said:



			Well, I'm not going to just sit on my hands when a conversation about a psycho hunt supporter mowing someone down, transcends into a shooting bashing session.

This is exactly why country sports are absolutely doomed, So much division and in-fighting.
		
Click to expand...

Its only you fighting, everyone else was having an informed and interesting discussion. Which is how people learn.

Not by slinging insults left, right and centre.


----------



## Fred66 (14 November 2022)

This article, whilst obviously written from a position of an interested party, does make for interesting reading.

https://www.gwct.org.uk/policy/brie...hooting/conservation-on-grouse-moors/#block-5

It makes some good points about positive impacts of management of grouse moor on some other rare species.


----------



## Sandstone1 (14 November 2022)

Maybe a shooting thread would be more appropriate?


----------



## Tiddlypom (14 November 2022)

Anyone care to set up a new thread entitled 'Shooting is in a spot of bother'?

Because the 'sport' 🙄 of shooting is certainly under great pressure, although technically it is still legal.


----------



## palo1 (14 November 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Anyone care to set up a new thread entitled 'Shooting is in a spot of bother'?

Because the 'sport' 🙄 of shooting is certainly under great pressure, although technically it is still legal.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think 'technically' is correct @Tiddlypom - it is legal activity as well as part of a significant rural industry.  You may not like it but there is no 'technically legal' about it!


----------



## sunleychops (14 November 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Anyone care to set up a new thread entitled 'Shooting is in a spot of bother'?

Because the 'sport' 🙄 of shooting is certainly under great pressure, although technically it is still legal.
		
Click to expand...

Nothing 'technically' about it.

it is 100% legal.


----------



## Sandstone1 (14 November 2022)

sunleychops said:



			Nothing 'technically' about it.

it is 100% legal.
		
Click to expand...

If immoral.


----------



## HeresHoping (14 November 2022)

"If immoral."

Every bird we shoot gets eaten.  How is that immoral?


----------



## palo1 (14 November 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			If immoral.
		
Click to expand...

That is entirely a matter of personal principle.  Thankfully in our liberal democracy there are many, many issues of conscience that we are free to make up our own minds about.   It is often considered intolerant to force your own moral framework on other people; that is why we consider minority rights an important thing to be protected...


----------



## stangs (14 November 2022)

HeresHoping said:



			"If immoral."

Every bird we shoot gets eaten.  How is that immoral?
		
Click to expand...

The bird would beg to differ


----------



## YorksG (14 November 2022)

stangs said:



			The bird would beg to differ 

Click to expand...

Would it? I was unaware that birds were capable of abstract thought, much less that they subscribe to a human based moral code. Where did you find the evidence for this, please.


----------



## Burnttoast (14 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			That is entirely a matter of personal principle.  Thankfully in our liberal democracy there are many, many issues of conscience that we are free to make up our own minds about.   It is often considered intolerant to force your own moral framework on other people; that is why we consider minority rights an important thing to be protected...
		
Click to expand...

On the other hand there are plenty of purely moral/ethical issues we do legislate on. Pretty much all animal welfare law falls into that category.


----------



## Burnttoast (14 November 2022)

Fred66 said:



			This article, whilst obviously written from a position of an interested party, does make for interesting reading.

https://www.gwct.org.uk/policy/brie...hooting/conservation-on-grouse-moors/#block-5

It makes some good points about positive impacts of management of grouse moor on some other rare species.
		
Click to expand...

Given that these species have existed for millennia before grouse shooting was a thing (and continue to exist across Eurasia where grouse shooting is still not a thing), though, it's clearly far from the only management system/environment in which they can exist


----------



## Tiddlypom (14 November 2022)

Shooting is indeed legal for now, although IMHO morally it is much less defensible than hunting. Make the most of the time you have left.


----------



## YorksG (14 November 2022)

I'm sure this has been asked before, but do those people who are against hunting and shooting, want to see both coarse and fly fishing banned?


----------



## Peglo (14 November 2022)

Fwiw I’ve seen thousands of birds thrown in holes because the folk who shot them didn’t want to eat them, just kill them. But of course geese are “pests” and it’s not worth plucking wild ducks…..


----------



## Burnttoast (14 November 2022)

YorksG said:



			I'm sure this has been asked before, but do those people who are against hunting and shooting, want to see both coarse and fly fishing banned?
		
Click to expand...

In an ideal world I'd like to see all sport and large-scale commercial fishing banned. The latter on both welfare and environmental grounds. As far as sport fishing is concerned it's complicated by the fact that sport anglers are a big pressure group in favour of clean river/marine environments (not that that seems to be helping with the current sewage situation), but I wish people could find pleasure in the clean and thriving environment for its own sake, not because they like doing the fish equivalent of waterboarding their victims.


----------



## YorksG (14 November 2022)

Burnttoast said:



			In an ideal world I'd like to see all sport and large-scale commercial fishing banned. The latter on both welfare and environmental grounds. As far as sport fishing is concerned it's complicated by the fact that sport anglers are a big pressure group in favour of clean river/marine environments (not that that seems to be helping with the current sewage situation), but I wish people could find pleasure in the clean and thriving environment for its own sake, not because they like doing the fish equivalent of waterboarding their victims.
		
Click to expand...

So sport fishing is possibly OK because of conservation, but the same cannot be said of hunting and shooting, although there is evidence that both can benefit conservation programmes?


----------



## Koweyka (14 November 2022)

I would love see all hunting and shooting and fishing stopped, killing the natural world for mans fleeting enjoyment is disgusting. Why not enjoy the natural world, marvel at it instead of hunting and shooting and drowning it ….. But then I have spent the last two weeks watching some disgusting fox hunts terrorising wildlife without a care in the world, the human race is disgusting.


----------



## paddy555 (14 November 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Shooting is indeed legal for now, although IMHO morally it is much less defensible than hunting. Make the most of the time you have left.
		
Click to expand...

To my mind indefensible full stop. Worse than hunting and I would like to see both banned. 
We don't have grouse shooting on our moorland the shoot is down in the valleys on farmland. I cannot see the logic or the need to breed and buy ducks and pheasants, turn them loose and then form a group of people for a jolly day out to shoot them. 

Our moorland doesn't look like the nice pic YCBM posted about 5 pages ago. No beautiful heather just impenetrable gorse of which only a very tiny amount gets burnt each spring. We are very lucky to have the odd firebreak cut through but many more are needed.


----------



## skinnydipper (14 November 2022)

HeresHoping said:



			"If immoral."

Every bird we shoot gets eaten.  How is that immoral?
		
Click to expand...


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/abomination-of-pheasants-dumped-into-pit-by-digger-whrw935fb

https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/scores-game-birds-dumped-north-22911986


----------



## Sandstone1 (14 November 2022)

HeresHoping said:



			"If immoral."

Every bird we shoot gets eaten.  How is that immoral?
		
Click to expand...

Oh where to start.    One pheasants are not a native species.  Two I very much doubt every bird does in reality get eaten. Three birds will suffer as not often killed instantly. Four Is it really ethical to breed birds to just to release in to the country side simply to shoot?  I do not know a great deal about shooting but to me as a outsider it seems cruel and pointless.


----------



## Fred66 (14 November 2022)

Burnttoast said:



			Given that these species have existed for millennia before grouse shooting was a thing (and continue to exist across Eurasia where grouse shooting is still not a thing), though, it's clearly far from the only management system/environment in which they can exist
		
Click to expand...

Possibly but some animals are at risk both in the UK and the rest of the world due to a loss of habitat and higher numbers of predators.

Do you object to conserving habitats for say tigers, elephants, rhinos etc ? Or do you think they should just take their chance ?

If not then why do you believe it’s wrong to conserve habitats for Curlew, Snipe, Merlin, Mountain Hare etc ?


----------



## Fred66 (14 November 2022)

Koweyka said:



			I would love see all hunting and shooting and fishing stopped, killing the natural world for mans fleeting enjoyment is disgusting. Why not enjoy the natural world, marvel at it instead of hunting and shooting and drowning it ….. But then I have spent the last two weeks watching some disgusting fox hunts terrorising wildlife without a care in the world, the human race is disgusting.
		
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t necessarily disagree that elements of the human race are disgusting, but to me hunting of other animals is not one of these things. Many animals in this world are involved in hunting one way or another and I don’t find their need to hunt disgusting. It is a part of the natural world that you suggest we enjoy.


----------



## Koweyka (14 November 2022)

Fred66 said:



			I wouldn’t necessarily disagree that elements of the human race are disgusting, but to me hunting of other animals is not one of these things. Many animals in this world are involved in hunting one way or another and I don’t find their need to hunt disgusting. It is a part of the natural world that you suggest we enjoy.
		
Click to expand...

Well animals aren’t paying a fortune to stand in a field with a gun to blast other animals out of the sky for fun are they. They hunt to survive to exist, it’s natural and nothing disgusting about it. Mans desire to hunt and kill a sentient creature for a few seconds of fun is abhorrent. I wish the tables could be turned and humans experienced the terror of  “driven human shooting” “humans being chased by a pack of wild dogs” “ huge hooks in their mouths while having a peaceful swim” “ the fear of having their brains blown out simply for walking across a field at night”


----------



## YorksG (14 November 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Well animals aren’t paying a fortune to stand in a field with a gun to blast other animals out of the sky for fun are they. They hunt to survive to exist, it’s natural and nothing disgusting about it. Mans desire to hunt and kill a sentient creature for a few seconds of fun is abhorrent. I wish the tables could be turned and humans experienced the terror of  “driven human shooting” “humans being chased by a pack of wild dogs” “ huge hooks in their mouths while having a peaceful swim” “ the fear of having their brains blown out simply for walking across a field at night”
		
Click to expand...

Do you seriously believe that animals have those thought processes and fears?


----------



## HeresHoping (14 November 2022)

skinnydipper said:



https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/abomination-of-pheasants-dumped-into-pit-by-digger-whrw935fb

https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/scores-game-birds-dumped-north-22911986

View attachment 102656

Click to expand...

It doesn't say whether those were breasted off or not? Bit hard to tell from the picture. It does say carcasses, which suggests the meat has been stripped.

I can't comment on every shoot. However, the shoots I work with have a policy of every bird shot must be taken home. Unless it's grouse - where there is an agent who comes to take the birds and they are sent to restaurants.

We, along with a great many corporate and private shoots, send a deal of birds here: https://www.thecountryfoodtrust.org/

We, along with a great many corporate and private shoots, pledge to eat what we kill. Indeed, when I do lunches for shoots we do pheasant sausages, partridge tikka goujons, and pheasant pie.

Besides which, I find it very difficult to attribute impartiality to any video shot by animal rights activists - there's always a part of the story that is in some way biased; and also, we haven't as many birds any more. Price of grain and bird flu have considerably reduced the amounts reared.


----------



## Koweyka (14 November 2022)

YorksG said:



			Do you seriously believe that animals have those thought processes and fears?
		
Click to expand...

Are you seriously stating that all animals have no self awareness or feel pain and fear.


----------



## Peglo (14 November 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Possibly but some animals are at risk both in the UK and the rest of the world due to a loss of habitat and higher numbers of predators.

Do you object to conserving habitats for say tigers, elephants, rhinos etc ? Or do you think they should just take their chance ?

If not then why do you believe it’s wrong to conserve habitats for Curlew, Snipe, Merlin, Mountain Hare etc ?
		
Click to expand...

loss of habitat because humans are taking up so much of the planet. Tigers and elephants wouldn’t need so much conservation if humans weren’t hell bent on destroying the species.

I watched a program that showed them shooting mountain hares because they were giving the grouse ticks and they “needed” to shoot the grouse. That I felt was shocking. Sorry to quote you particularly but just a few points.


----------



## YorksG (14 November 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Are you seriously stating that all animals have no self awareness or feel pain and fear.
		
Click to expand...

No I am not, however I do question your highly anthropomorphic and presumably intentionally ridiculously emotive, statements.


----------



## Koweyka (14 November 2022)

YorksG said:



			No I am not, however I do question your highly anthropomorphic and presumably intentionally ridiculously emotive, statements.
		
Click to expand...

Question away, I turned the tables on what we do to animals in the name of “sport” perhaps you find the analogy uncomfortable.


----------



## HeresHoping (14 November 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Question away, I turned the tables on what we do to animals in the name of “sport” perhaps you find the analogy uncomfortable.
		
Click to expand...

Have you ever seen what lions do in the name of sport (yes, am anthropomorphising, but can't think of a better way to word it)? A quick bullet is faster and kinder, I can assure you.


----------



## Koweyka (14 November 2022)

HeresHoping said:



			Have you ever seen what lions do in the name of sport (yes, am anthropomorphising, but can't think of a better way to word it)? A quick bullet is faster and kinder, I can assure you.
		
Click to expand...

Is it sport or is the lion exhibiting natural behaviour?


----------



## Sandstone1 (14 November 2022)

Lions kill for food to survive and feed the rest of the pride.  Not for fun or sport.  There is no comparison.


----------



## Fred66 (14 November 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Lions kill for food to survive and feed the rest of the pride.  Not for fun or sport.  There is no comparison.
		
Click to expand...

There are animals out there that kill for reasons other than food or survival.

Whilst some elements of hunting by humans might not always be for food, there is quite often an element that either directly or indirectly is related to the food chain or protection of that food chain.


----------



## Fred66 (14 November 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Is it sport or is the lion exhibiting natural behaviour?
		
Click to expand...

Is hunting not a natural behaviour of humans ?


----------



## Sandstone1 (14 November 2022)

Fred66 said:



			There are animals out there that kill for reasons other than food or survival.

Whilst some elements of hunting by humans might not always be for food, there is quite often an element that either directly or indirectly is related to the food chain or protection of that food chain.
		
Click to expand...

Fox hunting and shooting are predominantly for pleasure.  There are not many people that shoot to survive these days.  You can hardly compare a animal hunting for food to a organised shoot,   The only animal I can think of that kills for fun is the domestic cat.


----------



## sakura (14 November 2022)

YorksG said:



			I'm sure this has been asked before, but do those people who are against hunting and shooting, want to see both coarse and fly fishing banned?
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I do.


----------



## YorksG (14 November 2022)

Those who want to see fishing banned as well, do you live a vegan lifestyle?


----------



## Ratface (14 November 2022)

YorksG said:



			Those who want to see fishing banned as well, do you live a vegan lifestyle?
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I do, and have done for years.


----------



## Fred66 (14 November 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Question away, I turned the tables on what we do to animals in the name of “sport” perhaps you find the analogy uncomfortable.
		
Click to expand...

Obviously I can’t speak for YG, but on the basis that I agree with most of what she has posted on this thread , then no I don’t find it uncomfortable . I find the assigning of human emotions to animals a bit of a pointless exercise. 

Yes they feel pain and yes they can feel a form of fear but broadly speaking this is in the abstract. A flight animal such as a hare reacts to the immediate and imminent threat, it will be alert to its environment and potential dangers posed, but there is no evidence to suggest that they have the capacity to envisage the thought processes required to contemplate their mortality or dwell upon previous near misses or future events .

With predators such as a lion then the level of response to danger is even less evident. They are rarely hunted and danger is normally encountered when the prey they hunt fights rather than flees. There is minimal signs of fear in their reactions.


----------



## Fred66 (14 November 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Fox hunting and shooting are predominantly for pleasure.  There are not many people that shoot to survive these days.  You can hardly compare a animal hunting for food to a organised shoot,   The only animal I can think of that kills for fun is the domestic cat.
		
Click to expand...

Try the fox as well.


----------



## Millionwords (14 November 2022)

YorksG said:



			Those who want to see fishing banned as well, do you live a vegan lifestyle?
		
Click to expand...

Yes. Over 10 years now


----------



## YorksG (14 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			Yes. Over 10 years now
		
Click to expand...

Does that include not keeping any domestic animals?


----------



## minesadouble (14 November 2022)

I sincerely hope that every single person who speaks out against shooting on animal welfare grounds  does not eat mass produced chicken. 
I know where the greater welfare issues exist!


----------



## YorksG (14 November 2022)

Ratface said:



			Yes, I do, and have done for years.
		
Click to expand...

But I understand that you have a cat, which you feed meat to, or have I misunderstood that?


----------



## Koweyka (14 November 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Try the fox as well.
		
Click to expand...

What absolute rubbish.


----------



## Sandstone1 (14 November 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Try the fox as well.
		
Click to expand...

People do say that the fox kills for fun but I think its been shown that given the chance they will take all they kill and bury it for later use. 
Whatever you say or think about animals killing for fun its pretty sad if as humans who have evolved  we still need to kill for fun.


----------



## Millionwords (14 November 2022)

YorksG said:



			Does that include not keeping any domestic animals?
		
Click to expand...

Aside from the one which is pre-vegan?

Why do Non vegans hold vegans to being 100% perfect, when the point of veganism REDUCING harm as much as they can?

And yet those questioning don't hold themselves to any level because vegans aren't 100% and never claimed they were.

Thats entirely flawed logic on why you shouldn't do the best you can..."because they arent".
Its a ridiculous premise whether the subject is veganism or driving or anything else an individual does.


----------



## Sandstone1 (14 November 2022)

minesadouble said:



			I sincerely hope that every single person who speaks out against shooting on animal welfare grounds  does not eat mass produced chicken.
I know where the greater welfare issues exist!
		
Click to expand...

I certainly do not eat mass produced chicken.  Or any meat.


----------



## Fred66 (14 November 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Fox hunting and shooting are predominantly for pleasure.  There are not many people that shoot to survive these days.  You can hardly compare a animal hunting for food to a organised shoot,   The only animal I can think of that kills for fun is the domestic cat.
		
Click to expand...

I would imagine that many of you who are fervently arguing against any form of hunting are vegetarian which means that the following pov will not sway you either.

Chickens are raised for slaughter to feed people, they spend probably 6-8 weeks in barns in large numbers, some have access to outdoor areas some don’t, they are then collected and killed and enter the food chain 

Grouse and pheasant are raised outside, they have a life span upwards of 6 months, many will be shot some will escape. When dead some will enter the food chain some may not, to the dead animal it won’t matter.

Whilst hesitating to attribute human emotions to either bird I know which one I’d rather be.


----------



## YorksG (14 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			Aside from the one which is pre-vegan?

Why do Non vegans hold vegans to being 100% perfect, when the point of veganism REDUCING harm as much as they can?

And yet those questioning don't hold themselves to any level because vegans aren't 100% and never claimed they were.

Thats entirely flawed logic on why you shouldn't do the best you can..."because they arent".
Its a ridiculous premise whether the subject is veganism or driving or anything else an individual does.
		
Click to expand...

I think you rather misunderstood the point of my question, I do not consider shooting to be cruel (fishing I am not happy about, at all, in any form) I do consider that people who claim to be vegan, but have pets that eat meat, to be somewhat hypocritical, especially when they are anti hunting and shooting on so called moral and ethical grounds.


----------



## Millionwords (14 November 2022)

YorksG said:



			I think you rather misunderstood the point of my question, I do not consider shooting to be cruel (fishing I am not happy about, at all, in any form) I do consider that people who claim to be vegan, but have pets that eat meat, to be somewhat hypocritical, especially when they are anti hunting and shooting on so called moral and ethical grounds.
		
Click to expand...

I understood perfectly. What  is one supposed to do? Feed them something unsuitable? Pass them on? Shoot them?

Calling it hypocritical is exactly what my response is referring to. We are REDUCING harm as best we can given the circumstances.

Should we do nothing and tell people who do they are hypocrites?


----------



## Fred66 (14 November 2022)

Koweyka said:



			What absolute rubbish.
		
Click to expand...

The fox given enough time will kill all the prey it finds in one location, killing far more than it can eat.

So if we are attributing human emotions to animals what would you call this?


----------



## Sandstone1 (14 November 2022)

Fred66 said:



			I would imagine that many of you who are fervently arguing against any form of hunting are vegetarian which means that the following pov will not sway you either.

Chickens are raised for slaughter to feed people, they spend probably 6-8 weeks in barns in large numbers, some have access to outdoor areas some don’t, they are then collected and killed and enter the food chain

Grouse and pheasant are raised outside, they have a life span upwards of 6 months, many will be shot some will escape. When dead some will enter the food chain some may not, to the dead animal it won’t matter.

Whilst hesitating to attribute human emotions to either bird I know which one I’d rather be.
		
Click to expand...

I can see your point and do not disagree as I think factory farming is a abomination.  Personally I feel if someone kills a animal to eat and survive its one thing.  I do not think many people in this country do these days.  However to have a organised sport to kill animals for fun is to me morally wrong.


----------



## Koweyka (14 November 2022)

Fred66 said:



			The fox given enough time will kill all the prey it finds in one location, killing far more than it can eat.

So if we are attributing human emotions to animals what would you call this?
		
Click to expand...

I would call it caching.


----------



## Fred66 (14 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			I understood perfectly. What  is one supposed to do? Feed them something unsuitable? Pass them on? Shoot them?

Calling it hypocritical is exactly what my response is referring to. We are REDUCING harm as best we can given the circumstances.

Should we do nothing and tell people who do they are hypocrites?
		
Click to expand...

But if you are going to preach to others you should uphold those values, so you should not be having a pet cat.


----------



## Millionwords (14 November 2022)

Fred66 said:



			But if you are going to preach to others you should uphold those values, so you should not be having a pet cat.
		
Click to expand...

 I don't preach to anyone...I let folk eat what they want. Someone on this this thread asked.

I don't own a cat


----------



## Millionwords (14 November 2022)

Fred66 said:



			But if you are going to preach to others you should uphold those values, so you should not be having a pet cat.
		
Click to expand...

It seems you missed entirely thepoint of my earlier replies to YorksG.


----------



## Sandstone1 (14 November 2022)

Fred66 said:



			The fox given enough time will kill all the prey it finds in one location, killing far more than it can eat.

So if we are attributing human emotions to animals what would you call this?
		
Click to expand...

https://petkeen.com/why-foxes-kill-chickens-and-leave-them/


----------



## YorksG (14 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			I don't preach to anyone...I let folk eat what they want. Someone on this this thread asked.

I don't own a cat
		
Click to expand...

I asked and I will ask more clearly, if it is immoral to shoot to eat, why is it more moral to allow animals to be killed to feed your animal?


----------



## Millionwords (14 November 2022)

YorksG said:



			I think you rather misunderstood the point of my question, I do not consider shooting to be cruel (fishing I am not happy about, at all, in any form) I do consider that people who claim to be vegan, but have pets that eat meat, to be somewhat hypocritical, especially when they are anti hunting and shooting on so called moral and ethical grounds.
		
Click to expand...




Millionwords said:



			I understood perfectly. What  is one supposed to do? Feed them something unsuitable? Pass them on? Shoot them?

Calling it hypocritical is exactly what my response is referring to. We are REDUCING harm as best we can given the circumstances.

Should we do nothing and tell people who do they are hypocrites?
		
Click to expand...


what would you suggest we do? I don't think you are comprehending what I wrote?


----------



## Sandstone1 (14 November 2022)

Its immoral to shoot for fun.  If you live half way up a mountain and cant get to your local supermarket if you want to shoot the odd rabbit for the pot thats one thing.  If you enjoy blasting birds out of the sky purely for fun that is immoral.
I do not own a cat either.


----------



## Millionwords (14 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			Aside from the one which is pre-vegan?

Why do Non vegans hold vegans to being 100% perfect, when the point of veganism REDUCING harm as much as they can?

And yet those questioning don't hold themselves to any level because vegans aren't 100% and never claimed they were.

Thats entirely flawed logic on why you shouldn't do the best you can..."because they arent".
Its a ridiculous premise whether the subject is veganism or driving or anything else an individual does.
		
Click to expand...

@YorksG im not sure what you don't understand about this statement?


----------



## skinnydipper (14 November 2022)

David Tomlinson wrote an article in the Shooting Times about the problem of disposing of surplus shot game and the correspondents all agreed too many shoots producing too much excess game for game dealers to cope with.  I take it then that those people don't know what they are talking about.


----------



## YorksG (14 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			what would you suggest we do? I don't think you are comprehending what I wrote?
		
Click to expand...

I comprehend what you have written, I am presuming from your response that you owned the animal prior to becoming vegan, although you did not state that. I can however believe that it is hypocritical to feed your animal on meat, while decreeing that people who shoot for food, are immoral.


----------



## Millionwords (14 November 2022)

YorksG said:



			I comprehend what you have written, I am presuming from your response that you owned the animal prior to becoming vegan, although you did not state that. I can however believe that it is hypocritical to feed your animal on meat, while decreeing that people who shoot for food, are immoral.
		
Click to expand...

Most are shooting for fun.  Not food.


----------



## YorksG (14 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			Most are shooting for fun.  Not food.
		
Click to expand...

You have asked them all? Or are you saying that the kill is not eaten? Do you believe it is immoral to shoot rabbits


----------



## Millionwords (14 November 2022)

YorksG said:



			You have asked them all? Or are you saying that the kill is not eaten? Do you believe it is immoral to shoot rabbits
		
Click to expand...




skinnydipper said:



			David Tomlinson wrote an article in the Shooting Times about the problem of disposing of surplus shot game and the correspondents all agreed too many shoots producing too much excess game for game dealers to cope with.  I take it then that those people don't know what they are talking about.
		
Click to expand...

I have not asked them. But as Sandstone1 said above...

Why must my thought's have be whiter than white before other people do some self reflection of issues raised?

I'm perfectly happy with my actions in the world, and I seek ways to improve on that when I can. It doesn't need justifying, when there are so many others doing nothing or doing active harm.


----------



## Clodagh (14 November 2022)

Why is getting enjoyment out of something so awful?
In Australia they stopped duck shooting (I believe as a result of anti pressure). Over the next few years the duck population grew to the point they were dying of disease. People were then paid to go and cull them.
So I assume it’s ok to kill something if there’s no enjoyment?
Man has always hunted and people who think we should have evolved beyond that sort of thing well we really aren’t a different level of being.


----------



## YorksG (14 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			I have not asked them. But as Sandstone1 said above...

Why must my thought's have be whiter than white before other people do some self reflection of issues raised?

I'm perfectly happy with my actions in the world, and I seek ways to improve on that when I can. It doesn't need justifying, when there are so many others doing nothing or doing active harm.
		
Click to expand...

I'm glad you are happy with your actions, however being whiter than white is rather necessary, if you are calling others out for their legal activities, imo


----------



## skinnydipper (14 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			Why is getting enjoyment out of something so awful?
		
Click to expand...

If that something is killing for pleasure, then yes I do think it is awful.


----------



## Millionwords (14 November 2022)

YorksG said:



			.... however being whiter than white is rather necessary, if you are calling others out for their legal activities, imo
		
Click to expand...

Well that's a silly stance isn't it? If that was the case there wouldn't be child welfare laws, or any positive change of things that were previously considered legal since the dawn of man.


----------



## Sandstone1 (14 November 2022)

I for one find someone getting pleasure from killing something very unsettling and unpalatable.    If you really need to kill something to eat that is one thing but quite unlikely in this day and age in this country.  If you get fun and pleasure from taking the life of a living, feeling sentient being in the name of sport I personally find that immoral.


----------



## Fred66 (14 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			It seems you missed entirely thepoint of my earlier replies to YorksG.
		
Click to expand...

Apologies then


----------



## YorksG (14 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			Well that's a silly stance isn't it? If that was the case there wouldn't be child welfare laws, or any positive change of things that were previously considered legal since the dawn of man.
		
Click to expand...

So if someone wants to protect children, it's OK if they harm children? Surely if someone is a slave owner, they do not have the moral stance to tell others not to own slaves.  Now that would be silly


----------



## YorksG (14 November 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			I for one find someone getting pleasure from killing something very unsettling and unpalatable.    If you really need to kill something to eat that is one thing but quite unlikely in this day and age in this country.  If you get fun and pleasure from taking the life of a living, feeling sentient being in the name of sport I personally find that immoral.
		
Click to expand...

So by that reasoning, no one who eats meat should enjoy it?


----------



## Fred66 (14 November 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			I for one find someone getting pleasure from killing something very unsettling and unpalatable.    If you really need to kill something to eat that is one thing but quite unlikely in this day and age in this country.  If you get fun and pleasure from taking the life of a living, feeling sentient being in the name of sport I personally find that immoral.
		
Click to expand...

Which is absolutely fine, morals are personal and it is absolutely ok for us all to have different ones, however equally I find it wrong to try and bully or shame others into having the same as you (you generically not you personally - I am not accusing you of bullying)


----------



## Millionwords (14 November 2022)

YorksG said:



			So if someone wants to protect children, it's OK if they harm children? Surely if someone is a slave owner, they do not have the moral stance to tell others not to own slaves.  Now that would be silly
		
Click to expand...

I have been polite in my responses, you're being deliberately obtuse. I'm not going to continue with this particular conversation as you are making it pointless, and almost personal.


----------



## stangs (14 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			Why is getting enjoyment out of something so awful?
In Australia they stopped duck shooting (I believe as a result of anti pressure). Over the next few years the duck population grew to the point they were dying of disease. People were then paid to go and cull them.
So I assume it’s ok to kill something if there’s no enjoyment?
Man has always hunted and people who think we should have evolved beyond that sort of thing well we really aren’t a different level of being.
		
Click to expand...

It’s about whether the enjoyment is the primary reason for killing I believe. 

If you shoot to maintain population levels, and you enjoy the act of killing as a byproduct, that may be immoral (depending on who you ask and their views of consciousness), but it wouldn’t be unethical. 

If you shoot solely for enjoyment, without care for the conservation of the species e.g., trophy hunting, that’s both immoral and unethical. 

If your enjoyment of shooting results in deliberate breeding of animals, so it then becomes an environmental must to shoot them, the waters become very murky and it does become unethical. It’s an ethically slippery slope from Texan exotic hunting ranches to grouse moors.

(Big “imo” disclaimer)


----------



## shortstuff99 (14 November 2022)

The whole thing is a bit weird though isn't it when you think about it. Who decided on where the line was?

Why is shooting a bird for fun = okay

Shooting a cat for fun = not okay.


----------



## Millionwords (14 November 2022)

stangs said:



			It’s about whether the enjoyment is the primary reason for killing I believe. 

If you shoot to maintain population levels, and you enjoy the act of killing as a byproduct, that may be immoral (depending on who you ask and their views of consciousness), but it wouldn’t be unethical. 

If you shoot solely for enjoyment, without care for the conservation of the species e.g., trophy hunting, that’s both immoral and unethical. 

If your enjoyment of shooting results in deliberate breeding of animals, so it then becomes an environmental must to shoot them, the waters become very murky and it does become unethical. It’s an ethically slippery slope from Texan exotic hunting ranches to grouse moors.

(Big “imo” disclaimer)
		
Click to expand...

This in spades.


----------



## stangs (14 November 2022)

Also the issue with the argument of “man has always hunted” is that the playing fields have become increasingly unequal, as technology develops. And, unlike our fellow top predators, hunting is very low risk to us. A lioness can’t kill for fun, because every wildebeest she goes for comes with the serious risk of a kick to the head. Meantime, I can go shoot a nice stag up in Scotland without ever worrying about my safety. 

And more than that, hunting for sport is all about getting the best reward. The biggest fish, the stag with the nicest antlers, etc. This means we’re going against evolution. Other predators only pick on the weakest link.


----------



## HeresHoping (14 November 2022)

Fred66 said:



			Try the fox as well.
		
Click to expand...

And the lion. And quite a few of the big cats, actually. And hyenas and hunting dogs.


----------



## Clodagh (14 November 2022)

stangs said:



			Also the issue with the argument of “man has always hunted” is that the playing fields have become increasingly unequal, as technology develops. And, unlike our fellow top predators, hunting is very low risk to us. A lioness can’t kill for fun, because every wildebeest she goes for comes with the serious risk of a kick to the head. Meantime, I can go shoot a nice stag up in Scotland without ever worrying about my safety.

And more than that, hunting for sport is all about getting the best reward. The biggest fish, the stag with the nicest antlers, etc. This means we’re going against evolution. Other predators only pick on the weakest link.
		
Click to expand...

They only cull the trophy stags when they are no longer adding anything to the gene pool. Not that I know an enormous amount about stalking.


----------



## Clodagh (14 November 2022)

stangs said:



			It’s about whether the enjoyment is the primary reason for killing I believe.

If you shoot to maintain population levels, and you enjoy the act of killing as a byproduct, that may be immoral (depending on who you ask and their views of consciousness), but it wouldn’t be unethical.

If you shoot solely for enjoyment, without care for the conservation of the species e.g., trophy hunting, that’s both immoral and unethical.

If your enjoyment of shooting results in deliberate breeding of animals, so it then becomes an environmental must to shoot them, the waters become very murky and it does become unethical. It’s an ethically slippery slope from Texan exotic hunting ranches to grouse moors.

(Big “imo” disclaimer)
		
Click to expand...

Trophy hunting generally does good for the species, I think.


----------



## YorksG (14 November 2022)

shortstuff99 said:



			The whole thing is a bit weird though isn't it when you think about it. Who decided on where the line was?

Why is shooting a bird for fun = okay

Shooting a cat for fun = not okay.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe because we don't eat cats, as they are carnivores.


----------



## HeresHoping (14 November 2022)

skinnydipper said:



			David Tomlinson wrote an article in the Shooting Times about the problem of disposing of surplus shot game and the correspondents all agreed too many shoots producing too much excess game for game dealers to cope with.  I take it then that those people don't know what they are talking about.
		
Click to expand...

So, we are making concerted efforts to reduce the numbers of birds shot. Pretty much all of us. And making a point of 'you shoot it, it gets eaten.' And as I have said, numbers are reducing due to grain price and bird flu.


----------



## Clodagh (14 November 2022)

So it’s ok to eat chicken as they are loaded by the legs, electrocuted and dismembered by people paid to do it, who presumably don’t get a lot of pleasure out of it (excepting the odd Bernard Matthews employee) but it’s not ok to shoot and eat a pheasant and enjoy the challenge?


----------



## Miss_Millie (14 November 2022)

YorksG said:



			Maybe because we don't eat cats, as they are carnivores.
		
Click to expand...

Some cultures do eat cats and dogs.


----------



## shortstuff99 (14 November 2022)

YorksG said:



			Maybe because we don't eat cats, as they are carnivores.
		
Click to expand...

Some cultures do eat cats which means it should be okay to kill a cat?

But it isn't is it? Someone has decided somewhere what animals are worth and which ones get to live and die. That's fine, but I would rather not be involved in that so I don't.


----------



## stangs (14 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			Trophy hunting generally does good for the species, I think.
		
Click to expand...

True, but that’s a byproduct of the economic benefit to the region rather than directly benefiting the species.

(Having said that, I’m woefully uneducated on how prey is selected in African trophy hunting expeditions. But I do know that f*ck all goes into conservation or choosing bloodlines in ex-situ trophy hunting ranches.)


----------



## shortstuff99 (14 November 2022)

stangs said:



			True, but that’s a byproduct of the economic benefit to the region rather than directly benefiting the species.

(Having said that, I’m woefully uneducated on how prey is selected in African trophy hunting expeditions. But I do know that f*ck all goes into conservation or choosing bloodlines in ex-situ trophy hunting ranches.)
		
Click to expand...

In a lot (not all) African trophy hunting they have bred the animals specifically for hunting. These animals live in small parks to be shot. The money paid for this often (but not always) goes to funding conservation of wild populations. The conflict comes when people pay, essentially poachers, large amounts of money to shoot wild populations that they shouldn't be shooting.


----------



## sakura (14 November 2022)

YorksG said:



			Those who want to see fishing banned as well, do you live a vegan lifestyle?
		
Click to expand...

Also yes.


----------



## sakura (14 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			Trophy hunting generally does good for the species, I think.
		
Click to expand...

I think the western black rhino would disagree.


----------



## ycbm (14 November 2022)

HeresHoping said:



			So, we are making concerted efforts to reduce the numbers of birds shot. Pretty much all of us.
		
Click to expand...

Serious question,  are you including commercial shoots in that?  I don't understand how they would be trying to kill fewer birds when their customers are paying (eye watering amounts)  to shoot? 
.


----------



## Fred66 (14 November 2022)

shortstuff99 said:



			The whole thing is a bit weird though isn't it when you think about it. Who decided on where the line was?

Why is shooting a bird for fun = okay

Shooting a cat for fun = not okay.
		
Click to expand...

Because in this country the birds are in the food chain cats aren’t 

Because the birds are either wild or farmed and not someone’s pet


----------



## HeresHoping (14 November 2022)

ycbm said:



			Serious question,  are you including commercial shoots in that?  I don't understand how they would be trying to kill fewer birds when their customers are paying (eye watering amounts)  to shoot?
.
		
Click to expand...

Yes. Absolutely. Not all of them, there are some laggers. Inevitably. But yes. Far more 200 bird days than 500 now. Covid, bird flu and the price of wheat have meant fewer birds put down. And yes, they are expensive. And, there is such pressure from within to reap what you sow, even on commercial shoots, that many of those birds will go to the Country Food Trust and similar.

Sometimes the first shoots of the season can be big bag days; but after a few weeks the birds get wise, too.... (e.g. recently, 5 drives, 11 guns, 14 brace - plenty of birds, all going in the wrong direction).


----------



## Clodagh (14 November 2022)

shortstuff99 said:



			In a lot (not all) African trophy hunting they have bred the animals specifically for hunting. These animals live in small parks to be shot. The money paid for this often (but not always) goes to funding conservation of wild populations. The conflict comes when people pay, essentially poachers, large amounts of money to shoot wild populations that they shouldn't be shooting.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, I wasn’t meaning that sort of appalling set up. More a Cecil the Lion scenario. Tbh I know as much about African big game hunting as I do upland stalking!


----------



## Clodagh (14 November 2022)

It’s odd though, many of you on here without knowing me would consider me a despicable, immoral person as I work my dogs on shoots. I don’t actually shoot anything but love dog work. 
I loved fox hunting because I loved hound work. 
I accept it is entirely inexplicable and unjustifiable to anyone anti and I can’t explain why watching dogs do what they were bred to do pretty well gets me out of bed in the morning. But there you go. I’m an addict.


----------



## Millionwords (14 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			It’s odd though, many of you on here without knowing me would consider me a despicable, immoral person as I work my dogs on shoots. I don’t actually shoot anything but love dog work. 
I loved fox hunting because I loved hound work. 
I accept it is entirely inexplicable and unjustifiable to anyone anti and I can’t explain why watching dogs do what they were bred to do pretty well gets me out of bed in the morning. But there you go. I’m an addict.
		
Click to expand...

I disagree with plenty of opinions on this forum, with people and farmers i have to work alongside, but everyone has good in them and are doing what they feel is the right thing, just because I don't agree doesn't make them any less nice to talk to.

Theres too much division in the world, and in an age of social media, its easy to ignore the human, feeling, kind part of people unless you make the effort not to do so, which we should.

I don't feel any ire or overarching judgement towards anyone here, nor at work. Its nice that we can each learn from one another, topics here have made me reflect on and investigate my own stance on more than a handful of occasions. 
That can only be a good thing we should all aim to do.


----------



## shortstuff99 (14 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			Sorry, I wasn’t meaning that sort of appalling set up. More a Cecil the Lion scenario. Tbh I know as much about African big game hunting as I do upland stalking!
		
Click to expand...

If I remember rightly the hunter of Cecil paid  a poacher to take him to kill him which is why there was such outcry and talks about prosecution.


----------



## moosea (14 November 2022)

YorksG said:



			I'm sure this has been asked before, but do those people who are against hunting and shooting, want to see both coarse and fly fishing banned?
		
Click to expand...

Yes.



YorksG said:



			Do you seriously believe that animals have those thought processes and fears?
		
Click to expand...

Yes I do. Not sure how we know what animals are and are not capable of thinking? 
When a dog waits for its owner to return home do you not consider that the dog is thinking into the future? of their companions return?
You must know horses will remember something that made them fearful before? (ie. loading into a trailer)



Fred66 said:



			Is hunting not a natural behaviour of humans ?
		
Click to expand...

Yes, but consider that once humans squatted down to pee whenever they needed to but I hope you are not continuing that natural behavior! 



YorksG said:



			Those who want to see fishing banned as well, do you live a vegan lifestyle?
		
Click to expand...

Vegetarian. No meat, no eggs, no fish. 
Butter, milk and cheese can be produced without killing or harming the animal. I know that this is often not the case for financial reasons but it can be done.



Fred66 said:



			Obviously I can’t speak for YG, but on the basis that I agree with most of what she has posted on this thread , then no I don’t find it uncomfortable . I find the assigning of human emotions to animals a bit of a pointless exercise.

*Yes they feel pain and yes they can feel a form of fear but broadly speaking this is in the abstract. A flight animal such as a hare reacts to the immediate and imminent threat, it will be alert to its environment and potential dangers posed, but there is no evidence to suggest that they have the capacity to envisage the thought processes required to contemplate their mortality or dwell upon previous near misses or future events .*

With predators such as a lion then the level of response to danger is even less evident. They are rarely hunted and danger is normally encountered when the prey they hunt fights rather than flees. There is minimal signs of fear in their reactions.
		
Click to expand...

If the hare does not 'have the capacity to envisage the thought processes required to contemplate their mortality or dwell upon previous near misses or future events' then why is it 'alert to its environment and potential dangers posed'? If it has not got capacity for future events, then the hare wouldn't look at it's environment for potential dangers as it couldn't think of future events? How does that work for you? ( Genuine question)



Clodagh said:



			Why is getting enjoyment out of something so awful?
In Australia they stopped duck shooting (I believe as a result of anti pressure). Over the next few years the duck population grew to the point they were dying of disease. People were then paid to go and cull them.
So I assume it’s ok to kill something if there’s no enjoyment?
*Man has always hunted and people who think we should have evolved beyond that sort of thing well we really aren’t a different level of being.*

Click to expand...

Previously man has enjoyed bear baiting and dog fighting. We 'should' be more evolved. Behaviour changes over time and once, people thought hunting was a good thing. Now the majority see is as outdated and barbaric. It's how change happens.



Clodagh said:



			Trophy hunting generally does good for the species, I think.
		
Click to expand...

How???


----------



## Clodagh (15 November 2022)

The hare is alert through instinct and learning. I doubt it sits in its form having an anxiety attack about the future.
Doesn’t trophy hunting pay local people to not raze everything to the ground to grow crops? I don’t know that much about it. Also older animals don’t mind procreation with their offspring and can get very inbred.


----------



## meleeka (15 November 2022)

Not sure if this has already been posted 
https://www.itv.com/news/2022-11-14/bird-of-prey-persecution-remains-at-high-level-rspb-report-warns


----------



## ycbm (15 November 2022)

I would like to see illegal hunting stop now,  snares made illegal from tomorrow,  and eventually coarse/fly fishing and shooting shut down in a way that gives everyone enough time to adjust to the idea.

I eat meat,  and supermarket meat at that. 

I don't see any more conflict in that position than eating meat and being against the idea that my town, whose local fame is being "Bear Town", shouldn't ever again borrow from the bible fund to buy a dancing bear. 
.


----------



## stangs (15 November 2022)

moosea said:



			How???
		
Click to expand...

https://www.conservationfrontlines.org/2020/01/trophy-hunting-and-conservation-science/ - in short, sustainable and regulated trophy hunting supports both people and animals, and helps protect species against poaching. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667010021001542 - this paper provides a review of trophy hunting in practice, and therefore makes for a more nuanced discussion on its benefits and consequences, in an area that's not normally associated with it. I'm providing some of the best bits of it, as it really got me thinking.



Spoiler



- Carbon and development footprints of trophy hunting programmes had also been lower than that of tourism (Di Minin et al., 2016a). It is a growing industry with a revenue of at least US$201 million per year in South Africa (Harris and Pletscher, 2002; Lindsey et al., 2007, 2006). Trophy hunting accounted for about 89% of the total revenue compared to 2% for ecotourism in Zimbabwe (Frost and Bond, 2008). Similarly, trophy hunting in Namibia led to the creation of community conservancies where local communities reap many social and economic benefits (Naidoo et al., 2016). Studies also suggest that restricting trophy hunting would adversely affect conservation (Maxi Pia Louis, 2019), and accelerate the loss of biodiversity (Di Minin et al., 2016b; Mbaiwa, 2018), restrict rewards, and demotivate local communities (Conrad, 2012).

- Although studies suggest that trophy hunting can benefit biodiversity (Baker 1997; B. Khan, et al., 2014; Naidoo et al., 2016; Nawaz et al., 2016) but hunting of fellow sentient beings for pleasure and trophies is often questioned, which limits its usefulness as an effective conservation tool (Costanza et al., 2016; Crosmary et al., 2015; Di Minin et al., 2016b; Muposhi et al., 2016; Rashid et al., 2020a). Apart from ethical obligations of trophy huntig to human communities and wildlife populations, the flaws in wildlife use regulations, revenue generation from TH programs, and its distribution are amongst the main debates about reforming the trophy hunting industry (Muposhi et al., 2016). Studies indicate that in hunted populations, animals showed clear signs of disturbance i.e., smaller group sizes, lower calf recruitment rates, and high nervousness than conspecifics in the absence of trophy hunting (Hariohay et al., 2018; Khan et al., 2019; Rashid et al., 2020). The private sector is said to reap more from trophy hunting fees than local communities (Nowak et al., 2019), which adversely affects wildlife conservation and management of protected areas (Di Minin et al., 2016a).

- In Pakistan, 80 per cent of the CTHP [community-based trophy hunting] revenue from CCAs [community conservation areas] goes directly to local communities, which is partly utilized for conservation activities i.e., wildlife watch & ward, livestock vaccination, and habitat improvement etc., (30%) and community welfare, livelihood improvement, and poverty alleviation programs (70%) in community conservation areas.

- In Tajikistan, trophy hunts of Bocharian markhor generated an estimated US$ 100,000 per hunt (McEnroe, 2017; Rosen and Stefan, 2012). Fifty percent of the trophy hunting revenue was used directly for species conservation, i.e., protection and habitat improvement. The rest is contributed to raising awareness about the conservation value of markhor and harnessing local support to protect other associated species and their habitats. In all the four community-led conservancies, recovery of Markhor populations has been successful mainly because of the trophy hunting revenue, employing local people as wildlife guards, and funding a range of community development initiatives.

- Unregulated and poorly managed hunting programs can lead to several social and ecological challenges including rapid declines in globally significant populations of rare and unique wildlife species (Nordbø et al., 2018) even in conserved and protected areas.

- A study conducted to estimate the snow leopard population in the Baltistan district of Gilgit-Baltistan between 1998 and 2001 suggested that non-targeted conservation policies, particularly those for trophy hunting of ungulates, could be one of the reasons contributing to the decline snow leopards in that period (Hussain, 2003; Jackson, 2004). In comparison, trophy hunting concessions for Ibex and Argali sheep have shown greater densities of the threatened Snow Leopards in Tajikistan than surrounding areas with no practice of trophy hunting, probably due to greater prey densities and controlled poaching (Kachel, 2014).

- Because of the lack of robust wildlife tracking systems, accurate data is seldom available, and quota allocation is often unclear. Research collaboration at the landscape level for scientific and joint monitoring of wildlife, habitat mapping, and cross-border movement of trophy animals is urgently needed to set agreed scientific standards for conservation hunting programs.


----------



## Clodagh (15 November 2022)

I admit I absolutely don’t see the point in shooting a giraffe, but if it overall does good for all giraffes then I can see it’s justification.


----------



## Clodagh (15 November 2022)

ycbm said:



			I eat meat,  and supermarket meat at that.
.
		
Click to expand...

I find that view incredibly hypocritical.


----------



## ycbm (15 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			I find that view incredibly hypocritical.
		
Click to expand...

I can live with that. 

We have a fundamental split, and I think I know where the majority lies on that split,  between Country Sports supporters and people who do not believe, in this day and age, that it is right to kill (or catch and return in the case of most fish) animals as a passtime. 
.


----------



## Sandstone1 (15 November 2022)

People that enjoy killing and hurting animals sometimes go on to kill and hurt people.  I know if children are found to enjoy hurting animals it can be a red flag for later problems.


----------



## Fred66 (15 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			The hare is alert through instinct and learning. I doubt it sits in its form having an anxiety attack about the future.
		
Click to expand...

 As Clodagh says. It is inherent in all prey animals rather than conscious thought.

It can be a learned behaviour, you would see heightened response and awareness in elite sports (such as Formula 1) or elite soldiers.

This learning eventually can move to be subconscious awareness but doesn’t mean that the individual is consciously fretting about what might happen, just that their subconscious would prompt them ahead of conscious thought.

Ie most of us would see something, process the sight, recognise a hazard, and react to that sight. Whereas those who have trained to do something then the steps are less defined and the middle steps become almost defunct, leaving just the see-react steps


----------



## Fred66 (15 November 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			People that enjoy killing and hurting animals sometimes go on to kill and hurt people.  I know if children are found to enjoy hurting animals it can be a red flag for later problems.
		
Click to expand...

If you are talking about deliberately torturing an animal then yes it would be a red flag, but where the killing is for a purpose such as pest control, eating etc. then I don’t believe there is any correlation.


----------



## YorksG (15 November 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			People that enjoy killing and hurting animals sometimes go on to kill and hurt people.  I know if children are found to enjoy hurting animals it can be a red flag for later problems.
		
Click to expand...

People who don't enjoy killing and hurting animals sometimes go on to kill and hurt people.


----------



## sunleychops (15 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			Why do Non vegans hold vegans to being 100% perfect, when the point of veganism REDUCING harm as much as they can?
		
Click to expand...

Because of the amount of virtue signalling from the vegan brigade who make themselves out to be perfect


----------



## sakura (15 November 2022)

stangs said:



https://www.conservationfrontlines.org/2020/01/trophy-hunting-and-conservation-science/ - in short, sustainable and regulated trophy hunting supports both people and animals, and helps protect species against poaching.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667010021001542 - this paper provides a review of trophy hunting in practice, and therefore makes for a more nuanced discussion on its benefits and consequences, in an area that's not normally associated with it. I'm providing some of the best bits of it, as it really got me thinking.
		
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but trophy hunting is absolutely *not* beneficial to wild populations. Poaching, and by extension trophy hunting, is turning endangered animals into extinct animals. Those who live in the local communities are not wild and uncivilised people who would otherwise burn their land to the ground. They respect the local wildlife, and many risk their own lives to protect them. Much of the trophy hunting community are white westerners who couldn't care less about wild populations and are happy to spend ££££s to pose with a dead animal.

The bottom line is that we simply do not know how individual species think, feel and process the world. We barely understand how other humans do. In that respect, I know they can feel pain and fear and that is enough for me to campaign against causing them unnecessary harm.


----------



## Gallop_Away (15 November 2022)

ycbm said:



			I can live with that. 

We have a fundamental split, and I think I know where the majority lies on that split,  between Country Sports supporters and people who do not believe, in this day and age, that it is right to kill (or catch and return in the case of most fish) animals as a passtime. 
.
		
Click to expand...

This is where I struggle with this view and I agree with Clodagh completely in that I find it hypocritical. 

Why is it morally wrong to kill an animal for the pleasure of sport, but not morally wrong to kill for the pleasure of eating them? 

Also in response to an earlier comment, I don't think it's so much that vegans are expected to be whiter than white simply because they are vegan/vegetarian/disagree with hunting animals etc etc. It's more that if you are willing to pass judgement on others for their views/lifestyle choices, then it is hypocritical when you yourself behave in a way that causes a similar outcome that you are judging others for. People in glass houses and all that jazz


----------



## palo1 (15 November 2022)

I think people should remember that in humans, much of memory, learning and emotion and the neurological and cognitive processes connected with those reside in the pre-frontal cortex. It is a development that does not have the same extent or function in other mammals so whilst we have many similarities with other mammals, ascribing our emotional experience to them is non-sensical and uninformed.  All mammals use a combination of thought, memory/learning and instinct to survive but that simply does not mean that their experiences are like ours.   We need to respect the real position of animals I think in order to provide the best for them.

As for trophy hunting, it is pretty well established, that however distasteful, the scientific evidence supports trophy hunting for species level conservation.  I would not choose to trophy hunt (and I don't mean 'canned' hunting which is another thing altogether and probably without any benefit at all) but if we want time to work out better ways to manage biodiversity, at this point in time, trophy hunting is doing a service to wildlife.  There was a huge hoo-haa from the scientific community a couple of years ago about this. 

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...fforts-scientists-warn-trophy-hunting-dispute


----------



## palo1 (15 November 2022)

sakura said:



			I'm sorry, but trophy hunting is absolutely *not* beneficial to wild populations. Poaching, and by extension trophy hunting, is turning endangered animals into extinct animals. Those who live in the local communities are not wild and uncivilised people who would otherwise burn their land to the ground. They respect the local wildlife, and many risk their own lives to protect them. Much of the trophy hunting community are white westerners who couldn't care less about wild populations and are happy to spend ££££s to pose with a dead animal.

The bottom line is that we simply do not know how individual species think, feel and process the world. We barely understand how other humans do. In that respect, I know they can feel pain and fear and that is enough for me to campaign against causing them unnecessary harm.
		
Click to expand...

This is pretty much hogwash. Sorry, but you may be better off doing some basic research before being so adamant about things that have considerable research available on the subject.


----------



## stangs (15 November 2022)

sakura said:



			I'm sorry, but trophy hunting is absolutely *not* beneficial to wild populations. Poaching, and by extension trophy hunting, is turning endangered animals into extinct animals. Those who live in the local communities are not wild and uncivilised people who would otherwise burn their land to the ground. They respect the local wildlife, and many risk their own lives to protect them. Much of the trophy hunting community are white westerners who couldn't care less about wild populations and are happy to spend ££££s to pose with a dead animal.

The bottom line is that we simply do not know how individual species think, feel and process the world. We barely understand how other humans do. In that respect, I know they can feel pain and fear and that is enough for me to campaign against causing them unnecessary harm.
		
Click to expand...

...Did you read any of the research I attached?

You cannot say "poaching and by extension trophy hunting". Though there is occasionally some overlap, one of those industries is always unregulated and illegal, and doesn't produce much income for the local people who do it, and the other produces a huge amount of income, some of which goes to the local people, and a hell of a lot of which goes back towards conservation. Poaching is not sustainable. Trophy hunting can be.

No one has said that the local communities are wild and uncivilised. No one has said that they're going to 'burn their land to the ground'. If you cared so much about pain, you wouldn't attack a poor strawman like this . The fact of the matter is that many of the local populations are poor, and consequently human-animal conflict (e.g., elephants destroying crops), has a huge impact on their livelihoods. Trophy hunting (more so than ecotourism/photo-tourism, because of how much people will pay for it) gives the presence of these animals in the local area a value. It gives the people income, so they don't have to turn to poaching. People don't poach for fun. They don't do it because they're obsessed with killing - as one might attribute to trophy hunters - but rather because they need to survive. There is nothing uncivilised about deciding to feed your children over saving the local lion. There's examples of this in Botswana, Kenya and Tanzania, to start: the banning of trophy hunting leads to poaching sky-rocketing, and populations crashing down.

And, yes, we don't know how individual species process the world. But we will never find that out if the whole species goes extinct because the morality of killing the occasional conscious being was prioritised over saving the actual animals.


----------



## palo1 (15 November 2022)

ycbm said:



			I can live with that.

We have a fundamental split, and I think I know where the majority lies on that split,  between Country Sports supporters and people who do not believe, in this day and age, that it is right to kill (or catch and return in the case of most fish) animals as a passtime.
.
		
Click to expand...

It is very difficult to respect that hypocrisy.  If it is ok for you to have the right to kill, by proxy, animals that provide food pleasure for you but are not necessary nutritionally, then your choice to contribute to the living hell that intensively reared chickens and pigs, (including for sausages, bacon etc) are subjected to, makes a nonsense of judging anyone else for contributing to the death of another animal.  In the case of wild animals, or those with a higher quality of life, even if that is provided for shooting for example, where the animal has a far greater chance to enact all of it's natural behaviours in an environment that is natural for it, then your position is even weaker.  I can't get my head around that at all.  

For those people who assert that no tolerance should be given to behaviour that they judge immoral, then there is both a disconnect and a rejection of the very values that enable us to largely live peacefully here; for example the practice of ritual slaughter is protected by law for communities in the UK, yet many would view that practice as cruel and immoral.  However, we are a country that believes in tolerance and in not forcing our moral frameworks on everyone in society.  The outspoken shaming of people for views that they are entitled to hold is...disturbing in that context.


----------



## sakura (15 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			This is pretty much hogwash. Sorry, but you may be better off doing some basic research before being so adamant about things that have considerable research available on the subject.
		
Click to expand...

I literally work in wildlife conservation, that is my full time job so please don't assume I know nothing because you disagree with me. 

I did read the articles, I disagree with them. I do not believe trophy hunting or poaching help wild populations - it is my personal and professional opinion that both are incredibly damaging and harmful.


----------



## sakura (15 November 2022)

stangs said:



			No one has said that they're going to 'burn their land to the ground'.
		
Click to expand...

Respectfully, yes they did:

"Doesn’t trophy hunting pay local people to not raze everything to the ground to grow crops?" post #4,142


----------



## palo1 (15 November 2022)

sakura said:



			I literally work in wildlife conservation, that is my full time job so please don't assume I know nothing because you disagree with me.

I did read the articles, I disagree with them. I do not believe trophy hunting or poaching help wild populations - it is my personal and professional opinion that both are incredibly damaging and harmful.
		
Click to expand...

That is both odd and slightly concerning to me. I respect that you have a professional view and I am interested to know what research supports contesting what has become quite a well respected position on the value of trophy hunting?


----------



## sakura (15 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			That is both odd and slightly concerning to me. I respect that you have a professional view and I am interested to know what research supports contesting what has become quite a well respected position on the value of trophy hunting?
		
Click to expand...

I‘m not sure what value a conversation will have considering you find my viewpoint odd. You’re stating opinions as facts. Some conservationists do regard trophy hunting as a positive, some do not. I am the later and I can assure you not alone in my view. But thank you for your concern.


----------



## stangs (15 November 2022)

sakura said:



			I‘m not sure what value a conversation will have considering you find my viewpoint odd. You’re stating opinions as facts. Some conservations do regard trophy hunting as a positive, some do not. I am the later and I can assure you not alone in my view. But thank you for your concern.
		
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but what research, species case studies, etc. has given you the opinion that it's harmful for conservation? It's a genuine question, as everything I've read has largely been positive. Are you in favour of a complete ban?


----------



## sakura (15 November 2022)

stangs said:



			Fair enough, but what research, species case studies, etc. has given you the opinion that it's harmful for conservation? It's a genuine question, as everything I've read has largely been in favour of it.
		
Click to expand...

I work with primates. Primates are targeted in the trophy hunting industry as well as big cats - specifically vervets and other old worlds. In the case of vervets, it's almost exclusively adults who are killed, with no regard to orphans. Monkey politics and social hierarchies are incredibly complex and intricate - it is my personal and professional opinion that this has a negative impact on familial group dynamics and therefore their conservation. Perhaps my opinion is based in emotions, but I challenge anyone working with primates day in and day out to see them as anything other than emotive.


----------



## palo1 (15 November 2022)

sakura said:



			I work with primates. Primates are targeted in the trophy hunting industry as well as big cats - specifically vervets and other old worlds. In the case of vervets, it's almost exclusively adults who are killed, with no regard to orphans. Monkey politics and social hierarchies are incredibly complex and intricate - it is my personal and professional opinion that this has a negative impact on familial group dynamics and therefore their conservation. Perhaps my opinion is based in emotions, but I challenge anyone working with primates day in and day out to see them as anything other than emotive.
		
Click to expand...

I wonder, for those hunting primates as trophies, what the 'reward' is?  Is it related to skill?  What sort of people pay to hunt and kill monkeys?  That seems very distasteful to me tbh but I can also see that if habitats etc are protected by trophy hunting that could be in the interest of those primate communities.  I can completely understand why the idea of taking adults, leaving orphan monkeys, would be very upsetting although those things happen in nature without human interaction too.  I could not and would not disagree that there would be a strong emotional element in considering the impact of hunting on individual animals/social groups but there are other elements in the conversation about trophy hunting too.


----------



## Sandstone1 (15 November 2022)

Fred66 said:



			If you are talking about deliberately torturing an animal then yes it would be a red flag, but where the killing is for a purpose such as pest control, eating etc. then I don’t believe there is any correlation.
		
Click to expand...

But there is no purpose other than killing for pleasure in shooting huge numbers of birds that are left to rot


----------



## Nasicus (15 November 2022)

meleeka said:



			Not sure if this has already been posted
https://www.itv.com/news/2022-11-14/bird-of-prey-persecution-remains-at-high-level-rspb-report-warns

Click to expand...

This is very important to highlight and inexcusable.


----------



## ycbm (15 November 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			Why is it morally wrong to kill an animal for the pleasure of sport, but not morally wrong to kill for the pleasure of eating them?
		
Click to expand...

There is evidence now that animal protein is required for optimum human health.  I don't eat meat because I particularly enjoy it  ovef vegetarianfood (which i also often eat),  I eat it because I was designed to be an omnivore.
.


----------



## Gallop_Away (15 November 2022)

ycbm said:



			There is evidence now that animal protein is required for optimum human health.  I don't eat meat because I particularly enjoy it  ovef vegetarianfood (which i also often eat),  I eat it because I was designed to be an omnivore.
.
		
Click to expand...

But ultimately humans can survive without meat in their diets. However, I suppose it's not so much the fact someone can be against hunting but still a meat eater that I take issue with, rather it's more where you source that meat I find hypocritical. As palo pointed out there are many practices within the commercial mass production of meat that are highly questionable, and I find it strange to take such an issue with the killing of an animal for sport, yet have no concerns about what suffering the animal you are eating has had to endure.


----------



## Amymay (15 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			That is both odd and slightly concerning to me. I respect that you have a professional view and I am interested to know what research supports contesting what has become quite a well respected position on the value of trophy hunting?
		
Click to expand...

I think that anyone who truly respects conservation would strongly disagree with trophy hunting.  Or at least see it as a very unfortunate price to pay for the protection of wildlife.


----------



## ycbm (15 November 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			But ultimately humans can survive without meat in their diets.
		
Click to expand...

There is evidence that for optimum health animal protein is required. Humans are designed to eat meat. 
.


----------



## Millionwords (15 November 2022)

ycbm said:



			There is evidence that for optimum health animal protein is required. Humans are designed to eat meat. 
.
		
Click to expand...

A balanced diet need not include animal protein, if it did the vegetarian cultures wouldn't have survived. 
Most people have shitty diets despite eating meat. We weren't designed to eat meat, we are just able, thats not the same thing. We cannot live on meat alone, yet we can live healthily on only plant foods.


----------



## sakura (15 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			I wonder, for those hunting primates as trophies, what the 'reward' is?  Is it related to skill?  What sort of people pay to hunt and kill monkeys?  That seems very distasteful to me tbh but I can also see that if habitats etc are protected by trophy hunting that could be in the interest of those primate communities.  I can completely understand why the idea of taking adults, leaving orphan monkeys, would be very upsetting although those things happen in nature without human interaction too.  I could not and would not disagree that there would be a strong emotional element in considering the impact of hunting on individual animals/social groups but there are other elements in the conversation about trophy hunting too.
		
Click to expand...

I know your post was probably rhetorical, but I don't know what people get out of hunting monkeys. I also don't "get" what people enjoy about any hunting so I'm probably not the best person to discuss that angle of it. 

Primates are indeed orphaned without human cause, but not in the same numbers. One does not negate the other because monkeys are always going to die, but we don't need to add to the numbers. 

If there is any benefit gained to habitat protection by killing monkeys for sport, I would seriously question why focus on that when we could do so much better. Monkeys don't need to die for us to protect their habitats - that is the very thing we are trying to avoid.


----------



## Gallop_Away (15 November 2022)

ycbm said:



			There is evidence that for optimum health animal protein is required. Humans are designed to eat meat. 
.
		
Click to expand...

There is also evidence that humans can have perfectly healthy diets without meat and use other sources of protein *cough* and you conveniently missed the rest of my post 😉 *cough*

I'm a meat eater myself. I enjoy eating it. But I'm not trying to tell someone else they are wrong for shooting a bird whilst tucking into an intensively reared bacon sandwich.....


----------



## ycbm (15 November 2022)

You won't change people minds by carrying on and on arguing,  you know?

I am in the majority,  I'm sure,  in believing that the time has passed for killing, or catching and releasing,  animals as a passtime.

The issues of intensive farming to feed what,  today,  is 8 billion people on the planet is an entirely separate one.
.


----------



## Gallop_Away (15 November 2022)

ycbm said:



			You won't change people minds by carrying on and on arguing,  you know?
		
Click to expand...

With respect, perhaps you might want to take your own advice in that respect ycbm. Also just to be clear, I'm not attempting to change anyone's mind. You are perfectly entitled to your own opinion, however hypocritical it may be.


----------



## ycbm (15 November 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			With respect, perhaps you might want to take your own advice in that respect ycbm.
		
Click to expand...

I tend only to respond to false statements on these threads,  or answer points people have put directly to me.  I certainly don't believe I can change the minds of Country Sports supporters.

The question was asked about meat consumption and in a spirit of openness I answered it and a couple of you felt the need to tell me you think I'm a hypocrite,  as if that didn't go without saying.

This picture was taken 60 years ago of me with a declawed and dressed up monkey being used as a prop for photos in a Kent market. Those days are past,  it would not happen in the UK today.  I am no more of a hypocrite for eating meat while believing this is wrong than I am for eating meat while believing that killing animals as a passtime is also now past its time.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (15 November 2022)

Back on topic but has anyone heard about an incident involving one of the Lake District fell packs in which a fox was chased onto the roof of a house and hounds actually entered the property in their attempts to get to it? 

Friend of ours down south is adamant that this happened last week, but I can't seem to find any info about it anywhere. 

Not sure if he's maybe got himself mixed up.


----------



## palo1 (15 November 2022)

sakura said:



			I know your post was probably rhetorical, but I don't know what people get out of hunting monkeys. I also don't "get" what people enjoy about any hunting so I'm probably not the best person to discuss that angle of it.

Primates are indeed orphaned without human cause, but not in the same numbers. One does not negate the other because monkeys are always going to die, but we don't need to add to the numbers.

If there is any benefit gained to habitat protection by killing monkeys for sport, I would seriously question why focus on that when we could do so much better. Monkeys don't need to die for us to protect their habitats - that is the very thing we are trying to avoid.
		
Click to expand...

I agree that we could do much better.  I think *ethically *it could be argued that no animals should be killed for *sport or for food.*  In human culture the two things are closely linked, not to mention the way in which food cultures run very deeply and where meat is an accepted part of a culture that is very hard to dismantle. (I am a meat eater too).  That would at least be clear though.  However it seems that it would be impossible for the world to function, at least in any foreseeable future, where human populations and food production could co-exist in a vegan system at the same time as supporting populations of wild animals and habitats.  At the point where we are at, where habitats and species are incredibly vulnerable and meat consuming nations demand ever greater resources, the protection of some habitats through provision of sport is at least pragmatic and has been demonstrated to work; I think that is widely accepted though I also accept that you have contested that. 

Even the Vegan society accept that in order to produce more food, we need more grazing animals in order to provide organic matter for soil.  That is pretty inescapable.  A direct line can be taken from grazing animals needed for soil health, plant production to the question of what to do with that grazing animal at the end of it's life; the most efficient thing is, of course to eat it.  

It is a real problem where ethics collide with environmental necessity.  I do understand the feelings about trophy hunting and agree that we should protect habitats because of their innate value, but that isnt the way the world currently works.  For me, pragmatism to safeguard species and habitats trumps ideology.   I completely understand and have sympathy with disgust for trophy hunting but I would rather some rich idiot pay that money and maintain that habitat to the cost of individual animals whilst safeguarding populations and geographical locations than see the only value of habitat to be something that can be destroyed for farming, logging, mining etc.


----------



## palo1 (15 November 2022)

CrunchieBoi said:



			Back on topic but has anyone heard about an incident involving one of the Welsh fell packs in which a fox was chased onto the roof of a house and hounds actually entered the property in their attempts to get to it?

Friend of ours down south is adamant that this happened last week, but I can't seem to find any info about it anywhere.

Not sure if he's maybe got himself mixed up.
		
Click to expand...

I have heard nothing of this; it sounds a bit muddled up tbh as there is no such thing as a Welsh fell pack.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (15 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			I have heard nothing of this; it sounds a bit muddled up tbh as there is no such thing as a Welsh fell pack.
		
Click to expand...

It was one of the Lake District packs apparently not Welsh.


----------



## Gallop_Away (15 November 2022)

ycbm said:



			I tend only to respond to false statements on these threads,  or answer points people have put directly to me.  I certainly don't believe I can change the minds of Country Sports supporters.

The question was asked about meat consumption and in a spirit of openness I answered it and a couple of you felt the need to tell me you think I'm a hypocrite,  as if that didn't go without saying.

This picture was taken 60 years ago of me with a declawed and dressed up monkey being used as a prop for photos in a Kent market. Those days are past,  it would not happen in the UK today.  I am no more of a hypocrite for eating meat while believing this is wrong than I am for eating meat while believing that killing animals as a passtime is also now past its time. 

View attachment 102713

Click to expand...

Not wishing to keep flogging this dead horse, pun intended, but just to point out, if you share your views on a public forum then you need to be prepared to have others question and discuss them. Yes I find your view a little strange and yes I do find it hypocritical but ultimately it's your own opinion which you are entitled to, and I was in no way trying to change your mind. 

In any case, I won't say anything further on the matter as it seems to have struck a nerve.


----------



## skinnydipper (15 November 2022)

Google search

"Cumbria’s Melbreak Foxhounds chased a fox onto a householders roof last Wednesday 9th November.

Hunt personnel then trampled all over the private residential property in an attempt to retrieve their hounds. During the incident, hounds actually entered a resident’s house, greatly traumatising both the residents and the family dog."





https://www.huntsabs.org.uk/melbrea...pPFNcRkq56Ro7cNOEa5bRLmY9Wy7MN-PEivdCJcyVwxoU


----------



## palo1 (15 November 2022)

Amymay said:



			I think that anyone who truly respects conservation would strongly disagree with trophy hunting.  Or at least see it as a very unfortunate price to pay for the protection of wildlife.
		
Click to expand...

Yes. However if the choice was between regulated/controlled trophy hunting or loss of habitat/species decline, then the answer is not so easy.  I think with some particularly vulnerable wild populations the gamble on ethical grounds is terrifying and possibly, in light of the support for trophy hunting by many scientists and conservationists, unjustified.  When does a population cull become trophy hunting too?  Here we cull deer because of population problems; some stalkers and shots absolutely qualify as trophy hunters yet they are not necessarily vilified because there is an understanding of the need for a cull to maintain healthy populations and habitats.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (15 November 2022)

skinnydipper said:



			Google search

"Cumbria’s Melbreak Foxhounds chased a fox onto a householders roof last Wednesday 9th November.

Hunt personnel then trampled all over the private residential property in an attempt to retrieve their hounds. During the incident, hounds actually entered a resident’s house, greatly traumatising both the residents and the family dog."

View attachment 102714



https://www.huntsabs.org.uk/melbrea...pPFNcRkq56Ro7cNOEa5bRLmY9Wy7MN-PEivdCJcyVwxoU

Click to expand...

Cheers, not very good at Googling unfortunately. Thought he was at the wind up.


----------



## Millionwords (15 November 2022)

CrunchieBoi said:



			Back on topic but has anyone heard about an incident involving one of the Lake District fell packs in which a fox was chased onto the roof of a house and hounds actually entered the property in their attempts to get to it? 

Friend of ours down south is adamant that this happened last week, but I can't seem to find any info about it anywhere. 

Not sure if he's maybe got himself mixed up.
		
Click to expand...

Only this, which would be a bonkers story to pull out of thin air, as you'd assume noone would believe it if you told them

https://www.facebook.com/1000646777...PskaLdhiaVYQ3vwayDy9JiQGuBSqGv6XQi3D8Xw5Nj9l/


----------



## Burnttoast (15 November 2022)

Fred66 said:



			If not then why do you believe it’s wrong to conserve habitats for Curlew, Snipe, Merlin, Mountain Hare etc ?
		
Click to expand...

That habitat is not being conserved for those species but for the production of another (unmentioned). That those species can make use of it (they can make use of others too) is mere serendipity - as long as they avoid being trapped, poisoned, shot or otherwise inconvenienced either by accident or when they are believed to interfere with the species being farmed (see eg mountain hare culls)


----------



## Burnttoast (15 November 2022)

YorksG said:



			Those who want to see fishing banned as well, do you live a vegan lifestyle?
		
Click to expand...

No I don't, but I don't eat fish (wild or farmed) and haven't for decades.


----------



## Millionwords (15 November 2022)

On another note....hunts or their followers throwing what are seemingly some type of Thunderflash explosive into a sab vehicle/at sabs, should surely warrant some police involvement.

Its not the sabs with explosives. I've used Thunderflashes and they are horrible when they go off near you.

What do hunts followers/hunts need these for exactly? 🤔🤔
I've only encountered them in the military and I know airsofters use them.

https://fb.watch/gPsApedmZZ/


----------



## Burnttoast (15 November 2022)

Sp


YorksG said:



			So sport fishing is possibly OK because of conservation, but the same cannot be said of hunting and shooting, although there is evidence that both can benefit conservation programmes?
		
Click to expand...

Sport fishing relies on the environment being in a good state. When rivers are full of nutrients, tampons and algal blooms, fish die. Anglers literally can't partake in their sport without also engaging with the health of (that part of) the environment. On the other hand, shoots can continue to release pheasants and partridges into the most denuded landscapes (just at the time of year when they compete with native wildlife for food that might get the native species through the winter) and all too frequently do so. Claims to an interest in conservation may sometimes be genuine but as often are sure to be greenwashing. Around me, it seems that farmers who are interested in conservation do things specifically for that reason. And those that are interested in shooting do that. The twain don't often seem to meet, judging by elementary aspects such as hedgerow and woodland management and the planting of anything for the direct benefit of non-target species.


----------



## honetpot (15 November 2022)

We have owned our present home for about twelve years, we are three miles from a large town. You would know there were deer about, usually muntjac, you would see them in the distance or find the odd chewed leg, now we have a large population of roe deer, trotting around over the roads in daylight, and on to farmers fields. They have no natural predators, and have obviously most of their wariness, going in town to get a takeaway there was one wandering across the road at 6.30pm, about a 200metres from the traffic lights.
  Well you could say that is wonderful until they start destroying crops, there are also animal pests things that attack crops, start doing their own form pruning, they will kill young trees or the most dramatic hit a car on the main A road. Even if they do not cause a major accident, the delays can be substantial.
  We are very lucky that we see a lot of wildlife, some of which depending on your outlook are pests, there was a dead rat that the cat had ripped the throat out in the yard this morning. Now I like rats, they are clever and make good pets, but in the wrong place cause damage and spoilage of food.

  There is a definition that, a weed is a plant in the wrong place, so ragwort that is a native plant and supports wildlife depending on where it, and what type of ragwort it is, is may not be classed as a weed, but no one with equines would feel sorry destroying plants because we value our animals safety over other animals.
  There is an idea that our countryside is natural, when what we perceived as the countryside has been sculpted and managed, animals introduced, some hunted out of existence. Like a garden its been cultivated to the needs of the humans that lived there, at that time. Humans are animals, we just have adapted, perhaps past our usefulness, but we should think how we 'garden', and sometimes you have to cull, to make space to let something else survive. Not doing anything is not really a choice with the relatively small amount of land we have.
Is the roe deer that is dead on the side of the road,better off being shot, a quick death and the meat used, or left for the foxes, magpies and crows? Is the person makes the shot an immoral person because they take pride in their aim and butchery skills, and the car driver who hit and perhaps travelled on just a victim with a hopefully only a dented front end?

*'I think that anyone who truly respects conservation would strongly disagree with trophy hunting.  Or at least see it as a very unfortunate price to pay for the protection of wildlife.' 
*We have to face the future where competition for land and water is going to be a factor for all our survival, if someone paying to shoot an animal in an area where the land is over grazed and lacks enough water, helps to save a species or a habitat, I think it's something we have to face up to. There is no nice solution and eventual mass migration of people from parts of the world that will no longer support human animals, put further stress on those that are.
  I think 2050 is when they predict it gets bad, not long really.


----------



## Tiddlypom (15 November 2022)

There is a huge moral gap between those who take pride in skilfully and humanely culling a population excess, or an injured animal, and those who pay £££s for the pure enjoyment of shooting birds who have only been hatched and raised for these people to enjoy the killing of them.

What satisfaction anyone gets from killing these silly birds, who don't even fly without needing people on the ground to frighten them up in the air, escapes me completely. It must be the blood lust.

I've also never met anyone who enjoys eating pheasant. My late godfather, who was in a shoot, used to bring a brace round occasionally when I was a child and my parents were too polite to tell him that we didn't like pheasant. So we had to eat the birds 🤮.


----------



## paddy555 (15 November 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			There is a huge moral gap between those who take pride in skilfully and humanely culling a population excess, or an injured animal, and those who pay £££s for the pure enjoyment of shooting birds who have only been hatched and raised for these people to enjoy the killing of them.

What satisfaction anyone gets from killing these silly birds, who don't even fly without needing people on the ground to frighten them up in the air, escapes me completely. It must be the blood lust.

.
		
Click to expand...

this is what I think. I simply don't understand how people can see this as being pleasure, it certainly isn't for any other reason. 
Is there any reason why we shouldn't bring cock fighting back as as sport or dog fighting, bear baiting even. ( I realise they continue underground) Why shouldn't they be brought back as normal activities. I can't see any difference to shooting and hunting ie people or an animal (hounds)chasing another animal or bird to get a kick out of it. 

The mindset of people with this apparent blood lust just totally escapes me.


----------



## Clodagh (15 November 2022)

There is an enormous gap between big bag pheasant shooting and a deer being shot with a rifle. I respect peoples views about big bag shooting but not wanting all shooting banned.
So it’s better to eat a bullock that has been transported hundreds of miles to the cheapest slaughterhouse and processing unit than to shoot a deer eating grass in a field and eat that? One should be banned and the other supported?
On another point ‘all shot pheasants are left to rot’. I pick up on 6 shoots here, 3 big bag and all birds are taken and used or sold to the game dealer.


----------



## palo1 (15 November 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			There is a huge moral gap between those who take pride in skilfully and humanely culling a population excess, or an injured animal, and those who pay £££s for the pure enjoyment of shooting birds who have only been hatched and raised for these people to enjoy the killing of them.

What satisfaction anyone gets from killing these silly birds, who don't even fly without needing people on the ground to frighten them up in the air, escapes me completely. It must be the blood lust.

I've also never met anyone who enjoys eating pheasant. My late godfather, who was in a shoot, used to bring a brace round occasionally when I was a child and my parents were too polite to tell him that we didn't like pheasant. So we had to eat the birds 🤮.
		
Click to expand...

We love pheasant.  We eat it frequently during the shooting season; either donated or purchased.  It is lovely, lean, tasty meat.  Sorry but a lot of folk do enjoy pheasant. I also like partridge and pigeon (possibly my favourite).  No pheasants wouldn't be the end of the world for me but I would hate to see no game as it is, for me, a really decent foodstuff. Partridge is potentially 'better' than pheasant in terms of biodiversity but pheasants have been around in Britain for quite a while.  All those mentioned are sold in butchers and 'fancy' food shops locally.


----------



## palo1 (15 November 2022)

paddy555 said:



			this is what I think. I simply don't understand how people can see this as being pleasure, it certainly isn't for any other reason.
Is there any reason why we shouldn't bring cock fighting back as as sport or dog fighting, bear baiting even. ( I realise they continue underground) Why shouldn't they be brought back as normal activities. I can't see any difference to shooting and hunting ie people or an animal (hounds)chasing another animal or bird to get a kick out of it.

The mindset of people with this apparent blood lust just totally escapes me.
		
Click to expand...

Shooting a bird in flight is a skill that people take pride in honing.  It isn't about bloodlust - it is about the pride in being able to aim and shoot something cleanly.   There is absolutely a culture within shooting of being 'good' so it isn't ok to be an absolutely hopeless shot winging bird after bird; it has the same approbation as people riding badly ime (albeit limited)>


----------



## GoldenWillow (15 November 2022)

CrunchieBoi said:



			Back on topic but has anyone heard about an incident involving one of the Lake District fell packs in which a fox was chased onto the roof of a house and hounds actually entered the property in their attempts to get to it?

Friend of ours down south is adamant that this happened last week, but I can't seem to find any info about it anywhere.

Not sure if he's maybe got himself mixed up.
		
Click to expand...




skinnydipper said:



			Google search

"Cumbria’s Melbreak Foxhounds chased a fox onto a householders roof last Wednesday 9th November.

Hunt personnel then trampled all over the private residential property in an attempt to retrieve their hounds. During the incident, hounds actually entered a resident’s house, greatly traumatising both the residents and the family dog."

View attachment 102714



https://www.huntsabs.org.uk/melbrea...pPFNcRkq56Ro7cNOEa5bRLmY9Wy7MN-PEivdCJcyVwxoU

Click to expand...

Whilst I have no respect as have seen our local hunt behave diabolically I do wonder about this. There has been nothing locally anywhere and last Wednesday it rained all day here (about 30 miles away)


----------



## honetpot (15 November 2022)

Pheasants are really bred to be shot, we occasionally have a cock pheasant that will survive a couple of seasons, they are not native to this country, but when they are released they are not very good at keeping out of trouble, even though they are fed well away from the road,they fly low and end up smashed on the road, if they are not run over, because somehow car drivers in the morning can not be bothered to slow down. I do not know what's worse, young birds being smashed on the road, or someone paying a large sum of money to shoot them and have a morning out with lunch and drinks after. There is at least some benefit economic locally from a shooting party.  I think they probably have better quality of life, than a meat chicken, which will be lucky to reach twelve weeks, and huge amounts of birds are processed each week.
  The most amazing thing I discovered at Burghley was pheasant goujons, https://www.thegamechef.co.uk/


----------



## Burnttoast (15 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			Shooting a bird in flight is a skill that people take pride in honing.  It isn't about bloodlust - it is about the pride in being able to aim and shoot something cleanly.   There is absolutely a culture within shooting of being 'good' so it isn't ok to be an absolutely hopeless shot winging bird after bird; it has the same approbation as people riding badly ime (albeit limited)>
		
Click to expand...

It would be nice if that consideration could be extended to the 'vermin' shot by keepers/casual guns. Such as the guy who used to shoot pigeon over the rape on the farm where I was liveried a few years back, who clearly saw a fox and shot at it, never mind he had the wrong cartridges for the job. I found the fox bleeding all over my hay in our little shed, but unfortunately it wasn't wounded badly enough for me to get near it. Or the keeper who'd been round a day or two before I did my last hedge survey and left about 10 crows flapping around in the brambles, also none badly wounded enough to catch and dispatch, or I would have done. They were about the only visible wildlife on that farm. Bar some pheasants, if you can call them wildlife.


----------



## Clodagh (15 November 2022)

Burnttoast said:



			It would be nice if that consideration could be extended to the 'vermin' shot by keepers/casual guns. Such as the guy who used to shoot pigeon over the rape on the farm where I was liveried a few years back, who clearly saw a fox and shot at it, never mind he had the wrong cartridges for the job. I found the fox bleeding all over my hay in our little shed, but unfortunately it wasn't wounded badly enough for me to get near it. Or the keeper who'd been round a day or two before I did my last hedge survey and left about 10 crows flapping around in the brambles, also none badly wounded enough to catch and dispatch, or I would have done. They were about the only visible wildlife on that farm. Bar some pheasants, if you can call them wildlife.
		
Click to expand...

Most do it properly. In every part of life there are people who take short cuts or do things badly.


----------



## moosea (15 November 2022)

Fred66 said:



			As Clodagh says. It is inherent in all prey animals rather than conscious thought.

It can be a learned behaviour, you would see heightened response and awareness in elite sports (such as Formula 1) or elite soldiers.

This learning eventually can move to be subconscious awareness but doesn’t mean that the individual is consciously fretting about what might happen, just that their subconscious would prompt them ahead of conscious thought.

Ie most of us would see something, process the sight, recognise a hazard, and react to that sight. Whereas those who have trained to do something then the steps are less defined and the middle steps become almost defunct, leaving just the see-react steps
		
Click to expand...

If the middle steps are defunkt then how do they know it's a hazard? There has to be some sort of assesment process.





stangs said:



			...Did you read any of the research I attached?

You cannot say "poaching and by extension trophy hunting". Though there is occasionally some overlap, one of those industries is always unregulated and illegal, and doesn't produce much income for the local people who do it, and the other produces a huge amount of income, some of which goes to the local people, and a hell of a lot of which goes back towards conservation. Poaching is not sustainable. Trophy hunting can be.

No one has said that the local communities are wild and uncivilised. No one has said that they're going to 'burn their land to the ground'. If you cared so much about pain, you wouldn't attack a poor strawman like this . The fact of the matter is that many of the local populations are poor, and consequently human-animal conflict (e.g., elephants destroying crops), has a huge impact on their livelihoods. Trophy hunting (more so than ecotourism/photo-tourism, because of how much people will pay for it) gives the presence of these animals in the local area a value. It gives the people income, so they don't have to turn to poaching. People don't poach for fun. They don't do it because they're obsessed with killing - as one might attribute to trophy hunters - but rather because they need to survive. There is nothing uncivilised about deciding to feed your children over saving the local lion. There's examples of this in Botswana, Kenya and Tanzania, to start: the banning of trophy hunting leads to poaching sky-rocketing, and populations crashing down.

And, yes, we don't know how individual species process the world. But we will never find that out if the whole species goes extinct because the morality of killing the occasional conscious being was prioritised over saving the actual animals.
		
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, am I right in saying the main benefits of trophy hunting are that money from these hunts is paid back into conservation projects and local communities and that target species appear to have a greater population density in areas of trophy hunting?


----------



## stangs (15 November 2022)

moosea said:



			I'm sorry, am I right in saying the main benefits of trophy hunting are that money from these hunts is paid back into conservation projects and local communities and that target species appear to have a greater population density in areas of trophy hunting?
		
Click to expand...

Pretty much. It's exchanging the welfare of individual animals to give the overall species a financial value.


----------



## paddy555 (15 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			Shooting a bird in flight is a skill that people take pride in honing.  It isn't about bloodlust - it is about the pride in being able to aim and shoot something cleanly.   There is absolutely a culture within shooting of being 'good' so it isn't ok to be an absolutely hopeless shot winging bird after bird; it has the same approbation as people riding badly ime (albeit limited)>
		
Click to expand...

no problem with people honing their shooting skills. No problem in them taking pride in their shooting ability. Just don't see why we have to include birds for pleasure in the equation.


----------



## palo1 (15 November 2022)

paddy555 said:



			no problem with people honing their shooting skills. No problem in them taking pride in their shooting ability. Just don't see why we have to include birds for pleasure in the equation.
		
Click to expand...

Well I guess there is a greater sense of value in despatching a bird that can be eaten, as well as the moral/emotional jeopardy in taking a life; I think it is deeply connected to a sense of wanting to hunt and provide; to connect with that essential need.  Even when dressed in tweed breeks!


----------



## Koweyka (15 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			On another note....hunts or their followers throwing what are seemingly some type of Thunderflash explosive into a sab vehicle/at sabs, should surely warrant some police involvement.

Its not the sabs with explosives. I've used Thunderflashes and they are horrible when they go off near you.

What do hunts followers/hunts need these for exactly? 🤔🤔
I've only encountered them in the military and I know airsofters use them.

https://fb.watch/gPsApedmZZ/

Click to expand...

Yes I have seen this, it’s awful and the violence directed towards Sabs and Monitors is escalating if they aren’t running us over they are throwing bombs at us now.


----------



## Amymay (15 November 2022)

Deleted


----------



## paddy555 (15 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			I think it is deeply connected to a sense of wanting to hunt and provide; to connect with that essential need.
		
Click to expand...

I am totally lost. Is this for real?


----------



## Clodagh (15 November 2022)

I think as ycbm says no one is ever going to change their views and generally apart from facts I try not to get too immersed in these debates. But I think if you’ve never eaten something you have hunted you can’t understand what it means to those who do. That sounds awfully pretentious!


----------



## palo1 (16 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			I think as ycbm says no one is ever going to change their views and generally apart from facts I try not to get too immersed in these debates. But I think if you’ve never eaten something you have hunted you can’t understand what it means to those who do. That sounds awfully pretentious!
		
Click to expand...

This! There are so many things that seem pointless in human activity but for those participating, they are extremely valuable.


----------



## ycbm (16 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			I think as ycbm says no one is ever going to change their views and generally apart from facts I try not to get too immersed in these debates. But I think if you’ve never eaten something you have hunted you can’t understand what it means to those who do. That sounds awfully pretentious!
		
Click to expand...

I don't think it sounds pretentious and there's no issue, for me,  with hunting to kill something to eat, if the animal dies quickly, (or if a slower death is an accident and not an accepted part of the process).  I can understand it must be very satisfying to go back to your primal roots like that.  We do,  after all,  still have those genes that were responsible for our survival as a species. 
.


----------



## Clodagh (16 November 2022)

ycbm said:



			I don't think it sounds pretentious and there's no issue, for me,  with hunting to kill something to eat, if the animal dies quickly, (or if a slower death is an accident and not an accepted part of the process).  I can understand it must be very satisfying to go back to your primal roots like that.  We do,  after all,  still have those genes that were responsible for our survival as a species.
.
		
Click to expand...

But you want all shooting, snares and fishing banned? That’s rather going to put the stop on anyone killing their dinner unless they stab it or beat it to death.


----------



## ycbm (16 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			But you want all shooting, snares and fishing banned? That’s rather going to put the stop on anyone killing their dinner unless they stab it or beat it to death.
		
Click to expand...

I never said I wanted all shooting banned.  I'm happy for any animal to be shot if it's a clean death.
.


----------



## Clodagh (16 November 2022)

ycbm said:



			I would like to see illegal hunting stop now,  snares made illegal from tomorrow,  and eventually coarse/fly fishing and shooting shut down in a way that gives everyone enough time to adjust to the idea..
		
Click to expand...

You said here. Maybe you only meant driven shooting? So stalking is ok? Pigeon shooting for both pest control and eating? One man and his spaniel in a hedge? I’m not sure why any is more or less cruel than others.


----------



## Fred66 (16 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			You said here. Maybe you only meant driven shooting? So stalking is ok? Pigeon shooting for both pest control and eating? One man and his spaniel in a hedge? I’m not sure why any is more or less cruel than others.
		
Click to expand...

This is the problem with some individuals “arguments “. There is no consistency or logical reason behind it, in some cases there isn’t even a consistent emotive reason.
Whilst I can disagree with their stance I can understand the pov of vegans who believe the killing of animals for any human use is wrong. There is a lack of hypocrisy in it, but for others I am just bemused


----------



## YorksG (16 November 2022)

As an aside, who do people think will despatch, in the shortest time possible, deer who are hit and injured on the roads, if sport shooting is stopped?


----------



## Nasicus (16 November 2022)

YorksG said:



			As an aside, who do people think will despatch, in the shortest time possible, deer who are hit and injured on the roads, if sport shooting is stopped?
		
Click to expand...

Stockman? Local farmer who has a gun to protect his livestock? Local Police Force if they happen to be one that has a humane dispatch scheme?

Edit:
There's even guidelines on how to dispatch with a knife, so assuming it's safe enough to get in there with it then a gun isn't always needed:
https://www.thedeerinitiative.co.uk/uploads/guides/127.pdf


----------



## ycbm (16 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			You said here. Maybe you only meant driven shooting? So stalking is ok? Pigeon shooting for both pest control and eating? One man and his spaniel in a hedge? I’m not sure why any is more or less cruel than others.
		
Click to expand...

At the time of the post you quoted,  the discussion was about mass bird shoots and that was what I was referring to.
.


----------



## ycbm (16 November 2022)

YorksG said:



			As an aside, who do people think will despatch, in the shortest time possible, deer who are hit and injured on the roads, if sport shooting is stopped?
		
Click to expand...

The Policeman who shot a stray sheep on my land during the last foot&mouth crisis. The stalker who regularly culls the excess red deer in the western Peaks. Any farmer with a shotgun. The fallen stock people. 
.


----------



## Burnttoast (16 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			You said here. Maybe you only meant driven shooting? So stalking is ok? Pigeon shooting for both pest control and eating? One man and his spaniel in a hedge? I’m not sure why any is more or less cruel than others.
		
Click to expand...

My own problem with driven shooting (as opposed to walked-up/rough, which I used to do with my ex) is two-fold: the management of a large (or not so large, depending) area of land for the benefit of one species (so including the encouragement of a particular flora to the exclusion of others, or the removal of native species so that there are more birds to shoot) or the release of numbers of raised birds (often in factory farms on the continent, with the resulting welfare and biosecurity issues) into a landscape already short on large inverts and reptiles, which are useful foods for native species; and the 'fun' element, where the fun is the primary point. Other social activities are available. Clays are available. Range shooting is available. The Olympics wouldn't continue to include shooting if animals were the only things you could aim at.


----------



## Burnttoast (16 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			Most do it properly. In every part of life there are people who take short cuts or do things badly.
		
Click to expand...

I'm sure that thought would have been a comfort to me at the time. As it is I can still remember how furious and upset I felt that I could do nothing to relieve those animals' suffering and that no one else was apparently going to try. Even the person who was there at the time to cause it and in fact had the means on them to attempt a proper dispatch.


----------



## YorksG (16 November 2022)

Surely stalking would also be banned! People shoot for pleasure while stalking. They are the people currently asked by the police to cull injured deer. Fallen stock people often don't have emergency call out, we are fortunate in that we have a local person who's family used to own a horse abattoir, who does have an emergency service. Police firearms officers are rarely deployed to shoot animals, they also cover hundreds of miles of service area and often they are also the service which forces entry to property.
Who will decide that the farmer is culling rabbits just for need and that they aren't deriving pleasure from the process.


----------



## palo1 (16 November 2022)

Nasicus said:



			Stockman? Local farmer who has a gun to protect his livestock? Local Police Force if they happen to be one that has a humane dispatch scheme?

Edit:
There's even guidelines on how to dispatch with a knife, so assuming it's safe enough to get in there with it then a gun isn't always needed:
https://www.thedeerinitiative.co.uk/uploads/guides/127.pdf

Click to expand...

If you have ever encountered a wounded deer you would not believe that despatching with a knife would be in any way ethical.  You would need a knife with a blade long enough to make carrying it just generally, illegal.  Most people encountering a wounded/dying deer would be too emotionally upset to even consider knifing the poor thing!  Most farmers do not own HV rifles though many will have a shotgun.  You need a HVR to despatch deer quickly and humanely though it could be done with a shotgun at short range.


----------



## palo1 (16 November 2022)

ycbm said:



			The Policeman who shot a stray sheep on my land during the last foot&mouth crisis. The stalker who regularly culls the excess red deer in the western Peaks. Any farmer with a shotgun. The fallen stock people.
.
		
Click to expand...

Try getting a policeman to arrive within a reasonable time frame in any rural setting.  A shotgun is not generally considered an appropriate weapon for despatching deer humanely. And the stalker who culls deer - surely that would also be banned as stalking is a sport?


----------



## Clodagh (16 November 2022)

It takes firearms police over two hours to turn up to injured deer in Essex. I doubt they’ve ever been called out to do it in Devon.
I completely agree a lot of what Burnttoast says about driven shooting, there are some that really don’t help themselves or the industry. I understand now that ycbm only meant driven shooting as well (or mainly).
Most people on here though seem to be against shooting of any description though. Would you suggest deer are not culled and allowed to breed unchecked? You realise the impact their population growth is having in many ways?
And pigeons eating crops. If they can’t be shot then what do you suggest?


----------



## ycbm (16 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			And the stalker who culls deer - surely that would also be banned as stalking is a sport?
		
Click to expand...

Why are you quoting me then asking this?   I've made it perfectly clear that I would not support banning  animals being killed with guns.  
.


----------



## palo1 (16 November 2022)

ycbm said:



			Why are you quoting me then asking this?   I've made it perfectly clear that I would not support banning  animals being killed with guns. 
.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, I think the quote got muddled; I didn't intend it to read that way!


----------



## Burnttoast (16 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			It takes firearms police over two hours to turn up to injured deer in Essex. I doubt they’ve ever been called out to do it in Devon.
I completely agree a lot of what Burnttoast says about driven shooting, there are some that really don’t help themselves or the industry. I understand now that ycbm only meant driven shooting as well (or mainly).
Most people on here though seem to be against shooting of any description though. Would you suggest deer are not culled and allowed to breed unchecked? You realise the impact their population growth is having in many ways?
And pigeons eating crops. If they can’t be shot then what do you suggest?
		
Click to expand...

Since I live in a severely arable area I do see a lot of pigeons (actually, they exist in their tens round here, not hundreds or thousands, so the shooting has clearly been successful) over rape etc. And yes they certainly do eat some of the crops. But given how the not-strictly-agricultural elements of the countryside are managed it's hardly surprising. There is nothing else for them to eat. Pigeons don't preferentially eat leafy crops. They would rather have grains, seeds, berries and insects, particularly over winter, but those things don't exist anymore in hedges or woodland really, so they eat what's available. I find it infuriating that we have created a landscape in which only the most extreme generalists can survive, and then blame them for surviving.


----------



## Clodagh (16 November 2022)

Burnttoast said:



			Since I live in a severely arable area I do see a lot of pigeons (actually, they exist in their tens round here, not hundreds or thousands, so the shooting has clearly been successful) over rape etc. And yes they certainly do eat some of the crops. But given how the not-strictly-agricultural elements of the countryside are managed it's hardly surprising. There is nothing else for them to eat. Pigeons don't preferentially eat leafy crops. They would rather have grains, seeds, berries and insects, particularly over winter, but those things don't exist anymore in hedges or woodland really, so they eat what's available. I find it infuriating that we have created a landscape in which only the most extreme generalists can survive, and then blame them for surviving.
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps you are lucky then, and you don’t have to make your living from the land? On our farm we had planted 20,000 trees and restored all the hedge lines, we had beetle banks, game cover (not maize) and we encouraged and enjoyed nature. We couldn’t though allow the literal thousands upon thousands on pigeons that could strip a field of rape or laid barley in a few days to go on unchecked.


----------



## paddy555 (16 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			Most farmers do not own HV rifles though many will have a shotgun.  You need a HVR to despatch deer quickly and humanely though it could be done with a shotgun at short range.
		
Click to expand...

Don't they. Round here they do.


----------



## Burnttoast (16 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			Perhaps you are lucky then, and you don’t have to make your living from the land? On our farm we had planted 20,000 trees and restored all the hedge lines, we had beetle banks, game cover (not maize) and we encouraged and enjoyed nature. We couldn’t though allow the literal thousands upon thousands on pigeons that could strip a field of rape or laid barley in a few days to go on unchecked.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not saying don't shoot them, I'm saying they would rather eat other things that are no longer available, and because they can eat what you have provided, and survive/breed on it, they will. That's why we end up with pigeons and not a lot else. In the countryside around my village (and much more widely in much of East Anglia) the hedges are all cut, every year, latest in early September. They are mostly about 2 feet wide and 3-4 feet high. They might as well not be there for all the cover/food they provide wildlife. And woodland is unmanaged, so fruit-bearing shrubs are shaded out and produce nothing. The irony is that cutting hedges every three years on a rota would be less work and more beneficial for everything.


----------



## Clodagh (16 November 2022)

The hedges are cut then as come October the fields are too wet and as drilling times get earlier you need to be able to get on the land. Our hedges were as high as you could get the flail onto, I’m guessing about 10/12 foot high? And impenetrable. We cut each side alternate years. Leave them too long and they go stringy and too tall.


----------



## Clodagh (16 November 2022)

paddy555 said:



			Don't they. Round here they do.
		
Click to expand...

I didn’t say that? Not my quote. Weird!
But possibly where you are they do but not round us now, nor in Essex was it the norm. Shotguns yes.


----------



## Clodagh (16 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			I didn’t say that? Not my quote. Weird!
But possibly where you are they do but not round us now, nor in Essex was it the norm. Shotguns yes.

quoting has gone mad!
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Tiddlypom (16 November 2022)

It doesn't help that of those people that I know who do shoot (driven pheasant shooting), I wouldn't trust them with a pea shooter never mind a gun 😬.

Plus all the awful tales from my late Dad of completely avoidable shooting 'accidents' caused by reckless feckwits in which he had to try and patch up the injured parties as best he could to save their sight. That is assuming that they survived, of course.


----------



## Clodagh (16 November 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			It doesn't help that of those people that I know who do shoot (driven pheasant shooting), I wouldn't trust them with a pea shooter never mind a gun 😬.

Plus all the awful tales from my late Dad of completely avoidable shooting 'accidents' caused by reckless feckwits in which he had to try and patch up the injured parties as best he could to save their sight. That is assuming that they survived, of course.
		
Click to expand...

Safety has improved hugely since I was a child. Thank goodness!


----------



## Burnttoast (16 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			The hedges are cut then as come October the fields are too wet and as drilling times get earlier you need to be able to get on the land. Our hedges were as high as you could get the flail onto, I’m guessing about 10/12 foot high? And impenetrable. We cut each side alternate years. Leave them too long and they go stringy and too tall.
		
Click to expand...

Where there's no headland or track fair enough but here they do them all at the same time regardless (fair enough, more efficient for them). But the timing would be much less important if they weren't cut yearly. Yours sound wonderful but they couldn't be further away from the reality here. Most of them here actually would benefit from being coppiced now and left to regrow, as they've been cut to the same level for so many years that they are basically knuckles on sticks, the base canopy is often a metre off the ground, most with rot in them where the flail has split the trunks. They will slowly get gappier and disappear altogether and then the estate won't need to send the flail round at all. Two or three years is a good interval for most basically well-maintained hedges - essential if you want fruit on blackthorn, too. Eventually all hedges ideally need laying or coppicing but you can eke out the time to decades if they aren't cut to the same level year after year. Sorry to sound evangelical but I'm really interested in hedge management for wildlife and have had the chance to actually help with some useful work round here on the subject. My own hedges are just coming up to the age for their first 'proper' haircut and then I'm going to put them on a rota, although there's only about 600m of them so I can't make much contribution.


----------



## paddy555 (16 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			I didn’t say that? Not my quote. Weird!
But possibly where you are they do but not round us now, nor in Essex was it the norm. Shotguns yes.
		
Click to expand...

how weird. It got Palo's quote 4223 correct but put it to the wrong person.


----------



## palo1 (16 November 2022)

paddy555 said:



			how weird. It got Palo's quote 4223 correct but put it to the wrong person. 

Click to expand...

Yes, and it did the opposite for me and ycbm's comment!  Are you sure about farmers routinely having HV rifles though?  You need a different kind of licence for a HVR and whilst many farmers will have a shotgun it is, in  my experience, rare for anyone outside the business of shooting to have one.  It would not be a suitable weapon for farm related shooting at all.


----------



## Millionwords (16 November 2022)

*South Shropshire Hunt master fined £600 after failing to call dogs away from disturbed fox*

Telford Magistrates Court heard that footage of Cherriman was taken by witnesses, showing him making noises to disturb foxes. He then did nothing as the hounds hunted.


https://www.shropshirestar.com/news...failing-to-call-dogs-away-from-disturbed-fox/


----------



## Clodagh (16 November 2022)

Burnttoast said:



			Where there's no headland or track fair enough but here they do them all at the same time regardless (fair enough, more efficient for them). But the timing would be much less important if they weren't cut yearly. Yours sound wonderful but they couldn't be further away from the reality here. Most of them here actually would benefit from being coppiced now and left to regrow, as they've been cut to the same level for so many years that they are basically knuckles on sticks, the base canopy is often a metre off the ground, most with rot in them where the flail has split the trunks. They will slowly get gappier and disappear altogether and then the estate won't need to send the flail round at all. Two or three years is a good interval for most basically well-maintained hedges - essential if you want fruit on blackthorn, too. Eventually all hedges ideally need laying or coppicing but you can eke out the time to decades if they aren't cut to the same level year after year. Sorry to sound evangelical but I'm really interested in hedge management for wildlife and have had the chance to actually help with some useful work round here on the subject. My own hedges are just coming up to the age for their first 'proper' haircut and then I'm going to put them on a rota, although there's only about 600m of them so I can't make much contribution.
		
Click to expand...

It all helps. My OH cuts and lays hedges (not professionally but good enough).


----------



## Clodagh (16 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



*South Shropshire Hunt master fined £600 after failing to call dogs away from disturbed fox*

Telford Magistrates Court heard that footage of Cherriman was taken by witnesses, showing him making noises to disturb foxes. He then did nothing as the hounds hunted.


https://www.shropshirestar.com/news...failing-to-call-dogs-away-from-disturbed-fox/

Click to expand...

Gosh, back on topic 😄


----------



## blitznbobs (16 November 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			It doesn't help that of those people that I know who do shoot (driven pheasant shooting), I wouldn't trust them with a pea shooter never mind a gun 😬.

Plus all the awful tales from my late Dad of completely avoidable shooting 'accidents' caused by reckless feckwits in which he had to try and patch up the injured parties as best he could to save their sight. That is assuming that they survived, of course.
		
Click to expand...

in 20 years in a and e seen many many riding accidents and horse on the ground accidents and only one shotgun shot — definitely not an accident - a self inflicted on purpose who tried to shoot himself in the head and missed (ie shot came out thru his face and he survived) incredibly sad but nothing to do with feckwittery… everyone I know who owns a gun is  not going to shoot anyone by accident.., people in charge of horses cause much more damage to bystanders with out of control beasties.. and it is far less monitored.


----------



## Tiddlypom (16 November 2022)

Good for you. I stand by my comments. The people I know who shoot aren't fit to be let out without a minder, let alone with a gun.

We were allowed a huge amount of freedom as children with much potential to injure ourselves with horses or sailing boats, but guns or archery were absolutely out.


----------



## Burnttoast (16 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			It all helps. My OH cuts and lays hedges (not professionally but good enough).
		
Click to expand...

Don't think the hedges mind if they aren't competition standard


----------



## palo1 (17 November 2022)

Lisa Jaffrey, who was the woman hit by a car at a hunt meeting a couple of weeks ago, has recovered sufficiently to have been back in action, arrested, remanded in custody and bail refused.  She is alongside Mel Broughton who has form for arson and terrorism offences (previously jailed).   On both sides of the animal rights/hunting debate there are some deeply unpleasant and dangerous individuals.  Neither Lisa Jaffrey nor Mel Broughton, nor many of their comrades would be likely to end their activities if there was a  complete ban on trail hunting...


----------



## Millionwords (17 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			On another note....hunts or their followers throwing what are seemingly some type of Thunderflash explosive into a sab vehicle/at sabs, should surely warrant some police involvement.

Its not the sabs with explosives. I've used Thunderflashes and they are horrible when they go off near you.

What do hunts followers/hunts need these for exactly? 🤔🤔
I've only encountered them in the military and I know airsofters use them.

https://fb.watch/gPsApedmZZ/

Click to expand...




palo1 said:



			Lisa Jaffrey, who was the woman hit by a car at a hunt meeting a couple of weeks ago, has recovered sufficiently to have been back in action, arrested, remanded in custody and bail refused.  She is alongside Mel Broughton who has form for arson and terrorism offences (previously jailed).   On both sides of the animal rights/hunting debate there are some deeply unpleasant and dangerous individuals.  Neither Lisa Jaffrey nor Mel Broughton, nor many of their comrades would be likely to end their activities if there was a  complete ban on trail hunting...
		
Click to expand...


What are hunts taking Thunderflashes out with them for? To throw at people? Or for some aspect of trail hunting I've never heard of?

I'm glad to hear she's recovered. Whatever she's done is unlikely to be excusable.


----------



## palo1 (17 November 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Yes I have seen this, it’s awful and the violence directed towards Sabs and Monitors is escalating if they aren’t running us over they are throwing bombs at us now.
		
Click to expand...

Um, and now both Mel Broughton - well known hunt sab, arsonist and terrorist and Lisa Jaffrey (thankfully recovered from injuries sustained as a result of being hit by a car at a hunt meet) are remanded in custody with no bail.  They are not exactly yer peace loving, non violent activists either.  Petrol bombing (Mel Broughton) isn't  a democratic protest...


----------



## palo1 (17 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			What are hunts taking Thunderflashes out with them for? To throw at people? Or for some aspect of trail hunting I've never heard of?
		
Click to expand...

I have no idea why anyone would either acquire or use thunderflashes in any civilian setting.  It is madness.  Thankfully it is not part of the general trail hunting experience.  I hope the police are investigating that.


----------



## Millionwords (17 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			Um, and now both Mel Broughton - well known hunt sab, arsonist and terrorist and Lisa Jaffrey (thankfully recovered from injuries sustained as a result of being hit by a car at a hunt meet) are remanded in custody with no bail.  They are not exactly yer peace loving, non violent activists either.  Petrol bombing (Mel Broughton) isn't  a democratic protest...
		
Click to expand...

Its rather like people have only this particular bad egg to bring up over and over again.

There have been far more hunt members in court recently than sabs/antis.


----------



## palo1 (17 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			Its rather like people have only this particular bad egg to bring up over and over again.

There have been far more hunt members in court recently than sabs/antis.
		
Click to expand...

Only a few weeks ago 5 hunt sabs were convicted of offences relating to intimidating and attacking a group of hunt supporters including a young girl.   Sabs are much better at communicating this stuff than the hunting community but there are multiple incidents on both sides.  The bad eggs mentioned are significant because they remain very active in anti hunt activities.  It doesn't make any of the bad behaviour on either side alright really does it?


----------



## Sandstone1 (17 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			What are hunts taking Thunderflashes out with them for? To throw at people? Or for some aspect of trail hunting I've never heard of?

I'm glad to hear she's recovered. Whatever she's done is unlikely to be excusable.
		
Click to expand...

Not excusable??
Not like stabbing a fox to death with a pitchfork?  Not like shooting hounds in the head?  Not like blocking badger sets? etc etc
Thunder flashes??
Clearly to throw at hunt sabs to stop them watching what they get up to..... The fact remains that if hunts are not breaking the law why oh why are they so worried about sabs??? If they are doing nothing wrong they should not have any worries about sabs keeping a eye on them should they?    Obviously they are not hunting illegally are they?  Nothing to worry about what the sabs see and film nearly every day of the week. They are just going out for a nice trail hunt are they not?  Even if that is in the middle of busy roads, railway tracks and even peoples gardens.  In one case recently even inside someones house!

I do not know why the hunt sab hit by a car driven by a hunt supporter is in jail for but whatever it is does not justify someone trying to kill her.


----------



## Millionwords (17 November 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Not excusable??
Not like stabbing a fox to death with a pitchfork?  Not like shooting hounds in the head?  Not like blocking badger sets? etc etc
Thunder flashes??
Clearly to throw at hunt sabs to stop them watching what they get up to..... The fact remains that if hunts are not breaking the law why oh why are they so worried about sabs??? If they are doing nothing wrong they should not have any worries about sabs keeping a eye on them should they?    Obviously they are not hunting illegally are they?  Nothing to worry about what the sabs see and film nearly every day of the week. They are just going out for a nice trail hunt are they not?  Even if that is in the middle of busy roads, railway tracks and even peoples gardens.  In one case recently even inside someones house!

I do not know why the hunt sab hit by a car driven by a hunt supporter is in jail for but whatever it is does not justify someone trying to kill her.
		
Click to expand...

I wasn't suggesting anything hunts do is excusable, i was just saying it can't be good if she's been refused bail.

Its strange how hunts always respond with "but sabs did x"....like that excuses or justifies the far higher cases of hunts doing wrong. How about everyone just stops doing wrong because they know its wrong.


----------



## ycbm (17 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			Um, and now both Mel Broughton - well known hunt sab, arsonist and terrorist and Lisa Jaffrey (thankfully recovered from injuries sustained as a result of being hit by a car at a hunt meet) are remanded in custody with no bail.  They are not exactly yer peace loving, non violent activists either.  Petrol bombing (Mel Broughton) isn't  a democratic protest...
		
Click to expand...


I asked over an hour ago for you to point to a verifiable source for this.  I don't think it's acceptable for you to name individuals unless you can do that. 

I have googled (under the correct spelling of her name)  and I can't find a word about this online. What's your source?  What offence have they been alleged to have committed? 
.


----------



## palo1 (17 November 2022)

ycbm said:



			I asked over an hour ago for you to point to a verifiable source for this.  I don't think it's acceptable for you to name individuals unless you can do that.

I have googled (under the correct spelling of her name)  and I can't find a word about this online. What's your source?  What offence have they been alleged to have committed?
.
		
Click to expand...

The information was quite easily found and I have posted on the other thread.  Posting what I did, where information is in the public domain is perfectly acceptable.  For anyone who hasn't seen the other thread (or doesn't want to read it) the offence is one of interfering with animal research activities at MBR Acres animal testing in Cambridgeshire.  The Home Office are actively involved with this station and so the security etc are taken very seriously.  Mel Broughton is a convicted arsonist and terrorist and Lisa Jaffrey, in working with him to disrupt activities (as well as harrass and threaten staff) will be dealt with with considerable caution in terms of the safety of others.  The fact that LJ has collaborated with MB is not great; there is clearly a bit of a fuzzy line about the safety of others in the cause of animal activism.

FWIW I find it hard to accept aspects of animal testing and I don't know enough about what the MBR beagles are used for to know whether I find that valid or not. It is potentially a very distressing subject and one in which many animals are implicated.


----------



## Koweyka (17 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			Um, and now both Mel Broughton - well known hunt sab, arsonist and terrorist and Lisa Jaffrey (thankfully recovered from injuries sustained as a result of being hit by a car at a hunt meet) are remanded in custody with no bail.  They are not exactly yer peace loving, non violent activists either.  Petrol bombing (Mel Broughton) isn't  a democratic protest...
		
Click to expand...

Um so by your reckoning because of two individuals it makes the rest of us fair game ?


----------



## Koweyka (17 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			The information was quite easily found and I have posted on the other thread.  Posting what I did, where information is in the public domain is perfectly acceptable.  For anyone who hasn't seen the other thread (or doesn't want to read it) the offence is one of interfering with animal research activities at MBR Acres animal testing in Cambridgeshire.  The Home Office are actively involved with this station and so the security etc are taken very seriously.  Mel Broughton is a convicted arsonist and terrorist and Lisa Jaffrey, in working with him to disrupt activities (as well as harrass and threaten staff) will be dealt with with considerable caution in terms of the safety of others.  The fact that LJ has collaborated with MB is not great; there is clearly a bit of a fuzzy line about the safety of others in the cause of animal activism.

FWIW I find it hard to accept aspects of animal testing and I don't know enough about what the MBR beagles are used for to know whether I find that valid or not. It is potentially a very distressing subject and one in which many animals are implicated.
		
Click to expand...

When the beagles puppies are around 16 weeks old they are loaded into vans and driven across country for chemical and toxicology tests. Have you ever been to Camp Beagle and heard the puppies whining and barking as they are shipped off for really inhumane tests before they are killed ? The whole country should be up in arms about this and the testing stopped immediately.


----------



## palo1 (17 November 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Um so by your reckoning because of two individuals it makes the rest of us fair game ?
		
Click to expand...

I have certainly never suggested that.


----------



## palo1 (17 November 2022)

Koweyka said:



			When the beagles puppies are around 16 weeks old they are loaded into vans and driven across country for chemical and toxicology tests. Have you ever been to Camp Beagle and heard the puppies whining and barking as they are shipped off for really inhumane tests before they are killed ? The whole country should be up in arms about this and the testing stopped immediately.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, it is extremely difficult, even impossible for some people, to accept the necessity of animal training.  I don't know what testing these poor beagles are being used for so I cannot say whether I think that is legitimate tbh.  I do know that potentially it is better that we test using animals in the UK than use off shore testing but it is a very unpleasant aspect of society.  Would people be prepared to accept the consequences of no animal testing I wonder?  I mean there would be some price to pay for that welfare decision but I suspect that if it came to it, many people would prefer testing on animals than people.  I completely understand the revulsion around animal testing but that doesn't legitimise terrorism or illegal activity.


----------



## Koweyka (17 November 2022)

Another hunt attacking people’s pets, should all be banned from going out.

BREAKING: We've received reports that the Lincolnshire-based Brocklesby Hunt mauled a pet cat, Matrix, yesterday.

Following the attack by the pack of hounds, the cat is currently in a critical condition at a veterinary centre.

More to follow.


----------



## shortstuff99 (17 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			Lisa Jaffrey, who was the woman hit by a car at a hunt meeting a couple of weeks ago, has recovered sufficiently to have been back in action, arrested, remanded in custody and bail refused.  She is alongside Mel Broughton who has form for arson and terrorism offences (previously jailed).   On both sides of the animal rights/hunting debate there are some deeply unpleasant and dangerous individuals.  Neither Lisa Jaffrey nor Mel Broughton, nor many of their comrades would be likely to end their activities if there was a  complete ban on trail hunting...
		
Click to expand...

I actually know Lisa and her daughter and I wouldn't describe her as a dangerous, violent criminal, she does have mental health issues so I would be careful about throwing things around. Her daughter also drag hunts so she knows what it is about.


----------



## Burnttoast (17 November 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Another hunt attacking people’s pets, should all be banned from going out.

BREAKING: We've received reports that the Lincolnshire-based Brocklesby Hunt mauled a pet cat, Matrix, yesterday.

Following the attack by the pack of hounds, the cat is currently in a critical condition at a veterinary centre.

More to follow.
		
Click to expand...

It does still astonish me that hunts are held to standards far far lower than are members of the general public when it comes to dogs in public places.


----------



## Clodagh (17 November 2022)

Burnttoast said:



			It does still astonish me that hunts are held to standards far far lower than are members of the general public when it comes to dogs in public places.
		
Click to expand...

And that absolutely shouldn’t be the case.


----------



## Clodagh (17 November 2022)

Koweyka said:



			When the beagles puppies are around 16 weeks old they are loaded into vans and driven across country for chemical and toxicology tests. Have you ever been to Camp Beagle and heard the puppies whining and barking as they are shipped off for really inhumane tests before they are killed ? The whole country should be up in arms about this and the testing stopped immediately.
		
Click to expand...

That’s just awful. I hate animal testing but I do see it’s better done somewhere with regulations. 
I hope the poor beggars are at least testing something important and life changing, and not make up and stuff. Although it makes no difference to the individual.


----------



## palo1 (17 November 2022)

shortstuff99 said:



			I actually know Lisa and her daughter and I wouldn't describe her as a dangerous, violent criminal, she does have mental health issues so I would be careful about throwing things around. Her daughter also drag hunts so she knows what it is about.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think I have thrown anything about but reported on how LJ is viewed legally in view of some of her activities.  It doesn't surprise me that she has mental health issues.  The various stresses of some activities she is involved in would be difficult, possibly worse or contributing to that.


----------



## palo1 (17 November 2022)

Burnttoast said:



			It does still astonish me that hunts are held to standards far far lower than are members of the general public when it comes to dogs in public places.
		
Click to expand...

It is probably a good thing that cats are increasingly protected as pets in law though there is still a failure to give cat owners a commensurate level of responsibility for their pets activities.


----------



## Burnttoast (17 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			And that absolutely shouldn’t be the case.
		
Click to expand...

And yet it is 🤷‍♀️


----------



## Burnttoast (17 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			It is probably a good thing that cats are increasingly protected as pets in law though there is still a failure to give cat owners a commensurate level of responsibility for their pets activities.
		
Click to expand...

I don't know what cats have to do with this. The laws and social expectations that apply to normal dog ownership just don't appear to apply to hunts. I can't be the only person who wonders why this is.


----------



## Tiddlypom (17 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			It is probably a good thing that cats are increasingly protected as pets in law though there is still a failure to give cat owners a commensurate level of responsibility for their pets activities.
		
Click to expand...

*probably* 🙄

How very grudging of you.

You have made it clear many times, palo, that you detest pet cats. Of course pet cats should be protected in law from harm, whether from feckless hunts who cannot or will not control their hounds, or those who set their hounds on cats deliberately, or anyone else.

ETA I have posted about this a few times before, but I heard directly from a hunt subscriber about hounds being sent into rough ground to 'thin out' the feral cats.


----------



## palo1 (17 November 2022)

Burnttoast said:



			I don't know what cats have to do with this. The laws and social expectations that apply to normal dog ownership just don't appear to apply to hunts. I can't be the only person who wonders why this is.
		
Click to expand...

Working dogs, including hounds have a slightly separate legal status to pet dogs.  That includes a range of 'working' situations but I agree that a pack of hounds should  be(and usually are) safe with any form of pet or stock/not able to cause trouble.  A huntsman should be able to control all hounds at any time and hound and huntsman training is aimed at exactly that.


----------



## palo1 (17 November 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			*probably* 🙄

How very grudging of you.

You have made it clear many times, palo, that you detest pet cats. Of course pet cats should be protected in law from harm, whether from feckless hunts who cannot or will not control their hounds, or those who set their hounds on cats deliberately, or anyone else.
		
Click to expand...

No, I don't detest pet cats!! I have had several much loved cats in fact BUT I don't see that it is fair to only give rights (to pet cat owners) without equal responsibilities.  It is not contested that pet cats harass and kill wildlife and potentially other people's pets, make a nuisance of themselves to neighbours and road users and can be used for pest control yet cat owners do not face the same sanctions or legal responsibilities as dog owners whose dogs may also harrass and kill wildlife (or other people's pets)., make a nuisance of themselves to neighbours or other road users or be used for pest control.   That simply doesn't make sense legally or socially.


----------



## Millionwords (17 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			Working dogs, including hounds have a slightly separate legal status to pet dogs.  That includes a range of 'working' situations but I agree that a pack of hounds should  be(and usually are) safe with any form of pet or stock/not able to cause trouble.  A huntsman should be able to control all hounds at any time and hound and huntsman training is aimed at exactly that.
		
Click to expand...

And yet they are regularly not controlled, and there are no consequences. Pet cats are a regular occurance, lambs, Alpacas.
If it was one hunt it would be expected, but its across the country.


----------



## palo1 (17 November 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			*probably* 🙄

How very grudging of you.

You have made it clear many times, palo, that you detest pet cats. Of course pet cats should be protected in law from harm, whether from feckless hunts who cannot or will not control their hounds, or those who set their hounds on cats deliberately, or anyone else.

ETA I have posted about this a few times before, but I heard directly from a hunt subscriber about hounds being sent into rough ground to 'thin out' the feral cats.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, that is appalling and I would never defend that!  If you are going to be totally logical about it, then sending in terriers to thin out rats should be sanctioned too, yet that is acceptable and considered a humane form of pest control.   I have no problem with that and some people (not me) might say that a pack of dogs dealing with pest cats might be ok. (I am not referring to pet cats in any way here).


----------



## palo1 (17 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			And yet they are regularly not controlled, and there are no consequences. Pet cats are a regular occurance, lambs, Alpacas.
If it was one hunt it would be expected, but its across the country.
		
Click to expand...

It is not regular - each and every occurence (which are all utterly wrong) is reported on massively and repeatedly until it looks as if there are many, many more incidences of loss of control.  There shouldn't be any of course.


----------



## skinnydipper (17 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			No, I don't detest pet cats!! I have had several much loved cats in fact BUT I don't see that it is fair to only give rights (to pet cat owners) without equal responsibilities.  It is not contested that pet cats harass and kill wildlife and potentially other people's pets, make a nuisance of themselves to neighbours and road users and can be used for pest control yet cat owners do not face the same sanctions or legal responsibilities as dog owners whose dogs may also harrass and kill wildlife (or other people's pets)., make a nuisance of themselves to neighbours or other road users or be used for pest control.   That simply doesn't make sense legally or socially.
		
Click to expand...

Were your cats indoor only cats?


----------



## palo1 (17 November 2022)

skinnydipper said:



			Were your cats indoor only cats?
		
Click to expand...

No, both of my cats were free to roam.  They both killed song birds and small reptiles with horrible frequency.  They probably crapped in my neighbours gardens, wound up their cats and dogs and came home with occasional injuries (probably from fighting).  Neither was injured by vehicles but they could have been.  It was the experience of having these cats over a 20 year period that convinced me that I didn't want to have another one; the only way to prevent them killing wildlife and being a nuisance to my neighbours etc was to keep them indoors which I was not comfortable with.  I also had the awful experience of running over someone's pet cat on a main road.  I was horrified and late at night, tried to find the cat's owner - with no luck at all.  I know how devastated that owner probably was when their pet didn't come home though I asked many people locally if they knew who I might speak to.   I had to leave the body of someone's loved pet on a verge on a country road and I have never forgotten that. If it had been a dog I would have reported it to the police and the owner may have been found.    I am far from ignorant to the charms of a cat but if you have rights you also have to have responsibilities.


----------



## paddy555 (17 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			Working dogs, including hounds have a slightly separate legal status to pet dogs.  That includes a range of 'working' situations but I agree that a pack of hounds should  be(and usually are) safe with any form of pet or stock/not able to cause trouble.  A huntsman should be able to control all hounds at any time and hound and huntsman training is aimed at exactly that.
		
Click to expand...

do you class hounds as working dogs? I can't see why they should be. Surely a working dog works, it protects something, works for the police or military, moves sheep and cattle, works as a sniffer dog. If hounds are being used for fox control ie to control vermin(as in foxes) then I can see they would be working. In fact they are simply going out for a day with pleasure riders for a jaunt in the countryside 
I can't see that is any different from the average rider taking a couple of dogs out on their ride. Those certainly wouldn't be working dogs. (unless of course the rider was gathering stock) 
Hunting is a leisure activity, so the animals that go along are leisure animals. 

If we all agree that a huntsman  should be able to control hounds at any time why can't they control them around cats?


----------



## paddy555 (17 November 2022)

the quote below is taken from the Devon against hunting FB page. Does anyone know anything about it? Did hounds run onto the road and was one hurt? 



_Yesterday, 15.11.22, the East Devon Hunt was hunting along the busy 3052 around Hawkerland/Stoneyford/Aylesbeare on Clinton Devon Estate land. As usual they did not follow a trail but were illegally hunting foxes. Their out off control hounds ran onto the busy roads near the former Halfway Inn and caused a serious collision, a hound was hit twice. The injured dog was picked up by hunt members and the witnesses were told that the hound will be brought to the vets. One of the witnesses called all local vets later just to find out that the hound was not brought in._


----------



## palo1 (17 November 2022)

paddy555 said:



			do you class hounds as working dogs? I can't see why they should be. Surely a working dog works, it protects something, works for the police or military, moves sheep and cattle, works as a sniffer dog. If hounds are being used for fox control ie to control vermin(as in foxes) then I can see they would be working. In fact they are simply going out for a day with pleasure riders for a jaunt in the countryside
I can't see that is any different from the average rider taking a couple of dogs out on their ride. Those certainly wouldn't be working dogs. (unless of course the rider was gathering stock)
Hunting is a leisure activity, so the animals that go along are leisure animals.

If we all agree that a huntsman  should be able to control hounds at any time why can't they control them around cats?
		
Click to expand...

I entirely understand your point about hounds being working dogs, but then greyhounds and other sporting dogs, including some gun dogs and possibly pedigree stud dogs share the same legal status; they are all essentially recreational animals but with a specific working or 'sporting' purpose.  That is just the law and it would probably be extremely difficult, not to mention a waste of parliamentary time to change that.  Hounds are classified as working dogs and their keepers are bound to comply with the relevant law.  Sheepdogs share the same status which I guess is the reason that it is generally tolerated for sheepdogs to be loose often on the road for example (ie out of control).  At least here it seems that way, not to mention that the temperament of some sheep dogs is not really public friendly...some would, if they were 'pet' dogs be considered dangerous or potentially out of control.


----------



## Peglo (17 November 2022)

so it’s not ok for cats to kill wildlife and follow natural instincts but totally fine for humans to shoot and kill whatever they like for sport or because they are “pests”.

seems a bit double standards to me. But I love cats. And don’t find shooting animals a pleasant pass time.


----------



## Millionwords (17 November 2022)

It is always amusing to read the arguments in favour of the status quo in this thread, the mental gymnastics are astounding.


----------



## paddy555 (17 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			I entirely understand your point about hounds being working dogs, but then greyhounds and other sporting dogs, including some gun dogs and possibly pedigree stud dogs share the same legal status; they are all essentially recreational animals but with a specific working or 'sporting' purpose.  That is just the law and it would probably be extremely difficult, not to mention a waste of parliamentary time to change that.  Hounds are classified as working dogs and their keepers are bound to comply with the relevant law.  Sheepdogs share the same status which I guess is the reason that it is generally tolerated for sheepdogs to be loose often on the road for example (ie out of control).  At least here it seems that way, not to mention that the temperament of some sheep dogs is not really public friendly...some would, if they were 'pet' dogs be considered dangerous or potentially out of control.
		
Click to expand...

I see the point you are making about working dogs but I don't understand why you continually then deflect the issue. 
To explain what I mean you say hounds are classed as working dogs. They do seem to cause a problem as a fair number appear to be out of control on roads, gardens or chasing other animals but that gets no mention in your reply. 

You then give 3.5 lines of your views about sheep dogs which are not the issue at all. 

If you are carrying the flag for hunting with hounds then put their case sheep dogs don't come into it.


----------



## Burnttoast (17 November 2022)

paddy555 said:



			do you class hounds as working dogs? I can't see why they should be. Surely a working dog works, it protects something, works for the police or military, moves sheep and cattle, works as a sniffer dog. If hounds are being used for fox control ie to control vermin(as in foxes) then I can see they would be working. In fact they are simply going out for a day with pleasure riders for a jaunt in the countryside
I can't see that is any different from the average rider taking a couple of dogs out on their ride. Those certainly wouldn't be working dogs. (unless of course the rider was gathering stock)
Hunting is a leisure activity, so the animals that go along are leisure animals.

If we all agree that a huntsman  should be able to control hounds at any time why can't they control them around cats?
		
Click to expand...

This ^ Hounds may have a certain status under the law but it's outdated. It's probably true that it would be a waste of parliamentary time to change it but nevertheless in no strict sense are they working dogs. There are also certain expectations of dog owners - it's usually thought polite to pick up after your dog if you possibly can wherever you are, for example (regardless of the law). I'm sure it will be argued that picking up after hounds would be impossible but there is a very easy solution to that which is obvious I would have thought.


----------



## Clodagh (17 November 2022)

I loathe cats and think they are a scourge. But I wouldn’t wish them killed by dogs. I also wish they didn’t kill my bantams. 
It is indeed odd that terriers ratting is fine, when it is set up exactly the same way as historic cubbing was.
Either way I agree hounds should never riot onto any pets or livestock and the offending hounds are usually destroyed. 

As for the hound not being taken to the vet, back in my hunting days vets hunted a lot and would have visited the kennels for treatment needed. Also would you admit to the antis that you treated foxhounds? Imagine the hate mail and social media hysteria that would cause. Sabs hunt in packs as much as hounds do.


----------



## palo1 (17 November 2022)

paddy555 said:



			I see the point you are making about working dogs but I don't understand why you continually then deflect the issue.
To explain what I mean you say hounds are classed as working dogs. They do seem to cause a problem as a fair number appear to be out of control on roads, gardens or chasing other animals but that gets no mention in your reply.

You then give 3.5 lines of your views about sheep dogs which are not the issue at all.

If you are carrying the flag for hunting with hounds then put their case sheep dogs don't come into it.
		
Click to expand...

I understand you.  The reason I waffled on about sheep dogs is that because locally sheepdogs definitely cause MORE problems than hounds - they roam, fight, lie on the road, chase cars, cyclists, riders and motorbikes, frighten the postman etc but because they have that status as working dogs, they are treated differently.  Not all local sheepdogs are rogues here lol but enough of them in a wide enough area for it to be a conversational issue at parish council meetings, where hounds out of control just isn't.  If I asked a local policeman which he had more reports on, it would definitely be the sheepdog working crew rather than the hounds.  It wasn't meant as deflection but just as an attempt to be logical about 'problem' working dogs.  It just always feels to me that there is little logic applied to the issue of hounds here.  Anyway, if PETA get their way, sheepdogs (we have 3 of the devils including a divine pup btw) will be on the way out too.


----------



## YorksG (17 November 2022)

Vets are obliged to not disclose information about their customers. Antis may believe that they have special rights to knowledge about others, but they don't.


----------



## palo1 (17 November 2022)

paddy555 said:



			I see the point you are making about working dogs but I don't understand why you continually then deflect the issue.
To explain what I mean you say hounds are classed as working dogs. They do seem to cause a problem as a fair number appear to be out of control on roads, gardens or chasing other animals but that gets no mention in your reply.

You then give 3.5 lines of your views about sheep dogs which are not the issue at all.

If you are carrying the flag for hunting with hounds then put their case sheep dogs don't come into it.
		
Click to expand...

Pedantic; I gave my views on sheep dogs in 1.5 lines not 3.5!!


----------



## skinnydipper (17 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			Pedantic; I gave my views on sheep dogs in 1.5 lines not 3.5!!
		
Click to expand...

Screen size.  Big screen fewer lines. Small screen more lines.


----------



## paddy555 (17 November 2022)

skinnydipper said:



			Screen size.  Big screen fewer lines. Small screen more lines. 

Click to expand...

thank you. I have a smaller laptop.


----------



## Millionwords (17 November 2022)

Different hunts, but both recent.
You can see the ragged fox in frame with the hound, and a close up of the fox.
Reported to sabs by a member of the public as being chased and killed seconds before they got there.


----------



## Koweyka (17 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			Different hunts, but both recent.
You can see the ragged fox in frame with the hound, and a close up of the fox.
Reported to sabs by a member of the public as being chased and killed seconds before they got there.
		
Click to expand...

Utterly disgusting and despicable.

I saw someone post earlier that it’s not a common occurrence hounds chasing pets because it’s not reported often, but there are over 300 hunts out 2/3 times a week and many of them never see a sab or a monitor, yet just this week a hunt has attacked a cat and hunted another cat through a building site, I have seen them chase cats, so I think it’s a regular occurrence just not reported.


----------



## Millionwords (17 November 2022)

Oh and this "trail" within prison grounds... 🤔


----------



## Millionwords (18 November 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Another hunt attacking people’s pets, should all be banned from going out.

BREAKING: We've received reports that the Lincolnshire-based Brocklesby Hunt mauled a pet cat, Matrix, yesterday.

Following the attack by the pack of hounds, the cat is currently in a critical condition at a veterinary centre.

More to follow.
		
Click to expand...

His owner has updated on his condition poor thing.

"UPDATE: Extent of the damage, punctured abdomen which they've stitched but worried about infection with it being a bite wound. Dislocated hip, spinal damage. Penile damage but hoping catheterisation will help it heal correctly. He may lose a leg. They're keeping him in to see if he regains feeling back to his leg. My poor baby 😪"


----------



## Sandstone1 (18 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			His owner has updated on his condition poor thing.

"UPDATE: Extent of the damage, punctured abdomen which they've stitched but worried about infection with it being a bite wound. Dislocated hip, spinal damage. Penile damage but hoping catheterisation will help it heal correctly. He may lose a leg. They're keeping him in to see if he regains feeling back to his leg. My poor baby 😪"
		
Click to expand...

These are the type of people you are dealing with here.   The complete arrogance of hunting people thinking they have the right to kill and injure peoples pets just so they get their jollies.   There will be some excuse of course but when things like this happen they are devastating someones life.  Their pet maybe all they have but the hunt allows something like this to happen.  Pro hunters need not bother replying as you are all now on UI.


----------



## Koweyka (18 November 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			These are the type of people you are dealing with here.   The complete arrogance of hunting people thinking they have the right to kill and injure peoples pets just so they get their jollies.   There will be some excuse of course but when things like this happen they are devastating someones life.  Their pet maybe all they have but the hunt allows something like this to happen.  Pro hunters need not bother replying as you are all now on UI.
		
Click to expand...

Absolute miracle he has survived and those injuries sound like he has been ragged 😞

I once retrieved a fox that had been killed by hounds and they had twisted her body so much her spine had snapped and her back legs had been turned around the wrong way.

Hunting needs a complete ban, the season hasn’t really got going and foxes and pets are dying, hounds are dying, people’s lives on trains and the roads put at risk, Sabs run over and bombs thrown. 

I have already got such damning footage on two hunts that they are to be interviewed under police caution soon.


----------



## Millionwords (18 November 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			These are the type of people you are dealing with here.   The complete arrogance of hunting people thinking they have the right to kill and injure peoples pets just so they get their jollies.   There will be some excuse of course but when things like this happen they are devastating someones life.  Their pet maybe all they have but the hunt allows something like this to happen.  Pro hunters need not bother replying as you are all now on UI.
		
Click to expand...

I dont know what UI is, but I think they should reply, I just posted 3 different things from the last couple of weeks, apparently all of these types of incident are rare, but if there are hundreds of hunts, most not sabbed and the ones that are have more incidents such as, police involvement, kills, violence, pet killing, arson (thunderflashes), trespass onto train lines, killed hounds, car collisions, getting into gardens, etc etc etc...then its not uncommon,  or unusual, the hunting season has only just got going proper...and there are already more wrongdoing incidents committed by hunts than there are to be found about sabs.


----------



## Koweyka (18 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			I dont know what UI is, but I think they should reply, I just posted 3 different things from the last couple of weeks, apparently all of these types of incident are rare, but if there are hundreds of hunts, most not sabbed and the ones that are have more incidents such as, police involvement, kills, violence, pet killing, arson (thunderflashes), trespass onto train lines, killed hounds, car collisions, getting into gardens, etc etc etc...then its not uncommon,  or unusual, the hunting season has only just got going proper...and there are already more wrongdoing incidents committed by hunts than there are to be found about sabs.
		
Click to expand...

When I have spoken to other sab groups around the country recently we all feel that the hunts have escalated things this season and are once again acting untouchable.
There are quite a few court cases coming up soon which will hopefully see more hunt convictions which may have a knock on effect and tip the scales more in the foxes favour.


----------



## Gallop_Away (18 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			His owner has updated on his condition poor thing.

"UPDATE: Extent of the damage, punctured abdomen which they've stitched but worried about infection with it being a bite wound. Dislocated hip, spinal damage. Penile damage but hoping catheterisation will help it heal correctly. He may lose a leg. They're keeping him in to see if he regains feeling back to his leg. My poor baby 😪"
		
Click to expand...

Poor wee baby. That is completely indefensible and shows either a complete lack of control over hounds or complete lack of care. Either should result in that particular hunt being investigated and either severely fined or disbanded. This is not acceptable in any way shape or form!


----------



## Sossigpoker (18 November 2022)

Koweyka said:



			When I have spoken to other sab groups around the country recently we all feel that the hunts have escalated things this season and are once again acting untouchable.
There are quite a few court cases coming up soon which will hopefully see more hunt convictions which may have a knock on effect and tip the scales more in the foxes favour.
		
Click to expand...

A recent one where someone was convicted of illegal hunting - I think he got a  £600 fine. That's an insult.
And he probably did it again the next day .
Law and order and enforcement of those are shameful in this country,  and when it comes to animals , the whole country is an insult. Animals are abused , neglected,  stolen , tortured, every single day and it seems very little is done about it 
Really makes me so sad.


----------



## Sossigpoker (18 November 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			These are the type of people you are dealing with here.   The complete arrogance of hunting people thinking they have the right to kill and injure peoples pets just so they get their jollies.   There will be some excuse of course but when things like this happen they are devastating someones life.  Their pet maybe all they have but the hunt allows something like this to happen.  Pro hunters need not bother replying as you are all now on UI.
		
Click to expand...

That UI is a useful function , limits the crap on your screen , doesn't it !


----------



## Burnttoast (18 November 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			Poor wee baby. That is completely indefensible and shows either a complete lack of control over hounds or complete lack of care. Either should result in that particular hunt being investigated and either severely fined or disbanded. This is not acceptable in any way shape or form!
		
Click to expand...

I lost a really wonderful little cat suddenly to cancer a couple of months ago and I can't type this without crying. I can't imagine how I'd feel if she'd suffered the fate of poor Matrix, even if she lived. Capable of doing something very disruptive, I imagine. And not much like listening to justifications for it.


----------



## Millionwords (18 November 2022)

Tumbleweed from those not against hunting, because how many times can folk say "oh most hunts dont do it, most people in the community condem it" before noone believes you because it goes on and on and on...


----------



## Sossigpoker (18 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			Tumbleweed from those not against hunting, because how many times can folk say "oh most hunts dont do it, most people in the community condem it" before noone believes you because it goes on and on and on...
		
Click to expand...

Oh don't you know that if it only happens a bit , it's OK in the name of the greater good that is enjoying ripping animals apart in the name of sport ? (Sarcasm , obviously).


----------



## sakura (18 November 2022)

I cannot imagine something like that happening to my cat, who is my best little man. It is completely savage, brutal and heart breaking. And it is the fate of all foxes caught by the hounds. I don't see a difference between one animal and another - it is always inexcusable.


----------



## Gallop_Away (18 November 2022)

Burnttoast said:



			I lost a really wonderful little cat suddenly to cancer a couple of months ago and I can't type this without crying. I can't imagine how I'd feel if she'd suffered the fate of poor Matrix, even if she lived. Capable of doing something very disruptive, I imagine. And not much like listening to justifications for it.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry for your loss burnttoast. I have cats myself. I can not imagine something like this happening to them. Heartbreaking doesn't cover it.


----------



## suestowford (18 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			I entirely understand your point about hounds being working dogs, but then greyhounds and other sporting dogs, including some gun dogs and possibly pedigree stud dogs share the same legal status; they are all essentially recreational animals but with a specific working or 'sporting' purpose.  That is just the law and it would probably be extremely difficult, not to mention a waste of parliamentary time to change that.
		
Click to expand...




palo1 said:



			It is probably a good thing that cats are increasingly protected as pets in law though there is still a failure to give cat owners a commensurate level of responsibility for their pets activities.
		
Click to expand...

I expect it's also considered a waste of Parliamentary time to look at changing the law on cats as well as working dogs. But the law also takes into consideration that cats and dogs are not the same, even though they are both predators at heart. For instance, I have never yet taught a cat to walk to heel, I mean can you imagine that? It would be sensational! But I think I could manage it with a dog. They just think differently so of course the law has to take that into account.

I do agree with you that there is a certain lack of responsibility amongst some humans who own cats & dogs, and hounds. And it's getting to the point where that IS a problem.


----------



## Burnttoast (18 November 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			Heartbreaking doesn't cover it.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, this is it - which is why people feel that protestations that it's unacceptable from people who in other respects support the existence of hunts ring a bit hollow, because we all know that there will be no consequences for the hunt arising from this incident or others, and that yet another instance will be along in a minute.


----------



## Gallop_Away (18 November 2022)

Burnttoast said:



			Yes, this is it - which is why people feel that protestations that it's unacceptable from people who in other respects support the existence of hunts ring a bit hollow, because we all know that there will be no consequences for the hunt arising from this incident or others, and that yet another instance will be along in a minute.
		
Click to expand...

It really is not good enough. This should not be happening I completely agree and I can not tell you the frustration I feel as someone who supports and loves legal trail hunting, to watch the destruction of my much loved sport be brought about by those who seem to feel they are above the law. I've no doubt the days of trail hunting are numbered and illegal hunting is to blame. 

What should be happening in my opinion is that trail hunting should be strictly governed by the hunting office and a strict policy should be applied. Hunts caught trespassing or causing upset to locals etc should be severely fined in the first instance, and immediately disbanded if it continues. Hunts where hounds kill or injure livestock or pets again should be at the very least severely fined, or immediately disbanded in severe cases, and again disbanded if incidents of injury to livestock or pets continues. Hunts that have killed foxes should be immediately suspended from hunting pending investigation and should be severely fined in the first instance of cases where it is found to have been accidental and again disbanded if it happens again, and immediately disbanded if evidence of blatant illegal hunting is found. 

Legal hunts that cause no issues such as ours would have nothing to fear. Sadly I'm under no illusion that this will never happen which is a great shame imo. When the end finally comes, we will certainly know who to thank.


----------



## SilverLinings (18 November 2022)

paddy555 said:



			the quote below is taken from the Devon against hunting FB page. Does anyone know anything about it? Did hounds run onto the road and was one hurt?

_Yesterday, 15.11.22, the East Devon Hunt was hunting along the busy 3052 around Hawkerland/Stoneyford/Aylesbeare on Clinton Devon Estate land. As usual they did not follow a trail but were illegally hunting foxes. Their out off control hounds ran onto the busy roads near the former Halfway Inn and caused a serious collision, a hound was hit twice. The injured dog was picked up by hunt members and the witnesses were told that the hound will be brought to the vets. One of the witnesses called all local vets later just to find out that the hound was not brought in._

Click to expand...

A colleague of mine who was in the area for work got stuck for quite some time on that road on Tuesday, but she wasn't sure what the cause was (other than being some sort of car accident). I know for a fact though that the East Devon hunt foxes. They are very aware that they need to hide what they are doing, but it isn't too difficult to find out.


----------



## palo1 (18 November 2022)

Gallop_Away said:



			It really is not good enough. This should not be happening I completely agree and I can not tell you the frustration I feel as someone who supports and loves legal trail hunting, to watch the destruction of my much loved sport be brought about by those who seem to feel they are above the law. I've no doubt the days of trail hunting are numbered and illegal hunting is to blame.

What should be happening in my opinion is that trail hunting should be strictly governed by the hunting office and a strict policy should be applied. Hunts caught trespassing or causing upset to locals etc should be severely fined in the first instance, and immediately disbanded if it continues. Hunts where hounds kill or injure livestock or pets again should be at the very least severely fined, or immediately disbanded in severe cases, and again disbanded if incidents of injury to livestock or pets continues. Hunts that have killed foxes should be immediately suspended from hunting pending investigation and should be severely fined in the first instance of cases where it is found to have been accidental and again disbanded if it happens again, and immediately disbanded if evidence of blatant illegal hunting is found.

Legal hunts that cause no issues such as ours would have nothing to fear. Sadly I'm under no illusion that this will never happen which is a great shame imo. When the end finally comes, we will certainly know who to thank.
		
Click to expand...

I too feel angry and frustrated that the Hunting Office doesn't immediately and seriously discipline hunts that have these incidents.  There is no excuse for any of them and I KNOW that it is absolutely and entirely possible for a decent huntsman and his team to keep hounds safely under control.  This is demonstrated week after week in location after location.  Hunt committees and the Hunting Office need to deal with this kind of thing and ensure that no one is under any illusions as to how unacceptable it is for people to see hounds as a risk to their pets and livestock (not to mention wildlife).   These reports are enraging to those of us who want to see hunting continue to be a part of our way of life.


----------



## Koweyka (18 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			I too feel angry and frustrated that the Hunting Office doesn't immediately and seriously discipline hunts that have these incidents.  There is no excuse for any of them and I KNOW that it is absolutely and entirely possible for a decent huntsman and his team to keep hounds safely under control.  This is demonstrated week after week in location after location.  Hunt committees and the Hunting Office need to deal with this kind of thing and ensure that no one is under any illusions as to how unacceptable it is for people to see hounds as a risk to their pets and livestock (not to mention wildlife).   These reports are enraging to those of us who want to see hunting continue to be a part of our way of life.
		
Click to expand...

Why aren’t all the hunts, riders and supporters that are behaving banging loudly on the door of the new governing body demanding they do something ?


----------



## Gallop_Away (18 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			I too feel angry and frustrated that the Hunting Office doesn't immediately and seriously discipline hunts that have these incidents.  There is no excuse for any of them and I KNOW that it is absolutely and entirely possible for a decent huntsman and his team to keep hounds safely under control.  This is demonstrated week after week in location after location.  Hunt committees and the Hunting Office need to deal with this kind of thing and ensure that no one is under any illusions as to how unacceptable it is for people to see hounds as a risk to their pets and livestock (not to mention wildlife).   These reports are enraging to those of us who want to see hunting continue to be a part of our way of life.
		
Click to expand...

Hear hear! I watch our master of hounds and whips work hounds flawlessly week in week out with no issues! There is no excuse for these appalling incidents.


----------



## palo1 (18 November 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Why aren’t all the hunts, riders and supporters that are behaving banging loudly on the door of the new governing body demanding they do something ?
		
Click to expand...

Where I am there is a sense of alienation from the Hunting Office as well as a real sense of approbation for huntsmen who can't control their hounds/demonstrate a lack of skill and/or common courtesy.  Not all hunts are closely in touch with the Hunting Office (ours isn't) so it's hard to know.  I actually don't know anyone at all involved in hunting that doesn't think idiots who can't control their hounds should be sacked immediately and an investigation into incidents actioned.  Clearly there is some mis match between that view and action taken. I have no idea why.  I do think there is a really growing anger with the new organisation about this - surely at least one of those in charge has some balls?!!


----------



## Tiddlypom (18 November 2022)

SilverLinings said:



			I know for a fact though that the East Devon hunt foxes. They are very aware that they need to hide what they are doing, but it isn't too difficult to find out.
		
Click to expand...

That's very poor. Back in the day as a teenager (long pre ban) I hunted with the East Devon many times. Lots of road work even then...

We pony clubbers were welcomed, but were very much kept in line and were expected to behave at all times.

One of the masters at the time was a judge, as was his wife who also rode with the E.Devon. Lovely family, and I'd have said great respecters of the law and of doing the right thing.

I have sometimes wondered what they make of the self inflicted mess that hunting is in now. Last I heard they were both still alive, but are rather elderly now.


----------



## Millionwords (18 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			Where I am there is a sense of alienation from the Hunting Office as well as a real sense of approbation for huntsmen who can't control their hounds/demonstrate a lack of skill and/or common courtesy.  Not all hunts are closely in touch with the Hunting Office (ours isn't) so it's hard to know.  I actually don't know anyone at all involved in hunting that doesn't think idiots who can't control their hounds should be sacked immediately and an investigation into incidents actioned.  Clearly there is some mis match between that view and action taken. I have no idea why.  I do think there is a really growing anger with the new organisation about this - surely at least one of those in charge has some balls?!!
		
Click to expand...

Aren't some of those in charge the very same involved in the webinars? 🤔 they're not going to hold their mates and illegal hunters to account when its them who got caught promoting ways to illegally hunt.


----------



## Tiddlypom (18 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			Aren't some of those in charge the very same involved in the webinars? 🤔 they're not going to hold their mates and illegal hunters to account when its them who got caught promoting ways to illegally hunt.
		
Click to expand...

Yes.

You only need to look at the name of the newly appointed Hunting Director, who is very well known in *ahem "traditional" hunting circles, and who played a prominent role in the infamous webinars, to know that there was never any intention of genuine reform.

From the Hunting Office news page, dated 29/6/22.

_The British Hound Sports Association (BHSA)_
_
We are pleased to announce that following the AGM’s yesterday, both the MFHA and AMHB members approved the plans to move forward with the new single governing body for hunting – the British Hound Sports Association (BHSA). The MFHA and AMHB will step back from the governance of hunting and instead focus on the hound breeding, stud books and regional representation and feedback.

In addition, following an open recruitment process, we are pleased to say that the new Managing Director of the BHSA will be Oliver Hughes, and he will be assisted by Richard Tyacke as Hunting Director. _


----------



## Koweyka (18 November 2022)

Tyacke


Tiddlypom said:



			Yes.

You only need to look at the name of the newly appointed Hunting Director, who is very well known in *ahem "traditional" hunting circles, and who played a prominent role in the infamous webinars, to know that there was never any intention of genuine reform.

From the Hunting Office news page, dated 29/6/22.

_The British Hound Sports Association (BHSA)_

_We are pleased to announce that following the AGM’s yesterday, both the MFHA and AMHB members approved the plans to move forward with the new single governing body for hunting – the British Hound Sports Association (BHSA). The MFHA and AMHB will step back from the governance of hunting and instead focus on the hound breeding, stud books and regional representation and feedback._

_In addition, following an open recruitment process, we are pleased to say that the new Managing Director of the BHSA will be Oliver Hughes, and he will be assisted by Richard Tyacke as Hunting Director. _

Click to expand...

Tyacke was the Wynnstay ex huntsman and is still very involved, that hunt is up in court at the end of the month charged with two counts of illegal hunting one charge being brought by the police themselves.

It’s akin to Fred West offering landscape services having him in charge of keeping hunting clean.


----------



## palo1 (18 November 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Tyacke


Tyacke was the Wynnstay ex huntsman and is still very involved, that hunt is up in court at the end of the month charged with two counts of illegal hunting one charge being brought by the police themselves.

It’s akin to Fred West offering landscape services having him in charge of keeping hunting clean.
		
Click to expand...

I had heard that Richard Tyacke was more committed to sorting out the mess and that there were hopes that he could persuade the stupid reckless idiots to mend their ways and their manners.


----------



## Koweyka (18 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			I had heard that Richard Tyacke was more committed to sorting out the mess and that there were hopes that he could persuade the stupid reckless idiots to mend their ways and their manners.
		
Click to expand...

Wow that’s made me chuckle !


----------



## Millionwords (18 November 2022)

Two incidents of assault with police involvement by BSV hunt recently

https://www.dorset.live/news/dorset-news/firecracker-thrown-dorset-saboteurs-tempers-7834941


----------



## Koweyka (18 November 2022)

Matrix the Cat died, just no words that I can say on here to describe how much I hate hunting. 

His owners words …

It breaks me to say that Matrix sadly passed away today. For such a small creature he gave up the biggest fight! 

He didn't deserve to lose his life to the Hunt. He didn't deserve to feel terrified or have to fight off several large Fox Hounds. He didn't deserve to spend the entire day alone, scared and in pain until we got home. He didn't deserve to leave his family. We don't deserve this pain. 

I will get justice for Matrix and I will make these ******* pay!!!


----------



## Clodagh (18 November 2022)

I can’t imagine how they feel. It would be very hard to cope with that sort of loss and trauma. I think what if it was one of my dogs, how much we love our pets.


----------



## Burnttoast (18 November 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Matrix the Cat died, just no words that I can say on here to describe how much I hate hunting.

His owners words …

It breaks me to say that Matrix sadly passed away today. For such a small creature he gave up the biggest fight!

He didn't deserve to lose his life to the Hunt. He didn't deserve to feel terrified or have to fight off several large Fox Hounds. He didn't deserve to spend the entire day alone, scared and in pain until we got home. He didn't deserve to leave his family. We don't deserve this pain.

I will get justice for Matrix and I will make these ******* pay!!!
		
Click to expand...

It's just utterly horrific.


----------



## Sossigpoker (18 November 2022)

I can't imagine the rage and grief his family will be feeling. It's bad enough losing your pet , but to have him torn apart and die in awful terror and agony is just heart breaking.


----------



## Burnttoast (18 November 2022)

If a dog in my charge did something like this I don't know what I would do with myself. The guilt would live with me forever. And yet this pack will be out again next week. They are a different calibre of person, people who are happy to continue in the same way after something like this. Their ability to empathise with the pet owner seems entirely absent.


----------



## Clodagh (18 November 2022)

Burnttoast said:



			If a dog in my charge did something like this I don't know what I would do with myself. The guilt would live with me forever. And yet this pack will be out again next week. They are a different calibre of person, people who are happy to continue in the same way after something like this. Their ability to empathise with the pet owner seems entirely absent.
		
Click to expand...

The hound that led the attack and any directly implicated will probably not be out next week.
I had a rescue lurcher that got involved in a fight between two other dogs, one a retired hound. Her and the Labrador killed the hound. I never, ever forgave her for it and it took me a year to even look her in the face again. It’s a horrible thing to deal with.


----------



## Sandstone1 (18 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			The hound that led the attack and any directly implicated will probably not be out next week.
I had a rescue lurcher that got involved in a fight between two other dogs, one a retired hound. Her and the Labrador killed the hound. I never, ever forgave her for it and it took me a year to even look her in the face again. It’s a horrible thing to deal with.
		
Click to expand...

Its not the hounds fault.... Its the idiots that are supposedly in charge of them.   If that had happened to a animal of mine it would not be the hounds I would be going after.


----------



## Clodagh (18 November 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Its not the hounds fault.... Its the idiots that are supposedly in charge of them.   If that had happened to a animal of mine it would not be the hounds I would be going after.
		
Click to expand...

I’m impressed I’m not on UI! 😄


----------



## Clodagh (18 November 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Its not the hounds fault.... Its the idiots that are supposedly in charge of them.   If that had happened to a animal of mine it would not be the hounds I would be going after.
		
Click to expand...

Cats do get killed by dogs. Sometimes it is an accident. Dogs should be well enough trained not to attack inappropriately and if they do, in a pack situation, what you can do at that very minute is limited.


----------



## Sandstone1 (18 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			Cats do get killed by dogs. Sometimes it is an accident. Dogs should be well enough trained not to attack inappropriately and if they do, in a pack situation, what you can do at that very minute is limited.
		
Click to expand...

If a hunt can not control its hounds it should not be out.  Its as simple as that.


----------



## Sandstone1 (18 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			I’m impressed I’m not on UI! 😄
		
Click to expand...

I must have missed you.


----------



## Clodagh (18 November 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			If a hunt can not control its hounds it should not be out.  Its as simple as that.
		
Click to expand...

Well it isn’t really. But I expect I’m on UI now, you do t seem to like dissenting views.


----------



## Tiddlypom (18 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			Cats do get killed by dogs. Sometimes it is an accident. Dogs should be well enough trained not to attack inappropriately and if they do, in a pack situation, what you can do at that very minute is limited.
		
Click to expand...

Quite. Once the attack is underway it's almost impossible to stop.

But the fault here lies in the poor training that led up to this.

That hunt and all its activities should have been put under immediate suspension pending the hunting authorities launching a full investigation. You simply can't have packs of hounds out killing pets.

It's nowhere near good enough to cull a few hounds and carry on as if nothing happened.

But we all know now, even those people who had hoped for better, that the new governing body is completely useless and is not interested in reforming hunting at all.


----------



## Sandstone1 (18 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			Well it isn’t really. But I expect I’m on UI now, you do t seem to like dissenting views.
		
Click to expand...

Im sorry but it is.  If your dog killed a cat or small dog on a walk you would be in trouble.


----------



## Sandstone1 (18 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			Well it isn’t really. But I expect I’m on UI now, you do t seem to like dissenting views.
		
Click to expand...

Yes you are going on UI Not because I do not like dissenting views but because of the excuses for out of control and illegal hunting.


----------



## Amymay (18 November 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Matrix the Cat died, just no words that I can say on here to describe how much I hate hunting.

His owners words …

It breaks me to say that Matrix sadly passed away today. For such a small creature he gave up the biggest fight!

He didn't deserve to lose his life to the Hunt. He didn't deserve to feel terrified or have to fight off several large Fox Hounds. He didn't deserve to spend the entire day alone, scared and in pain until we got home. He didn't deserve to leave his family. We don't deserve this pain.

I will get justice for Matrix and I will make these ******* pay!!!
		
Click to expand...

Devastating for the owner.  But actually ‘thank God’.  This injuries were devastating.


----------



## Amymay (18 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			Well it isn’t really. But I expect I’m on UI now, you do t seem to like dissenting views.
		
Click to expand...

But surely it is as simple as that.


----------



## Clodagh (18 November 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Im sorry but it is.  If your dog killed a cat or small dog on a walk you would be in trouble.
		
Click to expand...

Of course, and so you should be. I didn’t say you shouldn’t?


----------



## Clodagh (18 November 2022)

Amymay said:



			But surely it is as simple as that.
		
Click to expand...

I accept you’ve only owned one dog and it is a pet breed (no problem with that) but many people with lurchers, GSD’s, bullies, etc have animals that may, if it all went wrong, attack a cat. As I said above my pet lurcher killed another dog. It was really, really awful.


----------



## Clodagh (18 November 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Quite. Once the attack is underway it's almost impossible to stop.

But the fault here lies in the poor training that led up to this.

That hunt and all its activities should have been put under immediate suspension pending the hunting authorities launching a full investigation. You simply can't have packs of hounds out killing pets.

It's nowhere near good enough to cull a few hounds and carry on as if nothing happened.

But we all know now, even those people who had hoped for better, that the new governing body is completely useless and is not interested in reforming hunting at all.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with all of that. Except culling the ringleader should fix the problem if on the whole they are well trained


----------



## ycbm (18 November 2022)

Amymay said:



			But surely it is as simple as that.
		
Click to expand...

It is for me.  If hunts can't stop their hounds killing cats they must not go out in areas where domestic cats are expected to be living. 

If a dog walker in charge of 5 dogs was responsible for those dogs killing a cat,  or dog,  they'd lose their business.  Why do dog laws not apply equally to a pack of hounds? 

I speak having drag hunted for years until a few years ago,  and I never saw or heard of a pack of drag hounds chasing a cat,  yet we were often in areas of significant housing density.  Why is that?


----------



## stangs (18 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			Well it isn’t really.
		
Click to expand...

Is it not? If a hunt can't control its hounds and those hounds attack someone's animal, that makes said hounds 'dangerously out of control', which is a crime.


----------



## Amymay (18 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			I accept you’ve only owned one dog and it is a pet breed (no problem with that) but many people with lurchers, GSD’s, bullies, etc have animals that may, if it all went wrong, attack a cat. As I said above my pet lurcher killed another dog. It was really, really awful.
		
Click to expand...

No need to be quite so condescending….

Hunts are supposed to be able to call hounds off a fox.  The same applies to a ‘pet’

So it really is as simple as that.


----------



## Clodagh (18 November 2022)

ycbm said:



			It is for me.  If hunts can't stop their hounds killing cats they must not go out in areas where domestic cats are expected to be living.

If a dog walker in charge of 5 dogs was responsible for those dogs killing a cat,  or dog,  they'd lose their business.  Why do dog laws not apply equally to a pack of hounds?

I speak having drag hunted for years until a few years ago,  and I never saw or heard of a pack of drag hounds chasing a cat,  yet we were often in areas of significant housing density.  Why is that?
		
Click to expand...

I hunted fox for years and years and never saw a cat hunted either. Once saw a feral up a tree in a wood, hounds were interested were called off and rated and moved on.


----------



## Burnttoast (18 November 2022)

Amymay said:



			Devastating for the owner.  But actually ‘thank God’.  This injuries were devastating.
		
Click to expand...

I thought that too. When next door's dog got my chooks I didn't even stop to think about the vet for the injured survivor. I just wanted to stop her suffering and thankfully I was able to do that in a moment. Not sure I could do similar for one of the cats but I wouldn't be striving to save them in such circumstances.


Clodagh said:



			I agree with all of that. Except culling the ringleader should fix the problem if on the whole they are well trained
		
Click to expand...

Except that the ringleader must have been considered to be well trained, until they weren't. In such circumstances what are the odds of another hound taking up that mantle? Unknowable, so why should they be out without restraint?


----------



## Clodagh (18 November 2022)

Amymay said:



			No need to be quite so condescending….

Hunts are supposed to be able to call hounds off a fox.  The same applies to a ‘pet’

So it really is as simple as that.
		
Click to expand...

It wasn’t intended to be condescending but dogs with drive can be very quick. You don’t know they didn’t call hounds off immediately, sadly it would not take long for fatal injury to occur.
I am not supporting that it happened, I have every sympathy with the owner, huntings governing body needs to do something appropriate and I hope legal action by the owner is successful.


----------



## YorksG (18 November 2022)

I'm sure that there are many huntsmen tearing their hair out at the idiots who allow hounds to riot.


----------



## Millionwords (18 November 2022)

YorksG said:



			I'm sure that there are many huntsmen tearing their hair out at the idiots who allow hounds to riot.
		
Click to expand...

Not aimed at you,  but platitudes do nothing.


----------



## skinnydipper (18 November 2022)

Matrix.  Photo from owner's facebook page


----------



## YorksG (18 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			Not aimed at you,  but platitudes do nothing.
		
Click to expand...

Then why quote me?


----------



## Millionwords (18 November 2022)

YorksG said:



			Then why quote me?
		
Click to expand...

as I said in an earlier post, folk say hunts condem things like this, and claim there is all this hand-wringing, but nothing ever changes. Those hunts those governing bodies make no move to do anything.

It wasn't aimed at you, its just you said what many folk say. Exactly as they always do when any incident is made public.


----------



## suestowford (18 November 2022)

If the law-abiding packs are in the majority, then why does the governing body not act against the renegades? I can't understand this, unless they are secretly anti-hunt and working by subterfuge to discredit the sport they claim to love.


----------



## Koweyka (18 November 2022)

skinnydipper said:



			Matrix.  Photo from owner's facebook page

View attachment 102848

Click to expand...

Heartbreaking, if you take a pack of 25 plus dogs which have been trained to hunt and the huntsman cannot call them off in a second, or the second they start to speak especially when “not on a trail” then that hunt should not ever be allowed out again. This is all down to the incompetent huntsman and the way they are trained.


----------



## moosea (18 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			Cats do get killed by dogs. Sometimes it is an accident. Dogs should be well enough trained not to attack inappropriately and if they do, in a pack situation, what you can do at that very minute is limited.
		
Click to expand...

I think people understand that in the heat of the attack it can be difficult to call dogs off.

It's the response, or lack of, afterwards that shocks people. And the unending defence of the people, who must be incapable, continuing to take a group of trained hunting dogs out off lead when they can't control them.



Clodagh said:



			I accept you’ve only owned one dog and it is a pet breed (no problem with that) but many people with lurchers, GSD’s, bullies, etc have animals that may, if it all went wrong, attack a cat. As I said above my pet lurcher killed another dog. It was really, really awful.
		
Click to expand...

I fostered over 20 GSD's in a 2 year period. None of them killed a cat. None of them went off lead until they were trained in enclosed spaces. None of them ran into roads or killed wildlife.
If you own an animal who killed another persons pet, it's your fault. Rather than not looking your dog in the eye you probably should have avoided mirrors, for the blame lies with you.


----------



## Millionwords (18 November 2022)

moosea said:



			I think people understand that in the heat of the attack it can be difficult to call dogs off.

It's the response, or lack of, afterwards that shocks people. And the unending defence of the people, who must be incapable, continuing to take a group of trained hunting dogs out off lead when they can't control them.



I fostered over 20 GSD's in a 2 year period. None of them killed a cat. None of them went off lead until they were trained in enclosed spaces. None of them ran into roads or killed wildlife.
If you own an animal who killed another persons pet, it's your fault. Rather than not looking your dog in the eye you probably should have avoided mirrors, for the blame lies with you.
		
Click to expand...


l often agree with points @Clodagh makes, so I was a bit shocked at how accusatory this post sounds, so I didn't want to "like" it. However since my dog has been attacked several times by breeds folk should realise can't be trusted (long dog and staffie) and also those deemed "soft" (pointer and black lab) can any dog be trusted? That's down to being able to read all the incredibly subtle cues an owner should understand when being guardian of a dog. If they can't do that it should be on a lead. (This is not aimed at an individual).
I have a XJRT who i let the husband walk grudgingly, he is not a biter (dog not husband)....he has never even nipped anyone,  however he's a gobshite who cannot be trusted not to frighten other people into thinking he won't bite. (Despite shitting himself if a cat he's been barking at gets too close)

That is my/EVERY dog owners responsibility, why is it not the hunts?

Is that because they arent hunting trails and still require such prey drive so haven't bred it out as much as they should? The same consequences should apply to hunts as public.


----------



## YorksG (18 November 2022)

Regarding prey drive, I don't think that it is breed specific, one rottweiler that had zero, one who had very high prey drive. One lab out of many that chased poultry (ours, so not a danger to others as was not allowed near others). Two jrts from ratting parents,  no prey drive at all.


----------



## Miss_Millie (18 November 2022)

I'm so utterly sick of this. How many more innocent lives will be lost before hunting is FINALLY banned?

Hounds riot every. single. year. They riot on livestock, pets and wildlife. Every year I just wait for the inevitable videos and news reports to emerge. 

As a cat owner, if something like this happened to my cat, it would drive me to the deepest depression. Just thinking about it has me on the edge of tears. Imagining the fear and pain that Matrix suffered is absolutely awful. His humans will carry this pain for the rest of their lives.

Having a loose pack of dogs is DANGEROUS, period. It's mad that it is still allowed in these times. 

#justiceformatrix


----------



## moosea (18 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			l often agree with points @Clodagh makes, *so I was a bit shocked at how accusatory this post sounds, so I didn't want to "like" it.* However since my dog has been attacked several times by breeds folk should realise can't be trusted (long dog and staffie) and also those deemed "soft" (pointer and black lab) can any dog be trusted? That's down to being able to read all the incredibly subtle cues an owner should understand when being guardian of a dog. If they can't do that it should be on a lead. (This is not aimed at an individual).
I have a XJRT who i let the husband walk grudgingly, he is not a biter (dog not husband)....he has never even nipped anyone,  however he's a gobshite who cannot be trusted not to frighten other people into thinking he won't bite. (Despite shitting himself if a cat he's been barking at gets too close)

That is my/EVERY dog owners responsibility, why is it not the hunts?

Is that because they arent hunting trails and still require such prey drive so haven't bred it out as much as they should? The same consequences should apply to hunts as public.
		
Click to expand...

That's because I am accusing. Accusing anyone who allows their dog to attack and kill or maim another animal - it's the owners or person directly in charge of that dog/ those dogs responsibility to makes sure that does not happen.


----------



## Soap On A Rope (18 November 2022)

Oh my life ??
Grow up people


----------



## claracanter (19 November 2022)

Nothing to add other than how utterly horrific the hit and run was. I am genuinely concerned that one day someone is going to be killed from either side of the divide. Things are so tense between hunts and sand someone has to find a sensible way forward.


----------



## Fred66 (19 November 2022)

claracanter said:



			Nothing to add other than how utterly horrific the hit and run was. I am genuinely concerned that one day someone is going to be killed from either side of the divide. Things are so tense between hunts and sand someone has to find a sensible way forward.
		
Click to expand...

At least one person has already been killed.


----------



## Millionwords (19 November 2022)

Soap On A Rope said:



			Oh my life ??
Grow up people
		
Click to expand...

A very considered and insightul response to the discusson.

Although I'm not surprised as it was you who at the news of the sab being purposefully run over said you "hope it taught her a lesson".

Speaks volumes about your humanity.


----------



## TheresaW (19 November 2022)

moosea said:



			That's because I am accusing. Accusing anyone who allows their dog to attack and kill or maim another animal - it's the owners or person directly in charge of that dog/ those dogs responsibility to makes sure that does not happen.
		
Click to expand...

We had a cat years ago who came in one night with a completely de-gloved tail, and puncture wounds in his back legs. I suspect he’d been in the greyhounds garden several houses away.

One of our dogs we have now would quite possibly kill a cat if she caught one in our garden. I always check out of the window before I let them out as we do have the odd cat visit.

I also had a friend who’s small dog was ripped apart by greyhounds whilst she was out walking. Her dog was on a lead.

I have nothing personally against Greyhounds btw.


----------



## Clodagh (19 November 2022)

@moosea Not that I owe you any explanations but my lurcher was the softest dog. In our farmyard two family members dogs had a fight over a rabbit they had killed and lurcher joined in. Her being involved enabled the lab to cause a bad enough wound to kill the hound. The lurcher herself didn’t have enough strength in get haws to do any damage, but she got in the way.
the lab and hound had been fighting coming up to this incident ( I didn’t know that at the time).
I’m pleased no dog you have has ever put a foot wrong but my post, while I appreciate I’m in a very poor light, was to illustrate that accidents happen.


----------



## Peglo (19 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



@moosea Not that I owe you any explanations but my lurcher was the softest dog. In our farmyard two family members dogs had a fight over a rabbit they had killed and lurcher joined in. Her being involved enabled the lab to cause a bad enough wound to kill the hound. The lurcher herself didn’t have enough strength in get haws to do any damage, but she got in the way.
the lab and hound had been fighting coming up to this incident ( I didn’t know that at the time).
I’m pleased no dog you have has ever put a foot wrong but my post, while I appreciate I’m in a very poor light, was to illustrate that accidents happen.
		
Click to expand...

i have absolutely no doubt that anyone with animals has made a mistake or 2 along the way but many has been fortunate that no serious damage was done but learnt a lesson. Your story sounds like a tragic accident and must’ve been really hard to deal with. I’m not sure how you could’ve known that could be the outcome but people do love to blame others.

so heartbroken for the poor family of matrix. Just horrible! And unforgivable in my view.


----------



## Koweyka (19 November 2022)

I don’t think any of us are “perfect” pet owners and mistakes sometimes happen, however it’s a world away from a huge pack of hounds being taken into the countryside and pretty much left loose to go “sniff out a scent”  usually an animal based scent and I have seen so many times that once they pick up either the huntsman doesn’t stop them or he can’t stop them. 

It’s like a sick game of Russian Roulette in the countryside with pets and wildlife the collateral damage.


----------



## Koweyka (19 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			A very considered and insightul response to the discusson.

Although I'm not surprised as it was you who at the news of the sab being purposefully run over said you "hope it taught her a lesson".

Speaks volumes about your humanity.
		
Click to expand...

Wow ! I missed that response….she/it was probably driving the car judging by that response!


----------



## Sandstone1 (19 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			I dont know what UI is, but I think they should reply, I just posted 3 different things from the last couple of weeks, apparently all of these types of incident are rare, but if there are hundreds of hunts, most not sabbed and the ones that are have more incidents such as, police involvement, kills, violence, pet killing, arson (thunderflashes), trespass onto train lines, killed hounds, car collisions, getting into gardens, etc etc etc...then its not uncommon,  or unusual, the hunting season has only just got going proper...and there are already more wrongdoing incidents committed by hunts than there are to be found about sabs.
		
Click to expand...

UI means that I have put them on ignore so I can not see their posts.    I am just so sick of seeing the absolute rubbish they post. 
 I am sick of trail hunting being spoken about when in reality a lot of illegal fox hunting is still going on.    My local hunt makes little attempt to even pretend they are trail hunting and quite openly hunts foxes often along side busy roads.  If people really want trail hunting to continue they should be out protesting against fox hunting because the way things are going all trail hunting  will all be banned soon and they will have the arrogant, stubborn and quite frankly ignorance of people who support fox hunting to blame. 

How long can they continue to pretend they are trail hunting when in reality they are carrying on as they did pre ban?
  How many times can they kill peoples pets, terrify livestock, trespass on land, cause chaos on the roads and railway lines, upset landowners and have their supporters assault people who have the nerve to protest about what they are doing.
   People will say sabs do this and that as well.  I have no doubt there are faults on both sides but sabs are protesting about a illegal activity.   If hunts are doing nothing wrong why are they so worried about sabs?  They can not film any wrong doings if they are not doing anything wrong.


----------



## Soap On A Rope (19 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			A very considered and insightul response to the discusson.

Although I'm not surprised as it was you who at the news of the sab being purposefully run over said you "hope it taught her a lesson".

Speaks volumes about your humanity.
		
Click to expand...

I actually said I hope it teaches RENT A SAB a lesson !
NOT the girl personally !!!


----------



## Millionwords (19 November 2022)

Soap On A Rope said:



			I actually said I hope it teaches RENT A SAB a lesson !
NOT the girl personally !!!
		
Click to expand...

Oh that's alright then 🙄

Imagine publicly supporting a driver who tried to kill someone and thinking it was a reasonable attitude to have. Then wondering why anti hunters despise hunters so often😳😳


----------



## palo1 (19 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			Oh that's alright then 🙄

Imagine publicly supporting a driver who tried to kill someone and thinking it was a reasonable attitude to have. Then wondering why anti hunters despise hunters so often😳😳
		
Click to expand...

I don't and can't defend what @Soap On A Rope said upthread (though sabs were paid in the past and may well still be lol) but you have to accept that anti hunting groups have absolutely been as unpleasant and far more so in their own social media feeds (hoping people get cancer and die, celebrating the death of children etc)  It isn't remotely constructive and just blooming well adds more misery and vitriol to the situation.  The despite is on both sides because of the behaviour and attitudes that exist in places on both sides.


----------



## Millionwords (19 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			I don't and can't defend what @Soap On A Rope said upthread (though sabs were paid in the past and may well still be lol) but you have to accept that anti hunting groups have absolutely been as unpleasant and far more so in their own social media feeds (hoping people get cancer and die, celebrating the death of children etc)  It isn't remotely constructive and just blooming well adds more misery and vitriol to the situation.  The despite is on both sides because of the behaviour and attitudes that exist in places on both sides.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with you @palo1, but thats not what we were talking about, and so should have no bearing on what SoAR said. Two wrongs don't make a right, everyone needs to be less horrible. Defending a person who tried to kill someone is inexcusable.


----------



## Millionwords (19 November 2022)

An ex hunt master carrying knives or implements sharp enough to slash tyres?

"
𝐆𝐑𝐎𝐕𝐄 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐑𝐔𝐅𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐃 𝐇𝐔𝐍𝐓 𝐒𝐋𝐀𝐒𝐇 𝐀𝐋𝐋 𝐅𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐎𝐅 𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐓𝐘𝐑𝐄𝐒

... Grove and Rufford Hunt meet in Haxey...

With foot sabs keeping eyes on the hounds our vehicle was left with just a driver and nav on a public road to watch the hunt from a far. At this point ex master Gerrard Farmer and his thug mates arrived and used a knife to slash all four of our tyres. 

Video of the incident to follow,


----------



## sakura (19 November 2022)

Miss_Millie said:



			I'm so utterly sick of this. How many more innocent lives will be lost before hunting is FINALLY banned?

Hounds riot every. single. year. They riot on livestock, pets and wildlife. Every year I just wait for the inevitable videos and news reports to emerge.

As a cat owner, if something like this happened to my cat, it would drive me to the deepest depression. Just thinking about it has me on the edge of tears. Imagining the fear and pain that Matrix suffered is absolutely awful. His humans will carry this pain for the rest of their lives.

Having a loose pack of dogs is DANGEROUS, period. It's mad that it is still allowed in these times.

#justiceformatrix
		
Click to expand...

100% this. Matrix is not the first and sadly won’t be the last. It has to end - and it will. I’d rather it be sooner rather than later.


----------



## ycbm (19 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			An ex hunt master carrying knives or implements sharp enough to slash tyres?

"
𝐆𝐑𝐎𝐕𝐄 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐑𝐔𝐅𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐃 𝐇𝐔𝐍𝐓 𝐒𝐋𝐀𝐒𝐇 𝐀𝐋𝐋 𝐅𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐎𝐅 𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐓𝐘𝐑𝐄𝐒

... Grove and Rufford Hunt meet in Haxey...

With foot sabs keeping eyes on the hounds our vehicle was left with just a driver and nav on a public road to watch the hunt from a far. At this point ex master Gerrard Farmer and his thug mates arrived and used a knife to slash all four of our tyres.

Video of the incident to follow,
		
Click to expand...


That's them on criminal damage charges then,  hopefully.  Maybe knife carrying offences too.
.


----------



## paddy555 (19 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			I accept you’ve only owned one dog and it is a pet breed (no problem with that) but many people with lurchers, GSD’s, bullies, etc have animals that may, if it all went wrong, attack a cat. As I said above my pet lurcher killed another dog. It was really, really awful.
		
Click to expand...

I have a GSD, yes I am aware he is a big dog and has the potential to attack a cat or anything else. As I am a responsible dog owner I take that very seriously and keep the creature on a lead and under control as all times. If he goes out of the gate he is leaded. Just in case the lead fails he has a second lead on back onto my waistband. He is very strictly controlled at all times. Obviously somewhat better controlled than the control of hunts over their hounds.


----------



## Miss_Millie (20 November 2022)

paddy555 said:



			I have a GSD, yes I am aware he is a big dog and has the potential to attack a cat or anything else. As I am a responsible dog owner I take that very seriously and keep the creature on a lead and under control as all times. If he goes out of the gate he is leaded. Just in case the lead fails he has a second lead on back onto my waistband. He is very strictly controlled at all times. Obviously somewhat better controlled than the control of hunts over their hounds.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you for being such a responsible dog owner. Accidents happen, but many could also be avoided if dogs were kept on leads.

I was not scared of dogs until I was attacked by one last year. Now I feel my heart racing whenever I see a dog off lead.

The other day I saw a lady in a park walking multiple dogs (potentially a paid dog walker) and a man was approaching her direction with an off leash dog. The loose dog made a beeline for the others and I could hear the lady shouting to him to call if off.

The man was extremely casual about the whole thing and strolled over slowly - from what I could see his dog was just overly excited, but the lady sounded stressed and her four dogs were in a tizzy.

I can understand wanting freedom for your dog, but it seems that altercations between other dogs are all too common. A local dog had to have an eye removed due to being attacked by another dog in the same park.

If these kind of accidents can happen very easily with a single off leash dog, I don't see how a whole pack of dogs could possibly be considered safe, especially in today's ever increasing population.

I'm still haunted by the news reports from several years ago of the outdoor cat sanctuary that was broken into by a group of hounds (chasing a deer in this instance I believe), several cats were killed. These were all cats with very traumatic backgrounds, the sanctuary was supposed to be their eden. I can't think of any other 'sport' which is so destructive as hunting.


----------



## sakura (20 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			I accept you’ve only owned one dog and it is a pet breed (no problem with that) but many people with lurchers, GSD’s, bullies, etc have animals that may, if it all went wrong, attack a cat. As I said above my pet lurcher killed another dog. It was really, really awful.
		
Click to expand...

I own a highly reactive working sheepdog. She is walked on a lead at all times in public to keep others and herself safe. If an unknown dog is around her, she will also be on a lead or separated until safe - even in the house. It’s much harder than owning a “pet” breed but that’s what I signed up for.

There is never an excuse for out of control dogs, especially a pack of them.


----------



## Koweyka (21 November 2022)

The Warwickshire Hunt ….killing again.

https://fb.watch/gWZunVk9tf/


----------



## Sandstone1 (21 November 2022)

The warwickshire.  Trail hunting again????


----------



## Millionwords (21 November 2022)

There have been a multitude of misdemeanors posted alongside the chat of shooting.
Its interesting that the pro hunt have not said anything about it, but what CAN be said, when the governing bodies do nothing, and many many many people in the hunting community are part of the problem.  Those that aren't are tarred, and yet do not stand up and make their voices heard within the community. Doing nothing is almost condoning the bad behavior.


----------



## palo1 (21 November 2022)

In a 'Revenge' action against the attack on Lisa Jaffrey (being hit by a vehicle) over 80 sabs converged on the Cottesmore on Saturday.  Their reports are gleeful of course.  The Cottesmore have a slightly different account.  Here is theirs:-

Dear All
Thank you for those who came out on Saturday from Braunston – and we hope you enjoyed the busy and fun packed day.  It was great to see so many children out and the photographs from Nico show just how much fun everybody had.  We know that some of you suffered verbal (and physical) abuse at the hands of the idiotic band of sabs who came out.  We would like to encourage anyone who suffered any abuse to report it to the police by calling 101 or reporting online through the Leicestershire Police website.  We know that many reports and complaints have been submitted – the more we submit the more chance we have of some action being taken – so please don’t be shy!  We do hope their stupidity didn’t ruin your day.
On another note, Grocer, the hound who was injured at Manor Lane, is fine – he has a bit of a fat face but has been spoiled rotten with gravy bones by Sharon our Stud Groom, and is on the mend.  His accident was a direct result of sabs agitating loudly, which made Grocer bolt though the horses, who became spooked.  It’s really hard to see how the sabs can be interested in animal welfare if they are prepared to risk injury to our precious hounds.
Some of you may have read the sabs reports from Saturday – claiming a wonderful success in their ‘hit’ – I’m sure we all recognise that their reports are the stuff of dreams.    Most of them were totally clueless and lost, and their only tactic was to use verbal abuse and foul language – whilst hiding behind a mask or balaclava.  During the day we caught them frequently leaving gates open onto roads – either deliberately or through stupidity – which could directly lead to livestock being killed.  Another stupid activity is blowing their horn to call hounds towards the roads – again putting our animals at risk.  Another idiot tried to rattle a plastic bag around a follower’s horse to frighten it.   It becomes increasingly hard to reconcile this behaviour with their stated aims of animal welfare!
One brainless sab tried to interfere with the treatment of the injured hound – and had to be physically restrained for her own safety – an injured and scared hound could easily bite someone who was not experienced in their care.
We know that one rider was assaulted in their horsebox and another was subject to physical assault from a group of about 15 sabs who surrounded her and tried to grab her horse.  These incidents are being dealt with by the Police, and whilst unpleasant, were not dangerous.  The vast majority of the bad behaviour was verbal abuse and threats, and most of the “sabs” are extremely cowardly – especially if they are not surrounded by a gang of their masked thug friends!
Thank you to our farmers who allowed us all to have a wonderful day – and we are all glad that despite the arrival of a hoard of idiots that our day was not, contrary to popular belief, ruined or shut down.  Well done everyone who made such an effort to put on a very successful day.


Who knows exactly where the truth is.  The fact that only 80 something sabs could be mustered is quite interesting - I would have thought many more than that would want to be involved considering the seriousness of the incident involving LJ as well as the positive media storm that resulted.   Thankfully LJ  is not seriously injured but now on remand for other activist offences.  Good to hear the hound involved in an incident is going to be fine too.  As many people who have witnessed Sab behaviour will know, the above report does ring true about the tactics of disruption that they use and which can increase the risks to all involved.  

I know that anti hunters will repudiate all of the above but it seemed worth posting if only to balance out the sab only reports that tend to arrive on this thread.


----------



## Millionwords (21 November 2022)

That may well be the case, but its whataboutery in this instance because they wouldnt be there if hunts weren't doing things they shouldn't....like running people over, killing foxes, killing cats, getting convicted of criminal damage...


----------



## Steerpike (21 November 2022)

The whole hunting debate just goes around in circles, I don't think anything will change unless the governing body of hunting pulls their finger out and publicly starts suspending/banning/fining the hunts that are seen to break the law, if they don't they will lose hunting altogether.


----------



## palo1 (21 November 2022)

Yes the Hunting authorities (bit of misnomer possibly) definitely need to get their disciplinary and governance procedures into gear.  Sab groups and individuals also need to consider their own discipline and governance (such as there is there too!!).


----------



## GoldenWillow (21 November 2022)

https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/...XkFMUwul8heUJAeOQSHgojVCwroby3nTsWrOdED9qHwxk

A report about an incident mentioned earlier. I did doubt it slightly at the time but sadly, once again, it was true.


----------



## Steerpike (21 November 2022)

Well the hunt governing bodies have to be the 'grown ups'   hold their hands up say they've been rubbish up until now and be seen to be coming down hard on the hunts that don't follow the law and their rules, this will in turn maybe save hunting, that way they can,god forbid, have a discussion with the sabs to show them that they are trying to improve, it seems both sides are refusing to talk to each other and from an outsiders point of view its like a bunch of children bickering ( I know it's more serious than that)


----------



## Clodagh (21 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			That may well be the case, but its whataboutery in this instance because they wouldnt be there if hunts weren't doing things they shouldn't....like running people over, killing foxes, killing cats, getting convicted of criminal damage...
		
Click to expand...

But the sabs do get very upset if hounds are hit by cars, and always blame the hunt. Yet when they are out they constantly try to distress and confuse hounds which leads to more of them getting hit by cars. So it’s not really whataboutery. It is relevant.


----------



## Clodagh (21 November 2022)

Hunts themselves also need to get better at manning up to stuff. Idk exactly what happened with Matrix but if you know hounds (or your dog, or even your cat) have caught and attacked something, you don’t slink off you try really, really hard to find the injured animal. At least if he had been taken immediately to the vet he could have had pain control and been treated for shock.
When that woman was hit by a car, fair enough move hounds on but someone from the hunt should have immediately engaged, tried to help, spoken to the police, ID’d the person responsible.
So it isn’t just the governing body that need to wake up.


----------



## Tiddlypom (21 November 2022)

I doubt that the truth features much in either the sabs or the Cottesmore Hunt's account of the day's proceedings last Saturday 🙄. Both will be putting their own spin on it.

Sabs, even the non violent ones, actively disrupt the hunt then bray to all that the hunt has no control of its hounds. No sh1t, Sherlock, that's because you've just thoroughly upset and confused the hounds with false horn calls and citronella spray.

Peaceful non disruptive monitoring is quite another thing. Get the incriminating evidence in the can then take it to the police.

Since the death of its founder the formerly bordering on reasonable pro legal trail hunting FB page This is Hunting UK (who shared the Cottesmore's fanciful report) has now sold out completely to pro traditional hunting. Constant harking back to the founder and his ideals fools no one. It's noticeable that most of the sensible contributors to the page have bailed.


----------



## SilverLinings (21 November 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			That's very poor. Back in the day as a teenager (long pre ban) I hunted with the East Devon many times. Lots of road work even then...

We pony clubbers were welcomed, but were very much kept in line and were expected to behave at all times.

One of the masters at the time was a judge, as was his wife who also rode with the E.Devon. Lovely family, and I'd have said great respecters of the law and of doing the right thing.

I have sometimes wondered what they make of the self inflicted mess that hunting is in now. Last I heard they were both still alive, but are rather elderly now.
		
Click to expand...

Apologies TP, I've only just seen your reply. I also hunted with the ED as a teenager, back in the early/mid 90s when foxhunting was still legal; at that age I hadn't really formed my own opinion on hunting. A few months ago I was visiting my parents in the area and bumped into an employee of the hunt with a follower who I used to know when I hunted. they didn't know my opinion on hunting had changed, and I got a very enthusiastic description of what goes on. Immediately post-ban (when I last lived in the immediate area) the ED had been at least attempting to stick to the rules and trail hunt so I was surprised to hear this.

It seems that foxhunting is still quite common in Devon as a whole, to my knowledge at least two other hunts appear to also be sticking to the 'old ways'.

Just to make it clear, I haven't observed/attended these hunts since pre-ban, but my information has come from locals who are currently involved with the hunts (who may be boasting to what they think is an empathetic audience, but I think it unlikely).


----------



## Millionwords (21 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			The fact that only 80 something sabs could be mustered is quite interesting - I would have thought many more than that would want to be involved considering the seriousness of the incident involving LJ as well as the positive media storm that resulted.   Thankfully LJ  is not seriously injured but now on remand for other activist offences.  Good to hear the hound involved in an incident is going to be fine too.  As many people who have witnessed Sab behaviour will know, the above report does ring true about the tactics of disruption that they use and which can increase the risks to all involved.
		
Click to expand...

There are alot of hunts need sabbing i suppose, and getting there may be a long way. 
80 is a pretty hefty number considering most hunts dont get double figures of sabs each week.


----------



## Tiddlypom (21 November 2022)

SilverLinings said:



			Immediately post-ban (when I last lived in the immediate area) the ED had been at least attempting to stick to the rules and trail hunt so I was surprised to hear this.
		
Click to expand...

That's an interesting point. I've long wondered how many hunts did initially try and hunt legally post ban, before realising just how easy it was to carry on as before.

ETA My days riding with the ED were about 20 years before yours .


----------



## Koweyka (21 November 2022)

I didn’t go to the Cottesmore Sab, instead my group monitored two hunts on Saturday at one the support slashed our tyres as we stopped the hounds killing a fox in a school in front of the police and at the other hunt the terrier boys complete with terriers were caught having filled a badger sett in, the hunt then spent hours chasing foxes in the valley the blocked sett was in.

That’s now takes our tally up to four cases in with the police two possibly three for illegal hunting and we aren’t out of November yet.

We have been to two more hunts today, foxes filmed running for their lives at both, one hound van left an injured hound behind, was clipped by a car so forgive me for not listening to the righteous indignation of some, because the whole sorry s show of trail hunting is just an excuse to abuse wildlife and domestic pets and hounds.


----------



## SilverLinings (21 November 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			That's an interesting point. I've long wondered how many hunts did initially try and hunt legally post ban, before realising just how easy it was to carry on as before.

ETA My days riding with the ED were about 20 years before yours .
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I wonder if they were initially scared of prosecution but slowly drifted back to the old ways after realising it wasn't too hard to get away with. I suppose as for the first decade or so mobile phones didn't have cameras (or they were very poor quality) it was harder for monitors/sabs to gather evidence and passers-by wouldn't catch a video of a cat/sheep/deer/fox being chased which they could then give to the newspapers.

It does continue to amaze and confuse me that the illegal hunters are so arrogant (or stupid?) that they seem to be totally blind to the fact that they are a very tiny minority, and they are binging about both the demise of the 'sport' they love and the demise of the next best thing (trail hunting).

Regarding the control of dogs and the incidents of hounds chasing pets and livestock I don't see why hounds are still classed as 'working' dogs. If a hunt is abiding by the law then the hounds are just having fun chasing a scent for sport, they aren't providing a pest-control service (or hunting for food etc). They are no more a working animal than a pet dog who competes in agility or cannicross etc.


----------



## SilverLinings (21 November 2022)

Apologies if it's already been explained on the thread (it's got so long that I can't remember!) but can someone involved with a legal trail hunt tell me how trail hunting packs justify having terrier men? I can't really see what they are for if a pre-laid scent is being followed.


----------



## Koweyka (21 November 2022)

Not my group, we were lucky only two of ours were done.

https://fb.watch/gXrcdBTdBz/


----------



## Clodagh (21 November 2022)

SilverLinings said:



			Apologies if it's already been explained on the thread (it's got so long that I can't remember!) but can someone involved with a legal trail hunt tell me how trail hunting packs justify having terrier men? I can't really see what they are for if a pre-laid scent is being followed.
		
Click to expand...

I think it is because if hounds mark an earth it is still legal to dig and dispatch the fox.


----------



## SilverLinings (21 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			I think it is because if hounds mark an earth it is still legal to dig and dispatch the fox.
		
Click to expand...

Ah, that would make sense. 

Although surely the hounds aren't very good at their job of hunting a trail if they are distracted by fox scent...*


*The sarcasm isn't aimed at you Clodagh, and thank you for explaining what the terrier men are for


----------



## Clodagh (21 November 2022)

SilverLinings said:



			Ah, that would make sense.

Although surely the hounds aren't very good at their job of hunting a trail if they are distracted by fox scent...*


*The sarcasm isn't aimed at you Clodagh, and thank you for explaining what the terrier men are for 

Click to expand...

My dogs hunt mice very enthusiastically when out on a walk. Hopefully not while actually working.


----------



## Millionwords (21 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			I think it is because if hounds mark an earth it is still legal to dig and dispatch the fox.
		
Click to expand...




SilverLinings said:



			Ah, that would make sense.

Although surely the hounds aren't very good at their job of hunting a trail if they are distracted by fox scent...*


*The sarcasm isn't aimed at you Clodagh, and thank you for explaining what the terrier men are for 

Click to expand...

I thought the law was with TWO dogs.
NOT a pack.
And if they go to ground in Badger setts, which is where they do go to ground, digging that, interfering with it is an offence under WACA.


----------



## SilverLinings (21 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			My dogs hunt mice very enthusiastically when out on a walk. Hopefully not while actually working.
		
Click to expand...

Good point, and my dogs (mainly spaniels) have always followed scents when out walking, but as you say if we are working them we wouldn't expect them to get distracted like that.



Millionwords said:



			I thought the law was with TWO dogs.
NOT a pack.
		
Click to expand...

We were talking about terrier men (who may have just two terriers) and digging a fox out, not foxes being killed or chased by a pack of hounds.

I don't believe that some hunts are acting legally though, and in those cases the terrier men and the rest of the hunt are still acting as they would pre-ban.


----------



## Millionwords (21 November 2022)

SilverLinings said:



			Good point, and my dogs (mainly spaniels) have always followed scents when out walking, but as you say if we are working them we wouldn't expect them to get distracted like that.



We were talking about terrier men (who may have just two terriers) and digging a fox out, not foxes being killed or chased by a pack of hounds.

I don't believe that some hunts are acting legally though, and in those cases the terrier men and the rest of the hunt are still acting as they would pre-ban.
		
Click to expand...

See my edit. The fox would go ground because it is being chased. Why would terrier men be there with the hunt if they were not putting up foxes using their hounds? 
They go ground in badger setts usually. Its an offence under WACA to interfere with a sett.


----------



## Clodagh (21 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			See my edit. The fox would go ground because it is being chased. Why would terrier men be there with the hunt if they were not putting up foxes using their hounds?
They go ground in badger setts usually. Its an offence under WACA to interfere with a sett.
		
Click to expand...

Foxes also tuck away in earths when they know the hunt is around, so it isn’t always in setts and it’s not always because they’ve been hunted.
ETA or drains.


----------



## Millionwords (21 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			Foxes also tuck away in earths when they know the hunt is around, so it isn’t always in setts and it’s not always because they’ve been hunted.
		
Click to expand...

But the terrier men follow the hunt because why would a trail enable them to better come across a fox in an earth rather a sett? 🤔

There is no justification for terrier men being there that doesn't implicate the hunt in illegal activity....they are after all, the hunts "soft underbelly" as they said themselves.


----------



## SilverLinings (21 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			See my edit. The fox would go ground because it is being chased. Why would terrier men be there with the hunt if they were not putting up foxes using their hounds?
They go ground in badger setts usually. Its an offence under WACA to interfere with a sett.
		
Click to expand...

That is why I queried their presence on trail hunts. As I understand it from Clodagh though the hounds on a trail hunt may get distracted and indicate a den whilst following a legitimate trail, and then the terrier men will dig and dispatch (presumably once the hounds and hunt have moved on). I am fairly sceptical about how often this happens versus the hounds chasing the fox to earth and then the fox being dug out (or as you say the fox being dug out in order to chase it), but it is clearly possible, and I'm sure there are some hunts sticking to the law on this.


----------



## Millionwords (21 November 2022)

See attachments terrier men are not doing this

Certain forms of hunting, very closely defined in *Schedule 1*, are exempt namely:

Stalking and flushing out a wild mammal for certain purposes, with a view to its being shot forthwith, and not using more than two dogs;
Use of not more than one dog at a time below ground in the course of stalking or flushing to protect birds for shooting;


----------



## Sandstone1 (21 November 2022)

SilverLinings said:



			That is why I queried their presence on trail hunts. As I understand it from Clodagh though the hounds on a trail hunt may get distracted and indicate a den whilst following a legitimate trail, and then the terrier men will dig and dispatch (presumably once the hounds and hunt have moved on). I am fairly sceptical about how often this happens versus the hounds chasing the fox to earth and then the fox being dug out (or as you say the fox being dug out in order to chase it), but it is clearly possible, and I'm sure there are some hunts sticking to the law on this.
		
Click to expand...

Anyone that thinks that is how terrier men work is living in cloud cuckoo land.... They block sets including badger sets and dig out foxes so they can be chased.


----------



## Millionwords (21 November 2022)

SilverLinings said:



			That is why I queried their presence on trail hunts. As I understand it from Clodagh though the hounds on a trail hunt may get distracted and indicate a den whilst following a legitimate trail, and then the terrier men will dig and dispatch (presumably once the hounds and hunt have moved on). I am fairly sceptical about how often this happens versus the hounds chasing the fox to earth and then the fox being dug out (or as you say the fox being dug out in order to chase it), but it is clearly possible, and I'm sure there are some hunts sticking to the law on this.
		
Click to expand...

If they're "distracted" after nearly 20 years of training...how can anyone expect them to be doing anything other than chasing fox.
Particularly when the scent of the trail is still (according to hunts) fox urine. I don't think they just mosey past a sett get distracted and mark to ground by chance very often


----------



## SilverLinings (21 November 2022)

I have no doubt that many hunts are not acting correctly/using terrier men within the confines of the law, but I have seen no evidence that ALL hunts/terrier men are breaking the law.

I suspect it will be a moot point in the not-too-distant-future as the behaviour of the illegally-hunting fraternity is likely to result in the banning of using dogs in any form of hunting. I even think there might be such concern that certain people will try to find loopholes/excuses to still hunt with dogs illegally that even things like ratting with terriers may end up banned.


----------



## Millionwords (21 November 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Not my group, we were lucky only two of ours were done.

https://fb.watch/gXrcdBTdBz/

Click to expand...

Supporters also seem magically ignore the blatant intended criminal damage that occurs so often, illegal use of quad bikes on the road (on wrong numberplates, without insurance or MOT) usually by terriermen.


----------



## SilverLinings (21 November 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Anyone that thinks that is how terrier men work is living in cloud cuckoo land.... They block sets including badger sets and dig out foxes so they can be chased.
		
Click to expand...




Millionwords said:



			If they're "distracted" after nearly 20 years of training...how can anyone expect them to be doing anything other than chasing fox.
Particularly when the scent of the trail is still (according to hunts) fox urine. I don't think they just mosey past a sett get distracted and mark to ground by chance very often
		
Click to expand...

I agree with both of you that it sounds highly dubious and in some cases has actually been proven to be the case that they are acting illegally, but I don't think sweeping statements about 'all hunts' (just like the sweeping statements about 'all sabs') should be made unless provable.

FWIW I don't agree with illegal fox hunting, I don't want it made legal again, and I know of two hunts in particular who are definitely not using their terrier men in a legal way, which was why I wanted to know how hunts could justify the presence of terrier men if they were claiming to be trail hunting.


----------



## SilverLinings (21 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			Supporters also seem magically ignore the blatant intended criminal damage that occurs so often, illegal use of quad bikes on the road (on wrong numberplates, without insurance or MOT) usually by terriermen.
		
Click to expand...

Round here they also drive like complete d!cks as apparently everyone should give way to the hunt including pedestrians and animals. I was nearly mown down (when walking) by a hunt quad bike last winter to the extent that I ended up on my face in a muddy ditch. The passenger on the back saw and they kept on driving, it was a dog walker who found me 5 mins later who helped me up. I was walking with crutches at the time this happened but apparently still fair game (or an acceptable casualty of the hunt's activities).


----------



## Sandstone1 (21 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			Supporters also seem magically ignore the blatant intended criminal damage that occurs so often, illegal use of quad bikes on the road (on wrong numberplates, without insurance or MOT) usually by terriermen.
		
Click to expand...

Yes,  Un road legal quads, no number plates, no mot or insurance.  Often overloaded with 3 or 4 large men on.  often with masks on too.  Its not just sabs who wear masks.    Wonder what happens if they have a accident on the road?  They would not have a leg to stand on.


----------



## Millionwords (21 November 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Yes,  Un road legal quads, no number plates, no mot or insurance.  Often overloaded with 3 or 4 large men on.  often with masks on too.  Its not just sabs who wear masks.    Wonder what happens if they have a accident on the road?  They would not have a leg to stand on.
		
Click to expand...

Oh but their faces get cold even when stationary slashing folks tyres🤣


----------



## Clodagh (21 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			But the terrier men follow the hunt because why would a trail enable them to better come across a fox in an earth rather a sett? 🤔

There is no justification for terrier men being there that doesn't implicate the hunt in illegal activity....they are after all, the hunts "soft underbelly" as they said themselves.
		
Click to expand...

I really disagree with you there. Not saying hunts are following the law, or the terrierman, but ATEOFD it is legal to dig and shoot a fox, if not in a set, and however you locate the fox is irrelevant, as long as it isn’t chased there.


----------



## Clodagh (21 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			See attachments terrier men are not doing this

Certain forms of hunting, very closely defined in *Schedule 1*, are exempt namely:

Stalking and flushing out a wild mammal for certain purposes, with a view to its being shot forthwith, and not using more than two dogs;
Use of not more than one dog at a time below ground in the course of stalking or flushing to protect birds for shooting;


Click to expand...

You can’t put more than one terrier to ground, well it would be stupid as the front one blocks access by the second.


----------



## Clodagh (21 November 2022)

SilverLinings said:



			Round here they also drive like complete d!cks as apparently everyone should give way to the hunt including pedestrians and animals. I was nearly mown down (when walking) by a hunt quad bike last winter to the extent that I ended up on my face in a muddy ditch. The passenger on the back saw and they kept on driving, it was a dog walker who found me 5 mins later who helped me up. I was walking with crutches at the time this happened but apparently still fair game (or an acceptable casualty of the hunt's activities).
		
Click to expand...

Not really liking that, but a sympathy like. I stopped hunting as much for the ban as the enormous entitlement of some of the followers.


----------



## palo1 (21 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			But the terrier men follow the hunt because why would a trail enable them to better come across a fox in an earth rather a sett? 🤔

There is no justification for terrier men being there that doesn't implicate the hunt in illegal activity....they are after all, the hunts "soft underbelly" as they said themselves.
		
Click to expand...

Where we are, terrier men are there for 2 reasons: one is to support the hunt with gates, food/drink, banter etc and the other is because it often suits the landowner to have both trail hunt and fox control on the same day.  They can tell the terrier boys that they have a problem fox or that they want some pest control and we have found that our terrier men will, if asked do that job (which is legal as long as there is no interference with badger setts) at the same time as the trail hunt is there.  The trail hunters do disturb foxes and move them on by virtue of the noise of hounds etc; there is no doubt about that.  Our hunt does not use 2 hounds for legal hunting though - I think it is just too disruptive to the pack and likely to result in riot.  1 day, 2 jobs/activities.  It is easier for the landowners to have it all on the same day and in my experience and opinion the vast majority of landowners that are happy to have the hunt also want to see something like a traditional day's hunting.  A great many farmers that I know still wag their heads at the idea of trail hunting tbh.  Say what you like, I am reporting my experience.


----------



## palo1 (21 November 2022)

SilverLinings said:



			I have no doubt that many hunts are not acting correctly/using terrier men within the confines of the law, but I have seen no evidence that ALL hunts/terrier men are breaking the law.

I suspect it will be a moot point in the not-too-distant-future as the behaviour of the illegally-hunting fraternity is likely to result in the banning of using dogs in any form of hunting. I even think there might be such concern that certain people will try to find loopholes/excuses to still hunt with dogs illegally that even things like ratting with terriers may end up banned.
		
Click to expand...

Well yes though the fly in that ointment is that it would be legally impossible to statute that without potentially criminalising anyone with a dog and a vengeful neighbour and the police would never support such mass sanction on what would be quite 'normal' activities of the dog owning public.


----------



## palo1 (21 November 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Yes,  Un road legal quads, no number plates, no mot or insurance.  Often overloaded with 3 or 4 large men on.  often with masks on too.  Its not just sabs who wear masks.    Wonder what happens if they have a accident on the road?  They would not have a leg to stand on.
		
Click to expand...

Well our hunt committee are incredibly strict about all of those things and will enforce rules.  Anyone who cannot prove they have MOT, Insurance etc goes home and never more than 2 adults on a quad.  Police have been called to us (not sure who by) and everything provably above board so no problems. We also have a total quad limit: 1 quad for the trail layer's support (visibly labelled)  and 2 others max.


----------



## Millionwords (21 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			Where we are, terrier men are there for 2 reasons: one is to support the hunt with gates, food/drink, banter etc and the other is because it often suits the landowner to have both trail hunt and fox control on the same day.  They can tell the terrier boys that they have a problem fox or that they want some pest control and we have found that our terrier men will, if asked do that job (which is legal as long as there is no interference with badger setts) at the same time as the trail hunt is there.  The trail hunters do disturb foxes and move them on by virtue of the noise of hounds etc; there is no doubt about that.  Our hunt does not use 2 hounds for legal hunting though - I think it is just too disruptive to the pack and likely to result in riot.  1 day, 2 jobs/activities.  It is easier for the landowners to have it all on the same day and in my experience and opinion the vast majority of landowners that are happy to have the hunt also want to see something like a traditional day's hunting.  A great many farmers that I know still wag their heads at the idea of trail hunting tbh.  Say what you like, I am reporting my experience. 

Click to expand...

Sounds like sailing very close to the wind and ripe for easily being accused of illegal hunting, helpful too that they could just dig out a fox that happened to go to ground...strange that combining the two is deemed better than you know..ringing a terrierman up with a grid reference at any other time.

If hunts want folk to believe that terriermen and hunts are doing nothing untoward, you'd think they'd consider more carefully how they present it, or not be killing foxes at the same time theyre pretending not to kill foxes.


----------



## palo1 (21 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			Sounds like sailing very close to the wind and ripe for easily being accused of illegal hunting, helpful too that they could just dig out a fox that happened to go to ground...strange that combining the two is deemed better than you know..ringing a terrierman up with a grid reference.

If hunts want folk to believe that terriermen and hunts are doing nothing untoward, you'd think they'd consider more carefully how they present it.
		
Click to expand...

You forget that the hunting community and many of the supporting landowners had the Hunting Act forced on them.  From everything I have heard over the years, if it is legal (and often provably so) many hunting people feel it doesn't matter how it might look to the sabs.  You may see that as arrogance but that neglects to accept the history of the legal framework of hunting in it's current form.  it is the same as people going into the pub and driving home again.   It is perfectly legal to spend the evening in the pub and drive home even where there is a real and present danger of people drinking alcohol and being over the legal limit.   Some hunts choose to make more effort to demonstrate legal hunting than others but the terriermen are often linked by history to the hunt; it is a community that 'others' have tried to divide.  You will probably never find any so intransigent as those who have had rules and division forced on them.  At the same time many people hunting today, like me, have far too much to lose in professional and personal terms to want to be implicated with illegal hunting.  You see so many professionals in that position (vets, police, nurses, small business owners etc) that the idea that everyone hunting is breaking the law or supporting that and/or is a psychopathic criminal is just ridiculous. 

IF the hunting community are all implicated in breaking the law and have done so relentlessly for 20 years, in spite of the jeopardy they put themselves in, it is interesting to consider why, even by Sab reckoning there are around 600 hunting days taking place every week from September to March/April.  That is without the unregistered packs of course too.  Why would so many people choose to break the law or choose to support law breaking in spite of their diversity and the opposition they face from antis?  

Either one or other scenario is the case...


----------



## Millionwords (21 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			You forget that the hunting community and many of the supporting landowners had the Hunting Act forced on them.  From everything I have heard over the years, if it is legal (and often provably so) many hunting people feel it doesn't matter how it might look to the sabs.  You may see that as arrogance but that neglects to accept the history of the legal framework of hunting in it's current form.  it is the same as people going into the pub and driving home again.   It is perfectly legal to spend the evening in the pub and drive home even where there is a real and present danger of people drinking alcohol and being over the legal limit.   Some hunts choose to make more effort to demonstrate legal hunting than others but the terriermen are often linked by history to the hunt; it is a community that 'others' have tried to divide.  You will probably never find any so intransigent as those who have had rules and division forced on them.  At the same time many people hunting today, like me, have far too much to lose in professional and personal terms to want to be implicated with illegal hunting.  You see so many professionals in that position (vets, police, nurses, small business owners etc) that the idea that everyone hunting is breaking the law or supporting that and/or is a psychopathic criminal is just ridiculous.

IF the hunting community are all implicated in breaking the law and have done so relentlessly for 20 years, in spite of the jeopardy they put themselves in, it is interesting to consider why, even by Sab reckoning there are around 600 hunting days taking place every week from September to March/April.  That is without the unregistered packs of course too.  Why would so many people choose to break the law or choose to support law breaking in spite of their diversity and the opposition they face from antis?

Either one or other scenario is the case...
		
Click to expand...

Its clearly not one or the other. In the latter scenario, because they had the ban forced upon them...and arrogance that the law does not apply to them....being a policeman doesn't stop you being an extremist, murderer, nutter or racist it seems, so why should the other job roles stop you wanting to hunt foxes?

If hunts want support, or at least not to face constant hassle from the public, public opinion, sabs, whoever...then they should do more about it.

OR stop bleating about how sabs won't leave them alone and the public dont understand.


----------



## palo1 (21 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			Its clearly not one or the other. In the latter scenario, because they had the ban forced upon them...and arrogance that the law does not apply to them....being a policeman doesn't stop you being an extremist, murderer, nutter or racist it seems, so why should the other job roles stop you wanting to hunt foxes?

If hunts want support, or at least not to face constant hassle from the public, public opinion, sabs, whoever...then they should do more about it.

OR stop bleating about how sabs won't leave them alone and the public dont understand.
		
Click to expand...

So what do you think is the reality of hunting then? Genuinely interested as the general anti hunt narrative is that everyone is hunting illegally and that is the premise on which sabs are now working to bring the demise of all hunting activities.   I completely agree that being a nurse/doctor/policeman/vet does not disbar you from being a psychopath or criminal sadly but on the whole it is unthinkable that across the country such diverse groups of people in so many locations collectively break the law, or support that, publicly and regularly.  

Why do you think illegal hunting would appeal to those groups of people?  OR why do you think that those people would risk reputational damage and potential fall out for not falling in with the 'extra' conditions that sabs and anti-hunters want to see imposed (ie presenting their legal activities in a way that pleases or reassures the very people that oppose them).  How does that work?


----------



## ester (21 November 2022)

I'm not sure it does appeal per se and that plenty of them would be just as happy if the hunt were legally trail hunting, but there might not be one actually doing that to move their patronage too. And I think on horse it can be relatively easy to distance yourself from what is actually happening if you'd rather not know and are the sort to be there for a day out and the hip flasks. . .


----------



## Koweyka (21 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			You forget that the hunting community and many of the supporting landowners had the Hunting Act forced on them.  From everything I have heard over the years, if it is legal (and often provably so) many hunting people feel it doesn't matter how it might look to the sabs.  You may see that as arrogance but that neglects to accept the history of the legal framework of hunting in it's current form.  it is the same as people going into the pub and driving home again.   It is perfectly legal to spend the evening in the pub and drive home even where there is a real and present danger of people drinking alcohol and being over the legal limit.   Some hunts choose to make more effort to demonstrate legal hunting than others but the terriermen are often linked by history to the hunt; it is a community that 'others' have tried to divide.  You will probably never find any so intransigent as those who have had rules and division forced on them.  At the same time many people hunting today, like me, have far too much to lose in professional and personal terms to want to be implicated with illegal hunting.  You see so many professionals in that position (vets, police, nurses, small business owners etc) that the idea that everyone hunting is breaking the law or supporting that and/or is a psychopathic criminal is just ridiculous.

IF the hunting community are all implicated in breaking the law and have done so relentlessly for 20 years, in spite of the jeopardy they put themselves in, it is interesting to consider why, even by Sab reckoning there are around 600 hunting days taking place every week from September to March/April.  That is without the unregistered packs of course too.  Why would so many people choose to break the law or choose to support law breaking in spite of their diversity and the opposition they face from antis? 

Either one or other scenario is the case...
		
Click to expand...

Just how many sab groups do you think there are ? The hunt that killed Matrix is one I have never even heard of. I am very sure that we had the bodies to go and watch every single hunt there would be even more evidence of illegal hunting.


----------



## Millionwords (21 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			So what do you think is the reality of hunting then? Genuinely interested as the general anti hunt narrative is that everyone is hunting illegally and that is the premise on which sabs are now working to bring the demise of all hunting activities.   I completely agree that being a nurse/doctor/policeman/vet does not disbar you from being a psychopath or criminal sadly but on the whole it is unthinkable that across the country such diverse groups of people in so many locations collectively break the law, or support that, publicly and regularly.

Why do you think illegal hunting would appeal to those groups of people?  OR why do you think that those people would risk reputational damage and potential fall out for not falling in with the 'extra' conditions that sabs and anti-hunters want to see imposed (ie presenting their legal activities in a way that pleases or reassures the very people that oppose them).  How does that work?
		
Click to expand...

It would be very difficult to prosecute one of the field as you well know.
As with any organisation there are varying levels of "being in the know" about what's going on.

Many people here have hunted and never witnessed a kill. If you are happy to have an inkling this might be the case, but you dislike foxes youd turn a blind eye.

If you were told they hunt legally and are in the field and didn't hunt pre ban, you'd probably believe it.

I don't know why you're asking, you're not stupid, you know all of this.

it's just deflection, waffling around the point to muddy the waters and avoid having to actually respond directly and honestly to every statement put forward no matter how unarguable it is (in general, not just statements by me. And in general by pro hunt, including you)

Its like pro hunt turn into Boris Johnson when asked a straightforward question. Or they just pretend it wasn't asked and find an interesting spot somewhere in another room to look at, and hope the question goes away.


----------



## palo1 (21 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			It would be very difficult to prosecute one of the field as you well know.
As with any organisation there are varying levels of "being in the know" about what's going on.

Many people here have hunted and never witnessed a kill. If you are happy to have an inkling this might be the case, but you dislike foxes youd turn a blind eye.

If you were told they hunt legally and are in the field and didn't hunt pre ban, you'd probably believe it.

I don't know why you're asking, you're not stupid, you know all of this.

it's just deflection, waffling around the point to muddy the waters and avoid having to actually respond directly and honestly to every statement put forward no matter how unarguable it is (in general, not just statements by me. And in general by pro hunt, including you)

Its like pro hunt turn into Boris Johnson when asked a straightforward question. Or they just pretend it wasn't asked and find an interesting spot somewhere in another room to look at, and hope the question goes away.
		
Click to expand...


I think this is pretty rude tbh.  In all the hunting threads on this forum I have been pretty open and have been, I think, respectful.  I am not sure why the anti-hunting lobby here can't at least treat that openness and respect with equal measure.  I am not deflecting or waffling actually but bringing up relevant stuff.  The narrative that anti-hunters regularly bring out is that the police turn a blind eye, that the toffs (in hunting) stick together, that the justice system never works against hunters, that everybody out hunting DOES know what is going on (hence the justification for abusing children and other members of the field etc).  These are the tropes that suggest that hunters are completely aware of what is going on.  I have been told here, time and time again 'everyone knows...'.  Yet now you tell me that they probably don't... You are right about one thing though; I am not stupid, nor are many of my friends that want to continue to hunt.  It is genuine prejudice that will paint any group of people at the same time as being stupid, dirty, uncivilised, lawless and backward as well as having the power to manipulate the police, the justice system etc etc.

I have answered questions about the logistics of hunting, about my own experiences and about issues around hunting with genuine openness and the desire to communicate my position - what exactly do you think I have avoided?

Having read through your reply again, I really want to ask actually, why have you avoided answering my genuine questions about what you think or how you think anti-hunters think about ordinary people out hunting?  Is it because you think my 'content' is silly, meaningless or just waffle or because you don't actually know or haven't considered those things?


----------



## Fred66 (21 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			It would be very difficult to prosecute one of the field as you well know.
As with any organisation there are varying levels of "being in the know" about what's going on.

Many people here have hunted and never witnessed a kill. If you are happy to have an inkling this might be the case, but you dislike foxes youd turn a blind eye.

If you were told they hunt legally and are in the field and didn't hunt pre ban, you'd probably believe it.

I don't know why you're asking, you're not stupid, you know all of this.

it's just deflection, waffling around the point to muddy the waters and avoid having to actually respond directly and honestly to every statement put forward no matter how unarguable it is (in general, not just statements by me. And in general by pro hunt, including you)

Its like pro hunt turn into Boris Johnson when asked a straightforward question. Or they just pretend it wasn't asked and find an interesting spot somewhere in another room to look at, and hope the question goes away.
		
Click to expand...

All of what you have said could be said about hunt monitors. They know that hunt saboteurs regularly break the law, that they commit aggravated trespass on a regular basis, they are also guilty of harassment and stalking, some of which is directed at minors. The level of sentence if charged and found guilty varies from 3 months for trespass up to 10 years for stalking. Possibly this is why so many of them try to hide their identity.
They have no justification, if they were genuinely monitoring and calling the police if they had evidence of a crime (or genuinely believed a crime to be occurring) then I would be more than happy to have them out each week. However this is not what happens and hopefully the hunts will start to actually request the support of the law to stop these crimes from occurring.


----------



## Sandstone1 (22 November 2022)

The thing is that most pro hunters are well aware of whats going on.   They are in a lot a cases knowingly participating in a illegal activity.    They will continue to say " But but sabs do this and that so that makes it ok that we are breaking the law and anyway the law does not mean us!"
I have no doubt that sabs do on occasion do stuff they should not but at the moment its not illegal to protest about things.  It is however illegal to hunt foxes with packs of hounds.   A lot of hunters know full well that hunting is going on.  This subject will go round and round until " trail hunting"  Is banned too.  
Hunters are slashing tyres, running people down and physically assaulting sabs.  However hunters will say sabs do the same.  The only way is to ban trail hunting too and I think that day is coming.


----------



## Lulwind (22 November 2022)

A few questions for the sabs on here:

1.   If you believe a hunt is acting illegally why not film and send the evidence to the police?  Rather than spray scent and blow the horn etc to confuse hounds?
2.   Why do you wear masks and then have a go at hunt supports for wearing them?
3.  Why do you constantly call the police over minor incidents thus taking the overstretched police from serious incidents eg domestic violence?
4. Going back to point 1 above if you did that it would stop antagonising hunt supporters. 
5.  Why do your supporters feel the need to write the same defamatory often very personal comments on social media regarding individuals?   These often include violent threats, references to sexual status etc.  I will be flabbergasted if anyone can defend this


----------



## GoldenWillow (22 November 2022)

SilverLinings said:



			It does continue to amaze and confuse me that the illegal hunters are so arrogant (or stupid?) that they seem to be totally blind to the fact that they are a very tiny minority, and they are binging about both the demise of the 'sport' they love and the demise of the next best thing (trail hunting).
		
Click to expand...

Our nearest hunt has just lost another landowners permission to go on their land from behaving in an incredibly arrogant and entitled way. 



SilverLinings said:



			Round here they also drive like complete d!cks as apparently everyone should give way to the hunt including pedestrians and animals. I was nearly mown down (when walking) by a hunt quad bike last winter to the extent that I ended up on my face in a muddy ditch. The passenger on the back saw and they kept on driving, it was a dog walker who found me 5 mins later who helped me up. I was walking with crutches at the time this happened but apparently still fair game (or an acceptable casualty of the hunt's activities).
		
Click to expand...

As well as the actual hunt staff and hounds the hunt traffic causes huge problems in our area and some of it is most deliberately done.


----------



## Millionwords (22 November 2022)

*Daniel Cherriman, huntsman of the South Shropshire Hunt, has pleaded guilty to hunting a wild mammal with dogs, contrary to the Hunting Act 2004.*


The incident took place in November 2021 when National Trust members filmed the South Shropshire Hunt illegally hunting a fox and trespassing at Inwood, the Longmynd, Church Stretton, Shropshire which is owned by the National Trust. The video shows Cherriman encouraging his hounds onto a fox and then doing nothing to stop them when they hunt the animal.  Cherriman pleaded guilty on the condition that charges were dropped against his whipper in Oliver Beasley who was also due to stand trial.

*Three other huntsmen were also due in court last week,* all on charges of illegal hunting, but the cases have been adjourned.  John Holiday, ex-huntsman of the Belvoir Hunt and Will Hanson, ex-huntsman of the Fernie hunt will both face trial in March next year. Puckeridge huntsman Arun Squire will stand trial in May next year where the court will see drone footage, gathered by hunt sabs, of his hounds killing a fox.


----------



## Millionwords (22 November 2022)

Why aren't these hunts suspended?


----------



## moosea (22 November 2022)

Lulwind said:



			A few questions for the sabs on here:

1.   If you believe a hunt is acting illegally why not film and send the evidence to the police?  Rather than spray scent and blow the horn etc to confuse hounds?
2.   Why do you wear masks and then have a go at hunt supports for wearing them?
3.  Why do you constantly call the police over minor incidents thus taking the overstretched police from serious incidents eg domestic violence?
4. Going back to point 1 above if you did that it would stop antagonising hunt supporters.
5.  Why do your supporters feel the need to write the same defamatory often very personal comments on social media regarding individuals?   These often include violent threats, references to sexual status etc.  I will be flabbergasted if anyone can defend this
		
Click to expand...


I don't 'sab', But have become more and more anti hunting since the ban. 
I'll have a go at answering .

*1.   If you believe a hunt is acting illegally why not film and send the evidence to the police?  Rather than spray scent and blow the horn etc to confuse hounds?*
As an animal lover I could not sit back and watch and film an animal being killed illegaly and in a way that was in my opinion cruel. Videoing is all well and good but won't stop hounds going after the fox, just capture it on film. So I would use any tool I could to help the fox escape.
If I saw a person getting mugged I wouldn't stop and film it, I'd take action.
As already stated up thread, it's really hard to prosecute one person in a field. Perhaps the masters should be the ones held legaly responsible for the actions of their pack and their field - possibly would clean up their behaviour?
_*2.   Why do you wear masks and then have a go at hunt supports for wearing them?*_
Why do you wear masks and then question why sabs wear them?
_*3.  Why do you constantly call the police over minor incidents thus taking the overstretched police from serious incidents eg domestic violence?*_
What do you call a minor incident? Who gets to decide what is minor and what is major? If it's illegal then it's illegal. That's the job of the police, to enforce the law without bias.
_*4. Going back to point 1 above if you did that it would stop antagonising hunt supporters.*_
If hunts did not break the law, terrorise local pets and cause much disruption to locals then there wouldn't need to be monitors and sabs. 


*5.  Why do your supporters feel the need to write the same defamatory often very personal comments on social media regarding individuals?   These often include violent threats, references to sexual status etc. *
I imaagine that it is the same reason that pro hunt have done the exact same thing. People are very passionate about this issue, whichever 'side' they sit on.

* I will be flabbergasted if anyone can defend this*
Hoping I have caused a little, tiny bit of fabbergastation ( I think I made that word up!! )


----------



## Lulwind (23 November 2022)

moosea said:



			I don't 'sab', But have become more and more anti hunting since the ban.
I'll have a go at answering .

*1.   If you believe a hunt is acting illegally why not film and send the evidence to the police?  Rather than spray scent and blow the horn etc to confuse hounds?*
As an animal lover I could not sit back and watch and film an animal being killed illegaly and in a way that was in my opinion cruel. Videoing is all well and good but won't stop hounds going after the fox, just capture it on film. So I would use any tool I could to help the fox escape.
If I saw a person getting mugged I wouldn't stop and film it, I'd take action.
As already stated up thread, it's really hard to prosecute one person in a field. Perhaps the masters should be the ones held legaly responsible for the actions of their pack and their field - possibly would clean up their behaviour?
_*2.   Why do you wear masks and then have a go at hunt supports for wearing them?*_
Why do you wear masks and then question why sabs wear them?
_*3.  Why do you constantly call the police over minor incidents thus taking the overstretched police from serious incidents eg domestic violence?*_
What do you call a minor incident? Who gets to decide what is minor and what is major? If it's illegal then it's illegal. That's the job of the police, to enforce the law without bias.
_*4. Going back to point 1 above if you did that it would stop antagonising hunt supporters.*_
If hunts did not break the law, terrorise local pets and cause much disruption to locals then there wouldn't need to be monitors and sabs.


*5.  Why do your supporters feel the need to write the same defamatory often very personal comments on social media regarding individuals?   These often include violent threats, references to sexual status etc. *
I imaagine that it is the same reason that pro hunt have done the exact same thing. People are very passionate about this issue, whichever 'side' they sit on.

* I will be flabbergasted if anyone can defend this*
Hoping I have caused a little, tiny bit of fabbergastation ( I think I made that word up!! )
		
Click to expand...

Thank you Moosea for your considered responses.   Few points from me:

I fully appreciate your passion.  I don’t however agree with sabs confusing hounds.  However that is my opinion and you are fully entitled to yours.  Police are constantly called where there is no endanger to human life.  That to my mind is minor.  I don’t ever wear a mask.  Hunt supporters do not put on public open groups vial personal comments.  

I still appreciate what you have written and hope no one thinks I am being agnostic to the point we can’t have an open discussion with neither side willing to listen to the other.  Can I add the incident with the cat greatly saddens me as a (very spoilt and much loved) pet owner


----------



## Sandstone1 (23 November 2022)

moosea said:



			I don't 'sab', But have become more and more anti hunting since the ban.
I'll have a go at answering .

*1.   If you believe a hunt is acting illegally why not film and send the evidence to the police?  Rather than spray scent and blow the horn etc to confuse hounds?*
As an animal lover I could not sit back and watch and film an animal being killed illegaly and in a way that was in my opinion cruel. Videoing is all well and good but won't stop hounds going after the fox, just capture it on film. So I would use any tool I could to help the fox escape.
If I saw a person getting mugged I wouldn't stop and film it, I'd take action.
As already stated up thread, it's really hard to prosecute one person in a field. Perhaps the masters should be the ones held legaly responsible for the actions of their pack and their field - possibly would clean up their behaviour?
_*2.   Why do you wear masks and then have a go at hunt supports for wearing them?*_
Why do you wear masks and then question why sabs wear them?
_*3.  Why do you constantly call the police over minor incidents thus taking the overstretched police from serious incidents eg domestic violence?*_
What do you call a minor incident? Who gets to decide what is minor and what is major? If it's illegal then it's illegal. That's the job of the police, to enforce the law without bias.
_*4. Going back to point 1 above if you did that it would stop antagonising hunt supporters.*_
If hunts did not break the law, terrorise local pets and cause much disruption to locals then there wouldn't need to be monitors and sabs.


*5.  Why do your supporters feel the need to write the same defamatory often very personal comments on social media regarding individuals?   These often include violent threats, references to sexual status etc. *
I imaagine that it is the same reason that pro hunt have done the exact same thing. People are very passionate about this issue, whichever 'side' they sit on.

* I will be flabbergasted if anyone can defend this*
Hoping I have caused a little, tiny bit of fabbergastation ( I think I made that word up!! )
		
Click to expand...

I was going to reply almost exactly the same thing last night but decided not to bother as I honestly feel there is little point.  However I would just add a couple of things. Firstly I like you am not a sab although I have been accused of being one on here more than once.  I would probably do it if I had more time, anyway thats not the point.
I completely agree with you regarding why sabs distract and use scent and horn calls to distract hounds.  I could not stand by and let hounds kill without trying to stop it.  It is after all ILLEGAL. 
Masks?   As far as I am aware sabs wear masks because they have had death threats, been followed home and had damage done to vehicles and homes by hunt supporters so I do not blame them for wearing masks.  Why do terrier men wear masks??
Police?  Its not a minor offence to break the law by illegal hunting.
If hunts did completely and genuinely trail hunt as they should be, there would be no need for sabs.  Sadly as we all know there is actually hardly any proper trail hunting it is after all just a " SMOKESCREEN"


----------



## sunleychops (23 November 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Shooting is indeed legal for now, although IMHO morally it is much less defensible than hunting. Make the most of the time you have left.
		
Click to expand...

So shooting something is worse than chasing something to the point of exhaustion and then having a pack of dogs rip it to shreds?


----------



## sunleychops (23 November 2022)

ycbm said:



			The Policeman who shot a stray sheep on my land during the last foot&mouth crisis. The stalker who regularly culls the excess red deer in the western Peaks. Any farmer with a shotgun. The fallen stock people.
.
		
Click to expand...

Right so youre anti shooting but are cool with things being shot.


----------



## Tiddlypom (23 November 2022)

sunleychops said:



			So shooting something is worse than chasing something to the point of exhaustion and then having a pack of dogs rip it to shreds?
		
Click to expand...

Bear in mind that I am absolutely against illegal hunting, which undoubtedly still goes on, and pre ban fox hunting was of its time and should never be allowed again.

Like it or not, overall the countryside was better managed when fox hunting was legal, simply to protect foxes so that they could provide sport during the hunting season. It was tough on the foxes that got killed by the hunts, for sure, but overall the fox population was healthier and better managed then. You may well despise those who hunted, and why they managed the land to encourage foxes, but overall a fair bit of good came out of it for foxes.

For shooting, pheasants (non native birds) are artificially mass produced simply to provide amusement to people who enjoy killing them, with no knock on benefit to the countryside. I find this much more abhorrent.


----------



## SilverLinings (23 November 2022)

The sheer numbers of birds shot nationally on driven shoots far outstrips the number of foxes killed by hunts pre-ban. I doubt either results in a pleasant death for many of the animals involved, but more birds are killed via shooting than foxes by hunt hounds.

_Edited for clarity._


----------



## Fred66 (23 November 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Bear in mind that I am absolutely against illegal hunting, which undoubtedly still goes on, and pre ban fox hunting was of its time and should never be allowed again.

Like it or not, overall the countryside was better managed when fox hunting was legal, simply to protect foxes so that they could provide sport during the hunting season. It was tough on the foxes that got killed by the hunts, for sure, but overall the fox population was healthier and better managed then. You may well despise those who hunted, and why they managed the land to encourage foxes, but overall a fair bit of good came out of it for foxes.

For shooting, pheasants (non native birds) are artificially mass produced simply to provide amusement to people who enjoy killing them, with no knock on benefit to the countryside. I find this much more abhorrent.
		
Click to expand...

There is quite a lot of benefit to the countryside from shoots, as was discussed earlier in this thread


----------



## palo1 (23 November 2022)

Meanwhile, in reality elsewhere:Good news for Lynx thanks in part to hunting organisations.  https://www.biodiversitymanifesto.c...mlpIrEXMpZpPxuBYlD8iLuwDzkrZRSfGjrz8C0OBHRhn0

If we are to manage biodiversity people really need to think clearly and in certain situations reconsider their prejudices.


----------



## Millionwords (23 November 2022)

https://www.banburyguardian.co.uk/n...ing-a-fox-in-banburyshire-countryside-3926444


----------



## Burnttoast (23 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			Meanwhile, in reality elsewhere:Good news for Lynx thanks in part to hunting organisations.  https://www.biodiversitymanifesto.c...mlpIrEXMpZpPxuBYlD8iLuwDzkrZRSfGjrz8C0OBHRhn0

If we are to manage biodiversity people really need to think clearly and in certain situations reconsider their prejudices.
		
Click to expand...

There are people other than hunters who wish to improve biodiversity for its own sake and are not concerned primarily with quarry species numbers. That is certainly a glossy website, though.


----------



## Burnttoast (23 November 2022)

Fred66 said:



			There is quite a lot of benefit to the countryside from shoots, as was discussed earlier in this thread
		
Click to expand...

I don't see any near me. Hedges and woodland are managed less well on farms that shoot than on ones that are interested in conservation for its own sake.


----------



## palo1 (23 November 2022)

Burnttoast said:



			I don't see any near me. Hedges and woodland are managed less well on farms that shoot than on ones that are interested in conservation for its own sake.
		
Click to expand...

Are you a farmer or landowner @Burnttoast ? Do you know how conservation is paid for?  For the vast majority of landowners, there are significant costs to that ownership and whilst every landowner I know would like to engage more in conservation activities, many simply cannot afford to do that for it's own sake.  Land is, as well as a common good and vital for biodiversity, a business; one that is, even at hill farming level, globally competitive.  Our organic, grass fed lamb is sold in a local market for buyers from as far away as the middle east and trade is influenced by global factors such as religion, climate and the economics of distant places.  Shooting enables farmers to carry out conservation and biodiversity activities and still remain economically viable.  That means that those things are sustainable and do not cost the tax payer.  Just think about it!!


----------



## Burnttoast (23 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			Are you a farmer or landowner @Burnttoast ? Do you know how conservation is paid for?  For the vast majority of landowners, there are significant costs to that ownership and whilst every landowner I know would like to engage more in conservation activities, many simply cannot afford to do that for it's own sake.  Land is, as well as a common good and vital for biodiversity, a business; one that is, even at hill farming level, globally competitive.  Our organic, grass fed lamb is sold in a local market for buyers from as far away as the middle east and trade is influenced by global factors such as religion, climate and the economics of distant places.  Shooting enables farmers to carry out conservation and biodiversity activities and still remain economically viable.  That means that those things are sustainable and do not cost the tax payer.  Just think about it!!
		
Click to expand...

Here, some landowners are partnering with wildlife and conservation groups and it's costing them very little to improve their landscapes. On my own very small patch (4 acres) I pay for my own conservation efforts, but no, I don't have to make a living from it. In arable East Anglia it is certainly not the case that every landowner has any interest in conservation (the large farm adjacent to my land was until very recently owned by a trust based in Panama and contracted out; now it's owned by a local pig baron who is thrashing the land even harder and behaving pretty antisocially to the locals too so my experience of landowners in general as generally benevolent does not match yours)


----------



## ycbm (23 November 2022)

.


palo1 said:



			Are you a farmer or landowner @Burnttoast ? Do you know how conservation is paid for?
		
Click to expand...


I was.  I created a wildlife haven of my ten acres,  with a huge variety of plants,  breeding or helping curlew,  lapwing,  hare, badger, stoat,  kestrel, red deer, swallow, lark and three types of owl, that I know of. 

Friends around me have in the last 30 years created acres more woodland and restored miles of drystone wall.  Another new piece of woodland is being put in right now.

Not a cent provided from any hunting activities. 
.


----------



## Millionwords (23 November 2022)

ycbm said:



			.



I was.  I created a wildlife haven of my ten acres,  with a huge variety of plants,  breeding or helping curlew,  lapwing,  hare, badger, stoat,  kestrel, red deer, swallow, lark and three types of owl, that I know of.

Friends around me have in the last 30 years created acres more woodland and restored miles of drystone wall.  Another new piece of woodland is being put in right now.

Not a cent provided from any hunting activities.
.
		
Click to expand...

ycThat sounds wonderful @ycbm and a real ecological asset to the surrounding land too!


----------



## palo1 (23 November 2022)

ycbm said:



			.



I was.  I created a wildlife haven of my ten acres,  with a huge variety of plants,  breeding or helping curlew,  lapwing,  hare, badger, stoat,  kestrel, red deer, swallow, lark and three types of owl, that I know of.

Friends around me have in the last 30 years created acres more woodland and restored miles of drystone wall.  Another new piece of woodland is being put in right now.

Not a cent provided from any hunting activities.
.
		
Click to expand...

That is fantastic @ycbm  but you did not need to earn your keep and that of your family from the land.  I know that partnerships are available and they are good things but the vast majority of conservation work comes at a cost (usually at the very least 50%) to the landowner.  Privilege in owning land that you don't have to make a living from is a different scenario altogether.  As for the huge, contracted arable farms, yes they are definitely not conservation oriented, even with support.  But that isn't the standard shoot either.  Here, at least 10% of our land is given over to nature; no interference with scrub, trees, water, bog etc.  We COULD do differently and we certainly receive no support at all for those bits of the farm that are not 'farmed'.  But we do need to at least make sure the farm pays for itself otherwise it is not at all sustainable.  We are not suitable for shooting (other than literally rough shooting for the pot) so cannot make land pay in that way but if we had suitable ground that we could plant with trees and more diverse species to make money from shooting (probably not pheasant) that would mean even more of our marginal ground would be given to nature.


----------



## palo1 (23 November 2022)

ycbm said:



			.



I was.  I created a wildlife haven of my ten acres,  with a huge variety of plants,  breeding or helping curlew,  lapwing,  hare, badger, stoat,  kestrel, red deer, swallow, lark and three types of owl, that I know of.

Friends around me have in the last 30 years created acres more woodland and restored miles of drystone wall.  Another new piece of woodland is being put in right now.

Not a cent provided from any hunting activities.
.
		
Click to expand...

I think in other posts you have described how you simply let the land be/adopted a policy of benign neglect.  That isn't quite the same as actively and knowledgeably promoting diversity and understanding and protecting that.  But hey, what you did was a good thing genuinely.


----------



## ycbm (23 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			That is fantastic @ycbm  but you did not need to earn your keep and that of your family from the land.  I know that partnerships are available and they are good things but the vast majority of conservation work comes at a cost (usually at the very least 50%) to the landowner.  Privilege in owning land that you don't have to make a living from is a different scenario altogether.  As for the huge, contracted arable farms, yes they are definitely not conservation oriented, even with support.  But that isn't the standard shoot either.  Here, at least 10% of our land is given over to nature; no interference with scrub, trees, water, bog etc.  We COULD do differently and we certainly receive no support at all for those bits of the farm that are not 'farmed'.  But we do need to at least make sure the farm pays for itself otherwise it is not at all sustainable.  We are not suitable for shooting (other than literally rough shooting for the pot) so cannot make land pay in that way but if we had suitable ground that we could plant with trees and more diverse species to make money from shooting (probably not pheasant) that would mean even more of our marginal ground would be given to nature.
		
Click to expand...

I spoke also for friends who did need to make their farming pay and I did not say they did it without grants,  but not a penny was from country sports. 
.


----------



## Burnttoast (23 November 2022)

ycbm said:



			.



I was.  I created a wildlife haven of my ten acres,  with a huge variety of plants,  breeding or helping curlew,  lapwing,  hare, badger, stoat,  kestrel, red deer, swallow, lark and three types of owl, that I know of.

Friends around me have in the last 30 years created acres more woodland and restored miles of drystone wall.  Another new piece of woodland is being put in right now.

Not a cent provided from any hunting activities.
.
		
Click to expand...

I miss lapwings. They used to be so common in EA. Your place sounds lovely - I hope the new owners keep it up. The irony is that benign neglect can be very effective too, and doesn't cost a penny. I've planted 400m of new hedges and about 60 new trees (inc fruit and nut trees), and put tree guards around jay-planted oaks, but it's the fact that I haven't touched our roadside hedge in 5 years (it's mostly brambles) that has tempted whitethroats and linnets, who have practically nowhere round here suitable to nest. Certainly our field is the only place I've seen those species in the walking I used to do in the surrounding countryside.


----------



## ycbm (23 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			I think in other posts you have described how you simply let the land be/adopted a policy of benign neglect.  That isn't quite the same as actively and knowledgeably promoting diversity and understanding and protecting that.  But hey, what you did was a good thing genuinely.
		
Click to expand...

I could have let it for grazing and got money or valuable services in return. I could have made a forage crop instead of paying over a thousand pounds a year to buy it in.  I could have not paid wallers thousands of pounds to rebuild walls ....

It does not require blood sports to do conservation. 
.


----------



## Burnttoast (23 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			I think in other posts you have described how you simply let the land be/adopted a policy of benign neglect.  That isn't quite the same as actively and knowledgeably promoting diversity and understanding and protecting that.  But hey, what you did was a good thing genuinely.
		
Click to expand...

That's not protected knowledge. There are plenty of resources, local and more general, that people can access if they want to be more targeted with their efforts. But in many areas just letting go a bit is hugely helpful. And the basic principle that edge habitats are most biodiverse is not hard to grasp or to put into action.


----------



## palo1 (23 November 2022)

Burnttoast said:



			I miss lapwings. They used to be so common in EA. Your place sounds lovely - I hope the new owners keep it up. The irony is that benign neglect can be very effective too, and doesn't cost a penny. I've planted 400m of new hedges and about 60 new trees (inc fruit and nut trees), and put tree guards around jay-seeded oaks, but it's the fact that I haven't touched our roadside hedge in 5 years (it's mostly brambles) that has tempted whitethroats and linnets, who have practically nowhere round here suitable to nest. Certainly our field is the only place I've seen those species in the walking I used to do in the surrounding countryside.
		
Click to expand...

We have many of the same species here and our grazed hill is a valuable conservation area.  Benign neglect is hugely valuable and possibly why some areas in Wales have retained species and habitat.  However where land is financially marginal, people are forced to to make active choices and providing habitat that works for shooting is one of those.  I know anti hunters on this forum are absolutely focussed on their sense of the moral high ground but climate crisis needs us all to be open minded and to leave some of our prejudices behind in order to be pragmatic about what actually works in a variety of situations.  No amount of humble bragging or smugness about one's own privilege is going to help create nationally and internationally significant change; everyone, from many different viewpoints and philosophical ideals have to work together.  Just try to recognise a variety of perspectives as potentially valuable.  The discussion around trophy hunting amongst the scientific community is not ideal but does show how facts can be discussed and used helpfully in shaping policy ideas.


----------



## Burnttoast (23 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			We have many of the same species here and our grazed hill is a valuable conservation area.  Benign neglect is hugely valuable and possibly why some areas in Wales have retained species and habitat.  However where land is financially marginal, people are forced to to make active choices and providing habitat that works for shooting is one of those.  I know anti hunters on this forum are absolutely focussed on their sense of the moral high ground but climate crisis needs us all to be open minded and to leave some of our prejudices behind in order to be pragmatic about what actually works in a variety of situations.  No amount of humble bragging or smugness about one's own privilege is going to help create nationally and internationally significant change; everyone, from many different viewpoints and philosophical ideals have to work together.  Just try to recognise a variety of perspectives as potentially valuable.  The discussion around trophy hunting amongst the scientific community is not ideal but does show how facts can be discussed and used helpfully in shaping policy ideas.
		
Click to expand...

I have nothing against rough shooting (as I've said above) in the UK but that isn't the kind of shooting that brings in money in anything like useful quantities. In EA, driven shooting does not appear to have any benefits for conservation. Wherever the money goes, it's not into the local ecology. And the shooting and trapping of millions of songbirds over southern Europe every year is not, for example, the kind of activity that might engender trust when it comes to the motivation of some people with guns in Europe at least. In contrast, the most wildlife-focused farm close to me is funded in part by local people who would be horrified at the idea of shooting taking place, as they have the same values as the current tenants - they get places to walk and engagement via social and local media for their money, and the farm looks after the wildlife in return.


----------



## moosea (23 November 2022)

Lulwind said:



			Thank you Moosea for your considered responses.   Few points from me:

I fully appreciate your passion. * I don’t however agree with sabs confusing hounds.*  However that is my opinion and you are fully entitled to yours.  *Police are constantly called where there is no endanger to human life.*  That to my mind is minor.  I don’t ever wear a mask.  Hunt supporters do not put on public open groups vial personal comments. 

I still appreciate what you have written and hope no one thinks I am being agnostic to the point we can’t have an open discussion with neither side willing to listen to the other.  Can I add the incident with the cat greatly saddens me as a (very spoilt and much loved) pet owner
		
Click to expand...


_Would you stand by and watch someone be mugged? or would you shout and make a lot of noise to distract the mugger? 
Would you call the police to attend that scene of crime? even though there is no longer any danger?
It's the same to me - I could no more watch someone mugged than I could watch animal cruelty. Both are crimes. It is not for me to decide which crime is more or less important, they are both illegal and both deserve the weight of law, in my opinion._


----------



## Fred66 (23 November 2022)

moosea said:



_Would you stand by and watch someone be mugged? or would you shout and make a lot of noise to distract the mugger? 
Would you call the police to attend that scene of crime? even though there is no longer any danger?
It's the same to me - I could no more watch someone mugged than I could watch animal cruelty. Both are crimes. It is not for me to decide which crime is more or less important, they are both illegal and both deserve the weight of law, in my opinion._

Click to expand...

But this isn’t what is happening. If the sabs monitored and only intervened if hunts were illegally hunting foxes then yes your analogy would be apt, but they don’t. They deliberately spray scent across prelaid  trails, they call hounds to distract them, they verbally and physically harass people, they post abusive messages on social media, all of this is done even when there is absolutely nothing to indicate that the hunts are breaking the law. They make no distinction between those hunts that are legally trail hunting and the few that appear to be flouting the law. They actively and deliberately set out to break the law. I assume that your statement regarding illegal acts deserving the weight of the law applies to these people as well?


----------



## Millionwords (24 November 2022)

Fred66 said:



			But this isn’t what is happening. If the sabs monitored and only intervened if hunts were illegally hunting foxes then yes your analogy would be apt, but they don’t. They deliberately spray scent across prelaid  trails, they call hounds to distract them, they verbally and physically harass people, they post abusive messages on social media, all of this is done even when there is absolutely nothing to indicate that the hunts are breaking the law. They make no distinction between those hunts that are legally trail hunting and the few that appear to be flouting the law. They actively and deliberately set out to break the law. I assume that your statement regarding illegal acts deserving the weight of the law applies to these people as well?
		
Click to expand...

How do they know where "pre-laid" trails are to spray them?


They often spray on the line a fox has taken to mask the trail of that


----------



## ycbm (24 November 2022)

Fred66 said:



			They make no distinction between those hunts that are legally trail hunting and the few that appear to be flouting the law.
		
Click to expand...

I'm sure TP has reported in the past that she has seen a huge difference in sabbing behaviour since the hunt local to her gave up hunting illegally due to landowner pressure to end the disruption.

And it's not a few flouting the law,  it's it?  We have people on the forum all over the country telling us that they know their local hunt is hunting fox, and sabs providing footage from more than a few.  

Lastly,  while hunts continue to take advantage of the weakness of the law to break it in spirit if not sufficient to convince a court beyond reasonable doubt, then  sabbing of those hunts will continue. 

Are you STILL laying thin trails of fox scent? 
.


----------



## Nasicus (24 November 2022)

ycbm said:



			Are you STILL laying thin trails of fox scent?
		
Click to expand...

Of course they are, how else could they excuse their little accidents?
It's not like hounds can be trained to follow any other scent, and it's not like there are plenty of other potent scents available besides fox! 🙃


----------



## Fransurrey (24 November 2022)

blitznbobs said:



			in 20 years in a and e seen many many riding accidents and horse on the ground accidents and only one shotgun shot — definitely not an accident - a self inflicted on purpose who tried to shoot himself in the head and missed (ie shot came out thru his face and he survived) incredibly sad but nothing to do with feckwittery… everyone I know who owns a gun is  not going to shoot anyone by accident.., people in charge of horses cause much more damage to bystanders with out of control beasties.. and it is far less monitored.
		
Click to expand...

Bizarre as this may sound (and sorry to go off topic), I might know that person. Would have been 15-20 years ago and exactly this happened, in your region. I made a right idiot of myself asking what accident he'd had when I first met him!! Happily married, now, thank goodness, but his face will always look a mess unfortunately.


----------



## paddy555 (24 November 2022)

palo1 said:



			Are you a farmer or landowner @Burnttoast ? Do you know how conservation is paid for?  For the vast majority of landowners, there are significant costs to that ownership and whilst every landowner I know would like to engage more in conservation activities, many simply cannot afford to do that for it's own sake.  Land is, as well as a common good and vital for biodiversity, a business; one that is, even at hill farming level, globally competitive.  Our organic, grass fed lamb is sold in a local market for buyers from as far away as the middle east and trade is influenced by global factors such as religion, climate and the economics of distant places.  Shooting enables farmers to carry out conservation and biodiversity activities and still remain economically viable.  That means that those things are sustainable and do not cost the tax payer.  Just think about it!!
		
Click to expand...

here the farmers with the shoot do the least which is just about nothing, for conservation.  Conservation which here is rebuilding miles of drystone walls is paid for by grants. If the taxpayer didn't pay then the wall's wouldn't get rebuilt. Interestingly the farms who do the most to help conservation are not the shooting ones. 

I think you have a somewhat fairy tale view of shooting and it's participants. 




palo1 said:



			We have many of the same species here and our grazed hill is a valuable conservation area.  Benign neglect is hugely valuable and possibly why some areas in Wales have retained species and habitat.  However where land is financially marginal, people are forced to to make active choices and providing habitat that works for shooting is one of those.  I know anti hunters on this forum are absolutely focussed on their sense of the moral high ground but climate crisis needs us all to be open minded and to leave some of our prejudices behind in order to be pragmatic about what actually works in a variety of situations.  No amount of humble bragging or smugness about one's own privilege is going to help create nationally and internationally significant change; everyone, from many different viewpoints and philosophical ideals have to work together.  Just try to recognise a variety of perspectives as potentially valuable.  The discussion around trophy hunting amongst the scientific community is not ideal but does show how facts can be discussed and used helpfully in shaping policy ideas.
		
Click to expand...

I think you have a somewhat fairy tale view of shooting and it's participants. I don't think that objecting to birds being bred for the sake of it to force them into the sky to then shoot them down is in anyway bragging or smugness about anyone's own privilege. To me it is simply a vile activity for the pleasure of people. I would have a lot more respect for people if they would just see that. OK we like to kill, (sorry shoot accurately,) so we shoot for this reason and as a social activity. That is how they get their kicks. If someone says that then whilst I totally disagree with them at least they have had the balls to say it as it is rather than trying to hide behind endless excuses of conservation, the skill of shooting accurately etc.


----------



## Clodagh (24 November 2022)

I don’t actually shoot but we used to have our own small shoot and I work on other peoples now. I would say though I really don’t think the guns would say they like killing. It is about skill. Im not explaining it very well. 
On the true big shoots I often wonder why they do t just shoot clays.


----------



## paddy555 (24 November 2022)

paddy555 said:



			here the farmers with the shoot do the least which is just about nothing, for conservation.  Conservation which here is rebuilding miles of drystone walls is paid for by grants. If the taxpayer didn't pay then the wall's wouldn't get rebuilt. Interestingly the farms who do the most to help conservation are not the shooting ones.

.
		
Click to expand...

(nothing to do with shooting or hunting).

 About 40/50 years ago grants were given to farmers to remove stone field walls to create larger fields. Now endless amounts are being paid to rebuild them. They are not necessary. I have watched several long field division walls being built and then pig wire fenced on both sides to keep the sheep off it. They take weeks to build,  stone wallers and their diggers so not cheap. Plus the cost of tons and tons of stone. I cannot remember how many 15 ton lorry loads of soil one double sided wall swallowed. There were 3 lorries a day we counted and that continued for a fortnight. Cost of the soil and then the cost to the environment of so many lorries each day travelling for miles. 
 It doesn't achieve anything and the farmers will do nothing to maintain it. I suppose it looks nice but that is about it. 
Total waste of money. The taxpayer paid to get rid of them and then paid again to rebuild them. Shame that money couldn't have been put into somewhere that needed it, housing comes to mind, rather than wasting it on pointless walls to look pretty. 
Perhaps it's time for a lot of money to be removed from the conservation budget and re allocated to somewhere more useful.


----------



## Clodagh (24 November 2022)

It was the same with hedges, Paddy555. Except thankfully they don’t cost so much to reinstate. Do walls not have environmental benefits like hedges? They must have some?


----------



## paddy555 (24 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			I don’t actually shoot but we used to have our own small shoot and I work on other peoples now. I would say though I really don’t think the guns would say they like killing. It is about skill. Im not explaining it very well.
On the true big shoots I often wonder why they do t just shoot clays.
		
Click to expand...

that's the bit I don't get. If they want to shoot use clays. I can see the pleasure of honing your shooting skills, I used to enjoy rifle shooting at one time. Just no need to bring the ducks and pheasants into the equation


----------



## Clodagh (24 November 2022)

paddy555 said:



			that's the bit I don't get. If they want to shoot use clays. I can see the pleasure of honing your shooting skills, I used to enjoy rifle shooting at one time. Just no need to bring the ducks and pheasants into the equation
		
Click to expand...

Birds are more challenging than clays, if well presented.


----------



## paddy555 (24 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			Birds are more challenging than clays, if well presented.
		
Click to expand...

then I'm sure the birds are delighted they can provide that challenge before they die.


----------



## paddy555 (24 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			It was the same with hedges, Paddy555. Except thankfully they don’t cost so much to reinstate. Do walls not have environmental benefits like hedges? They must have some?
		
Click to expand...

can't see any but no doubt someone will tell us shortly.


----------



## ycbm (24 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			It was the same with hedges, Paddy555. Except thankfully they don’t cost so much to reinstate. Do walls not have environmental benefits like hedges? They must have some?
		
Click to expand...

Walls are homes or highways to massive numbers of creatures from invertebrates to reptiles, birds  and small mammals.  
.


----------



## Millionwords (24 November 2022)

paddy555 said:



			can't see any but no doubt someone will tell us shortly.
		
Click to expand...

This is a c&p as I'm at work (having just been repairing some DSW in the rain), and haven't got time to type properly.


Dry stone walls provide bare rock for many species such as lichens, liverworts and mosses. As walls mature, gaps between stones can develop a shallow, nutrient-poor soil, which can then provide opportunities for wildflowers.
Dry stone walls can provide a range of microclimates, with south-facing walls providing warm, sunny positions for warmth-loving insects and basking (and hibernating) reptiles. The presence of a rough grass strip immediately adjacent to dry stone walls is particularly beneficial for amphibians, reptiles and for some invertebrates.
Other nooks and crannies provide damp, sheltered areas for insects, while larger cavities can even provide nesting areas for songbirds and small mammals. However, much of this value quickly declines when walls are not maintained and sections collapse.
The linear nature of walls can help species to move through the landscape as well as being valuable navigational features for birds and bats. As dry stone walls are often built in treeless landscapes, they can also provide useful vantage points for birds of prey. The whinchat and stonechat also commonly use walls as vantage points to search for insects. Dry stone walls can also allow species usually only restricted to scree slopes on cliff faces to survive in other areas of the UK.


----------



## Clodagh (24 November 2022)

I thought of all the lichens, moss and ferns I see on DSW on the moor. It’s easy to discount flora.


----------



## suestowford (24 November 2022)

I have dry stone walls around my garden and there are many things which live in them. There was a toad who had the prime spot, years ago. I'd be gardening and I'd see his head pop out to check who was passing his front door.


----------



## paddy555 (24 November 2022)

Millionwords said:



			This is a c&p as I'm at work (having just been repairing some DSW in the rain), and haven't got time to type properly.


Dry stone walls provide bare rock for many species such as lichens, liverworts and mosses. As walls mature, gaps between stones can develop a shallow, nutrient-poor soil, which can then provide opportunities for wildflowers.
Dry stone walls can provide a range of microclimates, with south-facing walls providing warm, sunny positions for warmth-loving insects and basking (and hibernating) reptiles. The presence of a rough grass strip immediately adjacent to dry stone walls is particularly beneficial for amphibians, reptiles and for some invertebrates.
Other nooks and crannies provide damp, sheltered areas for insects, while larger cavities can even provide nesting areas for songbirds and small mammals. However, much of this value quickly declines when walls are not maintained and sections collapse.
The linear nature of walls can help species to move through the landscape as well as being valuable navigational features for birds and bats. As dry stone walls are often built in treeless landscapes, they can also provide useful vantage points for birds of prey. The whinchat and stonechat also commonly use walls as vantage points to search for insects. Dry stone walls can also allow species usually only restricted to scree slopes on cliff faces to survive in other areas of the UK.
		
Click to expand...

there are miles of them here even without building any more so I don't think our wildlife and fauna are deprived in any way. 

As far as building new DSW's  there is a cost. Financially they are expensive. There is a considerable cost to the taxpayer. As there is a limited money supply as we are told on many threads here about both poverty and lack of NHS treatment I wonder if the money given in grants to construct new walls wouldn't be better spent on those sort of areas. 

The comment above is correct that their value quickly declines when they are not maintained and sections collapse. This happens a lot. Grants are given for new walls or wall repairs but there is no follow up requiring them to be maintained. It doesn't take sheep long to find their way through pig wire and to start pulling the walls down.

On the other side to conservation there is the cost to the environment in constructing them. Vehicle emissions for the wallers getting to work day after day, vehicle emissions from diggers which are working all the time. These are time consuming to build. Emissions from the endless trailer loads of stone which have to be brought in. A large trailer load of stone builds only a very small section of wall. Lorry emissions as soil has to be transported into the area from a distance for double sided banks. The tractor emissions from the post hole driver, the environmental cost of producing, gates, pig wire and barbed wire and staples. 

In the olden days wall building had little impact on the environment. A shovel, pick, sledge hammer and a couple of bars plus the labourers. Now we are talking about considerable  emissions.


----------



## ycbm (25 November 2022)

Walls in my area were top wired only Paddy and the only stuff that fell down was incompetently built. I've seen miles, literally, of rebuilt wall stand for many years with little degradation. Nothing that I rebuilt myself fell down and the first lot I did 31 years ago.


----------



## ycbm (25 November 2022)

If you are going to start comparing carbon footprints you need to be including the steel used for wire and the constant renewal of rotten fence posts. You argument seems a bit weak to me.


----------



## sakura (25 November 2022)

Clodagh said:



			Birds are more challenging than clays, if well presented.
		
Click to expand...

Birds are also living, breathing creatures who feel pain and fear. Clay does not.


----------



## Crazy_cat_lady (27 November 2022)

Just seen on FB about that poor poor cat that savaged this week because of the hunt

Absolutely stunning gorgeous cat

Throw the book at them, make them go to court for animal cruelty and compensate that poor lady who's cat it was

I don't think I could be held responsible if that was my cat...

Why is it still taking place??? Just ban it completely


----------



## Millionwords (29 November 2022)

BREAKING: A hound from the Grove and Rufford Hunt has been hit by a car on the busy A614 near Bothamstall, Nottinghamshire, as the hunt was hunting foxes near the road.


----------



## sakura (29 November 2022)




----------



## Koweyka (29 November 2022)

Ah another victim of those trails that blow in the wind or have four legs and a bushy ginger tail.

It’s a matter of time before a member of the public is killed.


----------



## Koweyka (30 November 2022)

https://www.itv.com/news/westcountr...1Ud9u9BOMcF0CX4SYJBq8ndUlJDqPbTU9TxVQaadFvugc


----------



## Nasicus (1 December 2022)

Koweyka said:



https://www.itv.com/news/westcountr...1Ud9u9BOMcF0CX4SYJBq8ndUlJDqPbTU9TxVQaadFvugc

Click to expand...





			"The hunt will cooperate fully with any police investigation following this incident, however, we would urge extreme caution in relying upon heavily edited and clipped footage provided by anti-hunting protesters.”
		
Click to expand...

Er... Not sure about you, but that footage is quite clearly a pack of hounds mangling something, accompanied by a guy ready with a bin bag to scoop up the evidence remains...


----------



## Koweyka (1 December 2022)

Nasicus said:



			Er... Not sure about you, but that footage is quite clearly a pack of hounds mangling something, accompanied by a guy ready with a bin bag to scoop up the evidence remains...
		
Click to expand...

It’s always the hunts way of throwing shade on us, they edit footage blah blah blah that footage speaks for its self as does the earlier one where you see the fox’s head flapping about.

I always take bin bags out with me, because every time I go out I expect the hunts to kill a fox, guess the hunts feel the same ….


----------



## ycbm (1 December 2022)

Koweyka said:



https://www.itv.com/news/westcountr...1Ud9u9BOMcF0CX4SYJBq8ndUlJDqPbTU9TxVQaadFvugc

Click to expand...

I predict that this won't result in a successful prosecution unless there is evidence that the hounds were encouraged and/or evidence that no effort was made to stop them.

People watching this need to understand that laying a light trail of fox scent is not illegal.  Having hounds become more interested in a live fox than the trail is not illegal.  Failing to be able to call your hounds back is not illegal as long as you try.  Hounds catching that fox and ripping it to pieces is not illegal.

And while trail hunts continue to use weak fox scent for trails, then they bring sabbing on themselves and will eventually lose trail hunting altogether.
.


----------



## moosea (1 December 2022)

Oh no! another terrible 'accident'
How very shocking expected.

A bunch of thugs running amok in the countryside, yet again.

Bring on the full ban ASAP.
Please feel free to link or pm any petitions to get this banned.


----------



## Millionwords (2 December 2022)

https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/23157155.illegal-fox-hunt-runs-rampant-lamplugh/


----------



## Millionwords (2 December 2022)

Millionwords said:



			BREAKING: A hound from the Grove and Rufford Hunt has been hit by a car on the busy A614 near Bothamstall, Nottinghamshire, as the hunt was hunting foxes near the road.
		
Click to expand...

*upsetting video* horse and hound, and sabs, Quads and terrier men in the middle of a dual carriageway to reduce the carnage.

That "trail" and that "hound control" are non-existant.

https://www.facebook.com/1242135777...PjZiiocB8g1ySPzEhyzWS5DdECcyVl/?sfnsn=scwspmo


----------



## Millionwords (2 December 2022)

I'm not sure why the independent reported on this over other incidents, in the name of inclusively i suppose, but hunts want to be wary of ending up in news outlets whatever the negative reason if they wish to continue

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...hire-hunt-body-shaming-activist-b2236052.html


----------



## skinnydipper (2 December 2022)

Millionwords said:



			*upsetting video* horse and hound, and sabs, Quads and terrier men in the middle of a dual carriageway to reduce the carnage.

That "trail" and that "hound control" are non-existant.

https://www.facebook.com/1242135777...PjZiiocB8g1ySPzEhyzWS5DdECcyVl/?sfnsn=scwspmo

Click to expand...

That is upsetting.

What an absolute disgrace.


----------



## Sandstone1 (2 December 2022)

__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1542245582911406



Nice people from the Warwickshire hunt.  Body shaming and bullying.


----------



## Sandstone1 (2 December 2022)

skinnydipper said:



			That is upsetting.

What an absolute disgrace.
		
Click to expand...

How can this be allowed to go on?


----------



## ycbm (2 December 2022)

Sandstone1 said:






__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1542245582911406



Nice people from the Warwickshire hunt.  Body shaming and bullying.
		
Click to expand...

And by that stupid behaviour in those "privileged" accents,  they've done more to harm trail hunting than ten videos of catching foxes. Idiots. 

Those who are organising hunting within the spirit of the law,  making every attempt not to chase fox, should be very worried about this,  and trying desperately to work out how to distance themselves from it. 
.


----------



## Miss_Millie (2 December 2022)

Millionwords said:



			*upsetting video* horse and hound, and sabs, Quads and terrier men in the middle of a dual carriageway to reduce the carnage.

That "trail" and that "hound control" are non-existant.

https://www.facebook.com/1242135777...PjZiiocB8g1ySPzEhyzWS5DdECcyVl/?sfnsn=scwspmo

Click to expand...

My god, that poor grey horse. I don't like the position her leg is in, that does not look good. The way these people treat their animals is unbelievable.


----------



## Dexter (2 December 2022)

ycbm said:



			And by that stupid behaviour in those "privileged" accents,  they've done more to harm trail hunting than ten videos of catching foxes. Idiots.

Those who are organising hunting within the spirit of the law,  making every attempt not to chase fox, should be very worried about this,  and trying desperately to work out how to distance themselves from it.
.
		
Click to expand...

Its almost like they want hunting to be stopped. I used to be pro hunt but I just cant condone what is happening now. I also think its too late for the honorable, law abiding people to distance themselves. The damage is too much and too consistent.


----------



## Sandstone1 (2 December 2022)

Its all so disgusting.    How can this be right?    Pro hunters should hang their heads in shame.  No doubt they will blame sabs for it all.


----------



## Tiddlypom (2 December 2022)

Blimmin' heck, who on earth would want to follow a pack who has such unpleasant d1cks following it, let alone the illegal hunting that they get up to.

Disgusting fat shaming comments from multiple individuals in Carry On film posh toff accents.

And I went to a very posh girls' boarding school and my cousin taught at Eton, so I'm sadly familiar with that utterly entitled attitude, which tbf is not ubiquitous amongst the product of a public school education.

Wtf are is the new hunting body doing letting that bunch of clowns still hunt?


----------



## minesadouble (2 December 2022)

That dying hound video! I think it says so much that not one sab sat with that hound. I feel that any GENUINE animal lover would have sat with it and comforted it rather than filming an animal in its dying moments solely to promote their cause.


----------



## Clodagh (2 December 2022)

minesadouble said:



			That dying hound video! I think it says so much that not one sab sat with that hound. I feel that any GENUINE animal lover would have sat with it and comforted it rather than filming an animal in its dying moments solely to promote their cause.
		
Click to expand...

I was actually more disgusted that no one from the hunt stayed with it. Did they collect its body?
Tbh it’s a really horrible video but I hope it was basically dead by the time it was filmed.


----------



## Miss_Millie (2 December 2022)

minesadouble said:



			That dying hound video! I think it says so much that not one sab sat with that hound. I feel that any GENUINE animal lover would have sat with it and comforted it rather than filming an animal in its dying moments solely to promote their cause.
		
Click to expand...

The hound was moments from dying, rushing it to a vet would have achieved nothing. Video footage is the only way to expose hunts for what they really are, if this video is another nail in the coffin of hunting, it will prevent future suffering of these exploited animals.

As Clodagh said, abandoning one of your animals to die and suffer like its life means nothing is truly disgusting.


----------



## ester (2 December 2022)

I'm a bit confused by what you mean by sat with it, they are there? There is a poss break in the footage but it was agonal gasping pretty quickly.


----------



## Caol Ila (2 December 2022)

It looked to me like the sabs were the ones sitting with the injured hound! Not the hunt. And the ones trying to stop the traffic from hitting more dogs.

Felt sick at the blase way the rider acted about the horse stuck in the ditch. I would have been hysterical if that was my horse.

The hunts are not helping themselves.


----------



## moosea (2 December 2022)

minesadouble said:



			That dying hound video! I think it says so much that not one sab sat with that hound. I feel that any GENUINE animal lover would have sat with it and comforted it rather than filming an animal in its dying moments solely to promote their cause.
		
Click to expand...


Really? 
You don't think it is awful that the hunt allowed their dog to stray into traffic?
You don't feel that it should have been the hunt sitting with the dog they allowed to be hit by a car?
You don't find it disgusting that they were obviously not following a pre laid scent?
You're not horrified that the hunt put peoples lives at risk?

None of that bothers you?
Because all of that bothers me.


----------



## minesadouble (2 December 2022)

It all bothers me. But if I was the sole person that close to a dying domesticated animal my first response would be to comfort it not film it. No matter what the animal, no matter what the circumstances.


----------



## bluehorse (2 December 2022)

I am anti hunt, but I support trail hunting if it‘s legally. I do not support the grey area in between. I have to say the footage on here today has been far more enlightening than seeing another fox or an unfortunately passing pet ripped to shreds. Hounds allowed to run to their death on a busy road. Horses ridden until they failed and couldn’t jump - hired out for the purpose. I’ve always hated the term hireling. 

And people on here criticising the sabs for not sitting with the hound?  Where the hell were the hunt staff? And how do you know that there weren’t others there that were ‘comforting’ the hound? At least they were there. Unlike their owners. People saying that hounds are domesticated are forgetting the argument that hunts put forward about shooting them - they are not domesticated and can’t be rehomec as pets so just get hauled out of the kennels and shot when they’re no good any more. There is footage of this too.

The days of hunting are numbered and I am glad. Utterly sickening.


----------



## Millionwords (3 December 2022)

moosea said:



			Really?
You don't think it is awful that the hunt allowed their dog to stray into traffic?
You don't feel that it should have been the hunt sitting with the dog they allowed to be hit by a car?
You don't find it disgusting that they were obviously not following a pre laid scent?
You're not horrified that the hunt put peoples lives at risk?

None of that bothers you?
Because all of that bothers me.
		
Click to expand...

I was going to post something similar to this,  the sab WAS there,  stroking the hound. I know how distressing the situation must have been (having sat with my own run over dog in her dying moments), but they are also trying to prove what goes on. They are bit by bit exposing hunts, and their awful behaviours, thanks to phones, cameras etc.


----------



## Millionwords (3 December 2022)

minesadouble said:



			That dying hound video! I think it says so much that not one sab sat with that hound. I feel that any GENUINE animal lover would have sat with it and comforted it rather than filming an animal in its dying moments solely to promote their cause.
		
Click to expand...

Sabs stopped the traffic, it was a sab with the hound stroking it. Hunts claim hounds aren't domestic pets

Where were the hunt? Were they comforting the hound? why were the hounds on a trail onto an A road?


----------



## Sandstone1 (3 December 2022)

minesadouble said:



			That dying hound video! I think it says so much that not one sab sat with that hound. I feel that any GENUINE animal lover would have sat with it and comforted it rather than filming an animal in its dying moments solely to promote their cause.
		
Click to expand...

I am not sure which video you watched.  In the one I saw a sab was stroking the hound and talking to it.
Any GENUINE animal lover would not put a animal in that position in the first place.   What the HELL do the hunt think they are doing allowing animals on a busy road?   They are lucky a person was not killed.  I suggest instead of trying to blame sabs you question why they were on the road, why they had no control of hounds and why they think they are above the law!
It was a sab with the hound at the end, it was sabs who stopped the traffic and prevented a worse situation,  What about the horse in the ditch?  Was that sabs fault????
Some of the posts on here show what a skewed viewpoint some people have.
What about the video of bullying and body shaming?    I guess there will be a excuse somewhere for constantly calling someone "Fatty"  If a sab had done that to someone riding I can guess the uproar that would cause.
I am honestly so angry, upset and disgusted by this.


----------



## Millionwords (3 December 2022)

It always amazes me how the pro hunt (which i too was) will defend tooth and nail reasons for hunting, words "taken out of context", long winded explanations of surrounding issues, BUT
With the several unarguable incidents like this one, prosecutions, bullying footage, pet killing footage, assault footage...go very quiet.

They should be banging down the doors of their governing bodies, demanding hunts be suspended, rallying for change, forcing these "bad apples" (which there seem to be a Cartload of) out to stop the fall of the sport they support.

Yet they are quiet...hand wringing, hoping it will blow over, be forgotten, or blaming sabs and saying "yes, but...." is that the actions of those who continually claim to want change?


Speaks volumes.

Eta; not just here, but also in general.


----------



## Sandstone1 (3 December 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Blimmin' heck, who on earth would want to follow a pack who has such unpleasant d1cks following it, let alone the illegal hunting that they get up to.

Disgusting fat shaming comments from multiple individuals in Carry On film posh toff accents.

And I went to a very posh girls' boarding school and my cousin taught at Eton, so I'm sadly familiar with that utterly entitled attitude, which tbf is not ubiquitous amongst the product of a public school education.

Wtf are is the new hunting body doing letting that bunch of clowns still hunt?
		
Click to expand...

At least Carry on films were funny in their way and time.
This whole thing is far from funny.


----------



## Sandstone1 (3 December 2022)

Millionwords said:



			It always amazes me how the pro hunt (which i too was) will defend tooth and nail reasons for hunting, words "taken out of context", long winded explanations of surrounding issues, BUT
With the several unarguable incidents like this one, prosecutions, bullying footage, pet killing footage, assault footage...go very quiet.

They should be banging down the doors of their governing bodies, demanding hunts be suspended, rallying for change, forcing these "bad apples" (which there seem to be a Cartload of) out to stop the fall of the sport they support.

Yet they are quiet...hand wringing, hoping it will blow over, be forgotten, or blaming sabs and saying "yes, but...." is that the actions of those who continually claim to want change?


Speaks volumes.

Eta; not just here, but also in general.
		
Click to expand...

I completely agree.  I have most of them on UI here because I have heard all the excuses before.  " its sabs fault"  " its pest control"   " its tradition"  " you do not understand country ways"
There is no excuse.
Its illegal
Its out dated
Its unnecessary
Its cruel
I could go on but whats the point.


----------



## Clodagh (3 December 2022)

I’m not sure you should mock people who have posh accents. If they were foreign accents or people of colour would you deride how they speak?


----------



## ycbm (3 December 2022)

Clodagh said:



			I’m not sure you should mock people who have posh accents. If they were foreign accents or people of colour would you deride how they speak?
		
Click to expand...

I don't see anyone mocking their accents,  but stating they are "posh" accents and they are.

And it's very relevant,  because one of the standard complaints against sabs is that they sab because they think only posh people do it. And there's a lengthy  video of shameless bullying  of a young female by a whole bunch of toff accented blokes strengthening that very prejudice.
.


----------



## Clodagh (3 December 2022)

ycbm said:



			I don't see anyone mocking their accents,  but stating they are "posh" accents and they are.

And it's very relevant,  because one of the standard complaints against sabs is that they sab because they think only posh people do it. And there's a lengthy  video of shameless bullying  of a young female by a whole bunch of toff accented blokes strengthening that very prejudice.
.
		
Click to expand...

Carry on Film posh toff accents?
I’m not disagreeing that they are almost certainly very privileged rich people but thats kind of how they speak.


----------



## ester (3 December 2022)

IME english accents have always been fair game though (maybe they shouldn't have been) I'm a somersetian after all. I can do somerset or posh depending on company or quantity of alcohol consumed.


----------



## Tiddlypom (3 December 2022)

Indeed, it is how some posh 'county level' people, but by no means all of them, speak. I'm not mocking them, but it makes identifying them as toffs very easy. I posted as someone who could have easily acquired such an accent, but luckily did not. 

It's long been a central mantra of the hard core pro hunt factions that the antis are in it because it's a class war against the perceived 'posh', and that their actions are nothing to do with animal welfare. Those thoroughly unpleasant posh male oiks, with their deliberately humiliating remarks to a female, play right up to the stereotype of the nasty posh pro hunting type.

The footage is an absolute gift to the antis.


----------



## Clodagh (3 December 2022)

I do agree that they are behaving in a deeply unpleasant way. But I don’t even think they are that posh 😳.
(I’m not, btw, state school Essex education).

eta yes posh but not artificially so


----------



## palo1 (3 December 2022)

Re; unpleasant behaviour and body shaming: not so long ago hunt sab pages ran a feature on 'hunt hags' - showing images of women hunters and voting for the most 'ugly'.  I guess it was just 'banter'...Lots of hunters have been called fat and ugly and much worse too, in public but I guess that is ok - well it seems that it might be because I don't see any reference to those insults being deeply unpleasant when they have come from the other side.  In 2016 anti hunting folk in some numbers took great pleasure in the death of child killed in an accident.  Lots of comments like this one from Susan Cattrall 'Shame the hounds didn't rip her apart at the same time' .  Her name is in the public domain for this comment.  So, yeah, people behaving badly...

People being vile, stupid and provocative DOES happen on both sides. It's not ok but being stupid and grim isn't the preserve of hunters with a certain kind of accent...


----------



## Clodagh (3 December 2022)

palo1 said:



			Re; unpleasant behaviour and body shaming: not so long ago hunt sab pages ran a feature on 'hunt hags' - showing images of women hunters and voting for the most 'ugly'.  I guess it was just 'banter'...Lots of hunters have been called fat and ugly and much worse too, in public but I guess that is ok - well it seems that it might be because I don't see any reference to those insults being deeply unpleasant when they have come from the other side.  In 2016 anti hunting folk in some numbers took great pleasure in the death of child killed in an accident.  Lots of comments like this one from Susan Cattrall 'Shame the hounds didn't rip her apart at the same time' .  Her name is in the public domain for this comment.  So, yeah, people behaving badly...

People being vile, stupid and provocative DOES happen on both sides. It's not ok but being stupid and grim isn't the preserve of hunters with a certain kind of accent...
		
Click to expand...

I couldn’t be bothered with the whataboutery comments, but I completely agree with you. Yes it’s wrong on both sides but the sabs do, IMO, have the gold star for vile ‘banter’.


----------



## Gallop_Away (3 December 2022)

palo1 said:



			Re; unpleasant behaviour and body shaming: not so long ago hunt sab pages ran a feature on 'hunt hags' - showing images of women hunters and voting for the most 'ugly'.  I guess it was just 'banter'...Lots of hunters have been called fat and ugly and much worse too, in public but I guess that is ok - well it seems that it might be because I don't see any reference to those insults being deeply unpleasant when they have come from the other side.  In 2016 anti hunting folk in some numbers took great pleasure in the death of child killed in an accident.  Lots of comments like this one from Susan Cattrall 'Shame the hounds didn't rip her apart at the same time' .  Her name is in the public domain for this comment.  So, yeah, people behaving badly...

People being vile, stupid and provocative DOES happen on both sides. It's not ok but being stupid and grim isn't the preserve of hunters with a certain kind of accent...
		
Click to expand...

This is exactly why I have been sat on my hands for the last few comments. Sabs have no right to take the moral high ground when it comes to body shaming and vile comments. A quick look at their social media pages shows are happy to sling just as vile insults at people so don't really have much right to play victim here I'm afraid.

The nasty vindictive childish behaviour needs to stop on BOTH sides. The video is vile but I have seen sabs say the same to others. It all needs to stop.

As for the video of the dying hound, it's disgraceful and I found it deeply upsetting. How that hunt can claim to care about its hounds yet leave one dying at the side of a road is beyond me. Poor baby 😞


----------



## Dexter (3 December 2022)

palo1 said:



			Re; unpleasant behaviour and body shaming: not so long ago hunt sab pages ran a feature on 'hunt hags' - showing images of women hunters and voting for the most 'ugly'.  I guess it was just 'banter'...Lots of hunters have been called fat and ugly and much worse too, in public but I guess that is ok - well it seems that it might be because I don't see any reference to those insults being deeply unpleasant when they have come from the other side.  In 2016 anti hunting folk in some numbers took great pleasure in the death of child killed in an accident.  Lots of comments like this one from Susan Cattrall 'Shame the hounds didn't rip her apart at the same time' .  Her name is in the public domain for this comment.  So, yeah, people behaving badly...

People being vile, stupid and provocative DOES happen on both sides. It's not ok but being stupid and grim isn't the preserve of hunters with a certain kind of accent...
		
Click to expand...

The difference is the sabs are savvy. They know what to do with things like this and it then blows up on social media.


----------



## Miss_Millie (3 December 2022)

palo1 said:



			Re; unpleasant behaviour and body shaming: not so long ago hunt sab pages ran a feature on 'hunt hags' - showing images of women hunters and voting for the most 'ugly'.  I guess it was just 'banter'...Lots of hunters have been called fat and ugly and much worse too, in public but I guess that is ok - well it seems that it might be because I don't see any reference to those insults being deeply unpleasant when they have come from the other side.  In 2016 anti hunting folk in some numbers took great pleasure in the death of child killed in an accident.  Lots of comments like this one from Susan Cattrall 'Shame the hounds didn't rip her apart at the same time' .  Her name is in the public domain for this comment.  So, yeah, people behaving badly...

People being vile, stupid and provocative DOES happen on both sides. It's not ok but being stupid and grim isn't the preserve of hunters with a certain kind of accent...
		
Click to expand...

Body shaming and hate speech is wrong on all accounts, period.


----------



## Gallop_Away (3 December 2022)

Dexter said:



			The difference is the sabs are savvy. They know what to do with things like this and it then blows up on social media.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly and you'd think the twits in the footage would know this 🙄. Not only is it horrible but it's also playing right into sabs hands.


----------



## Millionwords (3 December 2022)

palo1 said:



			Re; unpleasant behaviour and body shaming: not so long ago hunt sab pages ran a feature on 'hunt hags' - showing images of women hunters and voting for the most 'ugly'.  I guess it was just 'banter'...Lots of hunters have been called fat and ugly and much worse too, in public but I guess that is ok - well it seems that it might be because I don't see any reference to those insults being deeply unpleasant when they have come from the other side.  In 2016 anti hunting folk in some numbers took great pleasure in the death of child killed in an accident.  Lots of comments like this one from Susan Cattrall 'Shame the hounds didn't rip her apart at the same time' .  Her name is in the public domain for this comment.  So, yeah, people behaving badly...

People being vile, stupid and provocative DOES happen on both sides. It's not ok but being stupid and grim isn't the preserve of hunters with a certain kind of accent...
		
Click to expand...

Noone should be doing it, but those past incidents are gone, hunts know how poor they are at maintaining their public image on sm. They know how GOOD sabs are. So why stoop to that level knowing that it'll be everywhere.

A. Because they don't care
B. Because they can't help themselves
C. Because they're too stupid to realise that its going to be everywhere
D. Because they think stooping to that level is okay "because sabs do it too"


Then bleat how horrible sabs are and how its not fair that they spread the footage.

If they cared, they'd either do better, or have the nouse to share similar from sabs.

Most responses to anything like this are "but sabs do it too".
Someone has to rise above it and do better, you'd think it would be those with the most to lose.


----------



## Sandstone1 (3 December 2022)

The same old what about this what about that again.... So why were the hunt on a main road?  why was a horse left injured in a ditch with its rider saying " Its just tired" Why was a hound left dying at the side of the road?  The only people to stop and try to comfort it while taking its last breaths were sabs.
How people can continue to condone this so called " Sport" is really beyond me.   Yes, for sure sabs will have their faults.  However, they are not the ones on social media and in the press showing themselves up as bullies.


----------



## YorksG (3 December 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			The same old what about this what about that again.... So why were the hunt on a main road?  why was a horse left injured in a ditch with its rider saying " Its just tired" Why was a hound left dying at the side of the road?  The only people to stop and try to comfort it while taking its last breaths were sabs.
How people can continue to condone this so called " Sport" is really beyond me.   Yes, for sure sabs will have their faults.  However, they are not the ones on social media and in the press showing themselves up as bullies.
		
Click to expand...

Re your last paragraph, I have seen sab pages on SM with photos of people on horses, eating, with captions such as "a pig on a horse" " fat woman can't manage to go without food for ten minutes" etc. So body shaming and misogynistic imo


----------



## Clodagh (3 December 2022)

As Sandstone only reads posts from people that agree with her (I assume) it comes out as an odd debate.


----------



## palo1 (3 December 2022)

I am not answerable for the Grove and Rufford and was not present but they have stated that hounds were either called on to or towards the road by sabs or were muddled by sabs horns/gizmos etc.  The police are dealing with the incident in that respect.  The horse that was bogged in a ditch was taken home, thoroughly checked and shown happily eating a haynet later.  As I say, the G&R are not local to me, I am not answerable for them or their conduct but am just saying what has been reported.  There is a real sense of anger and distress there over this incident.  But clearly practices need to change so that this kind of incident and any conflict are avoided.  As for the fat shaming I have been called fat and ugly by a sab when with another hunt.  Generally I am not fat and, well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder so there you go with that insult too!! It is upsetting to have a stranger shout those things at you.  Children have been called scum and all manner of other and worse abusive names.  My 13 year old son was accused of some unpleasant sexually related stuff when simply on foot watching a meet not near our home.  He was being filmed at the time too.  This will be called 'whataboutery' of course but actually it is context; the context of mutual antipathy, abuse and anti-social behaviour resulting from 2 groups of people for whom the related legislation is entirely unsatisfactory.  I would really challenge the anti-hunters here to actually consider the way in which they have reviled body shaming and abuse as a 'hunting' thing; it is a conflict thing and never remotely constructive or appropriate.


----------



## Millionwords (3 December 2022)

palo1 said:



			I am not answerable for the Grove and Rufford and was not present but they have stated that hounds were either called on to or towards the road by sabs or were muddled by sabs horns/gizmos etc.  The police are dealing with the incident in that respect.  The horse that was bogged in a ditch was taken home, thoroughly checked and shown happily eating a haynet later.  As I say, the G&R are not local to me, I am not answerable for them or their conduct but am just saying what has been reported.  There is a real sense of anger and distress there over this incident.  But clearly practices need to change so that this kind of incident and any conflict are avoided.  As for the fat shaming I have been called fat and ugly by a sab when with another hunt.  Generally I am not fat and, well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder so there you go with that insult too!! It is upsetting to have a stranger shout those things at you.  Children have been called scum and all manner of other and worse abusive names.  My 13 year old son was accused of some unpleasant sexually related stuff when simply on foot watching a meet not near our home.  He was being filmed at the time too.  This will be called 'whataboutery' of course but actually it is context; the context of mutual antipathy, abuse and anti-social behaviour resulting from 2 groups of people for whom the related legislation is entirely unsatisfactory.  I would really challenge the anti-hunters here to actually consider the way in which they have reviled body shaming and abuse as a 'hunting' thing; it is a conflict thing and never remotely constructive or appropriate.
		
Click to expand...

Noone is claiming sabs are in the right.
But why is the only response to sabs doing something wrong always to do wrong in return?

This response is also "but sabs do it".

Noone should be doing it. Those with something to lose should be the ones taking the higher ground, not stooping to the lowest common denominator, how does that help?

Eta: i wasn't particularly angry about this particular incident, it was juvenile and pathetic, but i am also not fat, and I can imagine it is hurtful. The person in question didn't look fat, so it makes it even more stupid behavior.


----------



## mini_b (3 December 2022)

Peglo said:



			Fwiw I’ve seen thousands of birds thrown in holes because the folk who shot them didn’t want to eat them, just kill them. But of course geese are “pests” and it’s not worth plucking wild ducks…..
		
Click to expand...

really? All the game from the shoots goes to pubs, butchers and restaurants in our area. What doesn’t, is prepared and goes into freezers for the guns/keepers/beaters to collect.

Very strange, *thousands* of birds???


----------



## palo1 (3 December 2022)

Millionwords said:



			Noone is claiming sabs are in the right.
But why is the only response to sabs doing something wrong always to do wrong in return?

This response is also "but sabs do it".

Noone should be doing it. Those with something to lose should be the ones taking the higher ground, not stooping to the lowest common denominator, how does that help?
		
Click to expand...

In my experience, but clearly not universally, people I know that hunt are generally very polite or neutral toward sabs and monitors, they don't want to put up abusive posts on social media and tend to shrug off the occasional bad tempered or abusive contacts with sabs because they (hunters) are not doing anything wrong and they don't want to create further tension.  It is extremely difficult to maintain that however when your behaviour or activities are subsequently totally misreported or hashed up to 'create' content.  People do feel hugely aggravated and the wrong kind of people lose their cool and forget how much there is to lose in doing so.  I have seen some literally crazy behaviour from sabs; it is worrying and angering.  Most hunters know that any kind of contact with sabs will likely result in posts on SM - so many will just avoid that.  Others sadly, feel that aggression and conflict are way of dealing with that.  I struggled to maintain my own resolve when those incidents I mentioned above concerning my son occurred.  I felt humiliated, enraged and wildly protective of my child.  Thankfully, I was able to deal with that situation.  I felt really, physically angry at the time but simply kept making polite requests for the poor and dangerous behaviour to stop.   It isn't easy to carry on being the bigger, better person; surely sabs, if they are so sure of this moral high ground should find it really easy???  But the abuse etc etc just carries on.  Many people hunting absolutely feel the jeopardy in being out there BUT there is also a conviction that their legal activity must be allowed to continue.  There are some really strong narratives on both sides that are compelling; ironically both are around similar things in my view and similar tactics and behaviours abound.


----------



## Peglo (3 December 2022)

mini_b said:



			really? All the game from the shoots goes to pubs, butchers and restaurants in our area. What doesn’t, is prepared and goes into freezers for the guns/keepers/beaters to collect.

Very strange, *thousands* of birds???
		
Click to expand...

I worked at the butchers that dealt with the shot birds from shooting parties. Some were debreasted  that were shot but yeah in the years we’ve had the cull up here easily thousands of birds were buried. And so many of the breasts ended up rotten as the parties didn’t take them with them and there’s no demand for it.  Up here they are ‘pests’ as they have stopped migrating and unsurprisingly they are eating goose food that farmers planted unaware (being geese and that) that it wasn’t for them but instead for cattle. It was the smaller fowl that I found even sadder though. They didn’t destroy crops, they aren’t pests and didn’t do anything to deserve to be shot and left to rot. But as long as the folk up on holiday had fun slaughtering them that’s the main thing. ETA and the locals taking the parties out!! (And let’s not go into the stoat eradication scheme costing millions to protect said birds, which I’m no opposed to but why are they being shot then…. 🤷🏼‍♀️)

on the other hand whaps (or curlews to those sooth) are thriving here and numbers are ever increasing. It’s got nothing to do with organised shoots and land management but I dare say the fact shooters don’t shoot them doesn’t hurt.

I’m also not opposed to shooting to eat. Me fither would shoot a goose or pheasant for tea and I enjoyed it but seeing the sheer amount of wasted life was so sad and I’m so glad I don’t see it now although i know it still goes on.

anyway sorry for the rant. I just don’t know where wildlife are supposed to go when we humans claim all the land for ever expanding cities and farming to feed the expanding population.

EETA I never said in my earlier post that there’s a cull up here so sorry for part information. I forgot to add details as I focus a bit much on the dead birds.


----------



## Peglo (3 December 2022)

palo1 said:



			In my experience, but clearly not universally, people I know that hunt are generally very polite or neutral toward sabs and monitors, they don't want to put up abusive posts on social media and tend to shrug off the occasional bad tempered or abusive contacts with sabs because they (hunters) are not doing anything wrong and they don't want to create further tension.  It is extremely difficult to maintain that however when your behaviour or activities are subsequently totally misreported or hashed up to 'create' content.  People do feel hugely aggravated and the wrong kind of people lose their cool and forget how much there is to lose in doing so.  I have seen some literally crazy behaviour from sabs; it is worrying and angering.  Most hunters know that any kind of contact with sabs will likely result in posts on SM - so many will just avoid that.  Others sadly, feel that aggression and conflict are way of dealing with that.  I struggled to maintain my own resolve when those incidents I mentioned above concerning my son occurred.  I felt humiliated, enraged and wildly protective of my child.  Thankfully, I was able to deal with that situation.  I felt really, physically angry at the time but simply kept making polite requests for the poor and dangerous behaviour to stop.   It isn't easy to carry on being the bigger, better person; surely sabs, if they are so sure of this moral high ground should find it really easy???  But the abuse etc etc just carries on.  Many people hunting absolutely feel the jeopardy in being out there BUT there is also a conviction that their legal activity must be allowed to continue.  There are some really strong narratives on both sides that are compelling; ironically both are around similar things in my view and similar tactics and behaviours abound.
		
Click to expand...

I really feel for you P. You’re so passionate for your sport and always speak so well. 
I shouldn’t have any input as I’ve never been hunting, pre or post ban and would never hunt a fox but I love the idea of trail hunting. Reading this thread with both sides has been really informative from a neutral position.

honestly I’d love to trail hunt and would travel off island to do it BUT not  if they used fox scent. The idea of legal trail hunting sounds like a brilliant day out with your horse and with hounds but I can’t agree with the need for that scent. I’ve read your point on the scent but for the sake of the sport I feel changing the scent to something artificial or even to an animal not native (camel, kangaroo?) might save it.


----------



## suestowford (3 December 2022)

I'm intrigued by Palo's comment about people Palo knows who hunt being generally polite or neutral towards sabs. I am not a sab, nor am I a hunter, just someone who has come across hunts from time to time. polite is not a term I would use for them! Maybe they save it for the sabs, they certainly don't waste it on anybody else.


----------



## palo1 (3 December 2022)

Peglo said:



			I really feel for you P. You’re so passionate for your sport and always speak so well.
I shouldn’t have any input as I’ve never been hunting, pre or post ban and would never hunt a fox but I love the idea of trail hunting. Reading this thread with both sides has been really informative from a neutral position.

honestly I’d love to trail hunt and would travel off island to do it BUT not  if they used fox scent. The idea of legal trail hunting sounds like a brilliant day out with your horse and with hounds but I can’t agree with the need for that scent. I’ve read your point on the scent but for the sake of the sport I feel changing the scent to something artificial or even to an animal not native (camel, kangaroo?) might save it.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you for your kind words!   A good day's trail hunting is a brilliant, challenging, social and exhilarating experience - watching hounds work and hearing their music is really an amazing thing.  I agree with you too about the use of scent; I would have no problem at all with using a different scent though the use of another animal's scent is problematic if only because of the issues with provenance.  I think at times people have suggested alternatives which would provide a good natural challenge but you would have to choose something which didn't potentially encourage hounds to riot.  I quite like the idea of camel scent (are there enough camels in the UK to provide, without welfare issues, enough wee /wee soaked straw/shavings I wonder? Certainly shouldn't be an issue with riot there in most places lol!!) I mean, what would you choose that can be ethically sourced and still have integrity as a natural challenge?  My retired trail hound loved aniseed and that could be used but for many hunters, there is a reluctance to move away from the unique elements that a natural animal scent brings.  And then, of course, there is the principal which many folk are stuck on.


----------



## Clodagh (3 December 2022)

BITD I was always polite to sabs. They scared the bejesus out of me, which was entirely their intention (pre ban). 
However general ignorance, like not recognising crops and blocking roads, was a big plus in my reasons to stop.


----------



## palo1 (3 December 2022)

suestowford said:



			I'm intrigued by Palo's comment about people Palo knows who hunt being generally polite or neutral towards sabs. I am not a sab, nor am I a hunter, just someone who has come across hunts from time to time. polite is not a term I would use for them! Maybe they save it for the sabs, they certainly don't waste it on anybody else.
		
Click to expand...

Do you think I have been rude on this thread (or any others)?  I am asking because your post suggests that you haven't come across any polite hunters.


----------



## palo1 (3 December 2022)

Clodagh said:



			BITD I was always polite to sabs. They scared the bejesus out of me, which was entirely their intention (pre ban).
However general ignorance, like not recognising crops and blocking roads, was a big plus in my reasons to stop.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, those things are very poor.  They would not be tolerated here so I have no idea why they occur in other places!


----------



## rextherobber (3 December 2022)

Peglo said:



			I really feel for you P. You’re so passionate for your sport and always speak so well.
I shouldn’t have any input as I’ve never been hunting, pre or post ban and would never hunt a fox but I love the idea of trail hunting. Reading this thread with both sides has been really informative from a neutral position.

honestly I’d love to trail hunt and would travel off island to do it BUT not  if they used fox scent. The idea of legal trail hunting sounds like a brilliant day out with your horse and with hounds but I can’t agree with the need for that scent. I’ve read your point on the scent but for the sake of the sport I feel changing the scent to something artificial or even to an animal not native (camel, kangaroo?) might save it.
		
Click to expand...

Why don't you go out with the Bloodhounds?


----------



## palo1 (3 December 2022)

As well as this (which regards gamekeeping) , CPS has dismissed evidence against the Wynnstay because those providing the filmed evidence refused to testify in court...


----------



## palo1 (3 December 2022)

Bloodhounding is GREAT fun though different in some ways to trailhunting.  Bloodhounds have tremendous charisma too.


----------



## Koweyka (4 December 2022)

palo1 said:








As well as this (which regards gamekeeping) , CPS has dismissed evidence against the Wynnstay because those providing the filmed evidence refused to testify in court...
		
Click to expand...

Because the witness was absolutely terrified of repercussions from the hunt and made that clear prior to the trial, have you actually seen the footage that was filmed ?


----------



## Millionwords (4 December 2022)

palo1 said:








As well as this (which regards gamekeeping) , CPS has dismissed evidence against the Wynnstay because those providing the filmed evidence refused to testify in court...
		
Click to expand...

Most (edit ALL) of that footage is from hunts?

The only violence illustrated is from a boxing day hunt meet when both sides were questioned by the police.

Its like saying as a nurse you experience violence and persecution then showing footage of a scrap between a drunk and the police. And some footage of people on the street.

I'm sure some people do experience it, but if youre going to make a mini documentary about it, then you should have used something actually relevant. 
Its made for people within the sport, rather than the general public, which just seems its intent is to cause frothing at the mouth and more conflict.


----------



## Millionwords (4 December 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Because the witness was absolutely terrified of repercussions from the hunt and made that clear prior to the trial, have you actually seen the footage that was filmed ?
		
Click to expand...

Which incident was this the running over, or a different one? Can you provide a link? (Just curious)


----------



## Sandstone1 (4 December 2022)

Clodagh said:



			As Sandstone only reads posts from people that agree with her (I assume) it comes out as an odd debate.
		
Click to expand...

I do have most of you on UI simply because I have heard all your " justifications" for people continuing a ILLEGAL activinty.  I am talking about Fox hunting with hounds here just to be clear.
It does not matter what you all say we all know the fox hunting goes on.    We know trail hunting is simply a smokescreen for fox hunting.  Most hunts are continuing to hunt as they did pre ban.   It is happening.  Hunts are hunting along main roads, they are clearly hunting foxes.  Does the video of a hound dying not affect you, does the sight of a horse stuck in a ditch not worry you?
Does a group of people calling someone fatty seem right to you?   No one has answered that question.
The video that Palo1 has posted is interesting.    Turn that on its head..... It could also apply to sabs.   They are protesting against a ILLEGAL activiity.     Its hunts that are participating in something that against the law.
How people that do this can call themselves animal lovers I do not know.
Yes sabs may have faults but you are all forgetting what hunts are doing is against the law.  It makes anyone that participates a criminal.
I have decided to not post on this thread again.  It simply goes round in circles.   I have put pro hunters on UI again.  Its not because I like to be right, or do not want to debate.  Its simply because I have heard all the debates, all the excuses.   The plain fact is the law is being broken, hunting will never come back in the way you want it to.  Trail hunting will be banned and thats because of the behaviour of hunts breaking the law.
No one will change their minds because of this thread.  Its simply a waste of time and effort.


----------



## Clodagh (4 December 2022)

@Sandstone1. I think I’m on ui but I did say it was awful behaviour. Trouble with editing so what you see is positive is you are missing relevant points.


----------



## ycbm (4 December 2022)

rextherobber said:



			Why don't you go out with the Bloodhounds?
		
Click to expand...

There aren't very many bloodhounds packs and the one I know of that might just about be doable for me as a journey time about twice a year has a limited field and was difficult to secure a place with at the time I was looking.  At that time,  they also required membership of the Coutryside Alliance, which told you everything you needed to know about their attitude to hunting fox.  They also had a very short season.  Bloodhounding is not a direct,  or feasible,  substitute for trail hunting for most people.  
.


----------



## Tiddlypom (4 December 2022)

palo1 said:



			CPS has dismissed evidence against the Wynnstay because those providing the filmed evidence refused to testify in court...
		
Click to expand...

You'd need balls of steel to testify, as a local, in court against that hunt.


----------



## palo1 (4 December 2022)

The point I was making, or trying to make, with the Gamekeeper's video was that this Sab harrassment is on a LEGAL activity.  There is no justification whatsoever for sabbing shoots, shooting days, pheasant pens etc etc regardless of how you feel about the ethics of shooting.  The way in which sabbing culture has taken this kind of activity as their 'right' is absolutely no different to the vile and illegal behaviour that they are acting against.  2 wrongs dont make a right anytime at all.

As for the witness re: The Wynnstay being intimidated, I understand they may feel so (though I have no connection to and not much knowledge of that hunt) but the police are aware of the context, will advise and support as necessary and why would the sab group try to take that particular evidence to court if the witness clearly felt unable to testify? Surely that is a waste of everyone's time and is upping the ante for the frightened witness?  On the flip side of that, IF the evidence was compelling, then surely the best way to deal with that intimidation would be to testify and to get a conviction? It just seems like time wasting and not especially compelling evidence to me.


----------



## ycbm (4 December 2022)

palo1 said:



			the police are aware of the context, will advise and support as necessary
		
Click to expand...

Sorry Palo this is naive.

Only last week the Police were apologising for failing to respond to repeated reports of an ex stalking his wife,  or to respond quickly enough to the 999 call made by her mother on the night he killed her.
.


----------



## ycbm (4 December 2022)

palo1 said:



			that particular evidence to court if the witness clearly felt unable to testify?
		
Click to expand...

There was video wasn't there? 
.


----------



## palo1 (4 December 2022)

ycbm said:



			There was video wasn't there?
.
		
Click to expand...

I guess so but I suppose the witness wasn't prepared to testify in person about aspects of the video (possibly?) or to verify it's integrity.  So that makes it impossible to pursue.  I get your point about the police, I really do and it is very worrying that the police are unable to respond to very immediate life threatening situations.  Perhaps the sabs don't think the police think the threat is serious enough to provide any support - I don't know.  But it is another 'promised' conviction that simply won't happen and that just reinforces the trope that sabs are wasting time and unable to provide evidence in court of the illegal hunting they say is going on.  Every time that happens it reinforces some people's view that sabs are essentially making it up, exaggerating, tampering with evidence or haven't really got evidence of the crimes they are shouting about.


----------



## Koweyka (4 December 2022)

Millionwords said:



			Which incident was this the running over, or a different one? Can you provide a link? (Just curious)
		
Click to expand...

The video that was filmed of the Wynnstay is on the Cheshire Monitors Facebook page, unfortunately the witness was very intimidated and was too scared to give evidence, when the main footage can’t be used it seemed a strange decision to take it to court knowing the evidence would be dismissed. It’s extremely blatant hunting though.


----------



## Koweyka (4 December 2022)

palo1 said:



			The point I was making, or trying to make, with the Gamekeeper's video was that this Sab harrassment is on a LEGAL activity.  There is no justification whatsoever for sabbing shoots, shooting days, pheasant pens etc etc regardless of how you feel about the ethics of shooting.  The way in which sabbing culture has taken this kind of activity as their 'right' is absolutely no different to the vile and illegal behaviour that they are acting against.  2 wrongs dont make a right anytime at all.

As for the witness re: The Wynnstay being intimidated, I understand they may feel so (though I have no connection to and not much knowledge of that hunt) but the police are aware of the context, will advise and support as necessary and why would the sab group try to take that particular evidence to court if the witness clearly felt unable to testify? Surely that is a waste of everyone's time and is upping the ante for the frightened witness?  On the flip side of that, IF the evidence was compelling, then surely the best way to deal with that intimidation would be to testify and to get a conviction? It just seems like time wasting and not especially compelling evidence to me.
		
Click to expand...

It was the police and CPS that decided to push this case knowing the witness was too scared to give evidence, you all talk about sab intimidation well this was hunt intimidation at its finest.


----------



## Koweyka (4 December 2022)

The hunt I monitored yesterday made two malicious 999 calls within the first half an hour, wasting police time especially when video evidence was produced at the scene to prove they were liars. The police are going to have words with this hunt as their default now is to blow for the off and ring 999 for whatever fantasy they have cooked up while swigging from their hip flasks.


----------



## suestowford (4 December 2022)

palo1 said:



			Do you think I have been rude on this thread (or any others)?  I am asking because your post suggests that you haven't come across any polite hunters.
		
Click to expand...

No I don't think you have been rude on this thread and that's not what I meant. I was referring to people following hunts in real life. And then only to those I have happened across while I've been out & about, or those who have been past my house when I've been at home. And yes, in real life I have yet to meet anyone following a hunt who I would describe as polite. Foot/car followers mainly but the occasional person on a horse.
Maybe they don't realise how badly they come across, and maybe this is something you don't see if you are up in front with the hounds, but the hunt followers do a lot of damage to hunting's reputation.
I have yet to see a sab 'in the wild' so can't comment on them from my own experience.


----------



## ycbm (4 December 2022)

suestowford said:



			No I don't think you have been rude on this thread and that's not what I meant. I was referring to people following hunts in real life. And then only to those I have happened across while I've been out & about, or those who have been past my house when I've been at home. And yes, in real life I have yet to meet anyone following a hunt who I would describe as polite. Foot/car followers mainly but the occasional person on a horse.
Maybe they don't realise how badly they come across, and maybe this is something you don't see if you are up in front with the hounds, but the hunt followers do a lot of damage to hunting's reputation.
I have yet to see a sab 'in the wild' so can't comment on them from my own experience.
		
Click to expand...

Even hunting with drag hounds I'm sad to say that the behaviour of hunt officials and hunt followers frequently made me feel embarrassed for being part of it.

Palo, before you respond to this if you intend to,  please be aware that your small local rural Welsh hunt bears no relation to hunting in Cheshire, particularly with respect to urban environments and the size of the mounted and non mounted field of followers.  
.


----------



## palo1 (4 December 2022)

Koweyka said:



			The video that was filmed of the Wynnstay is on the Cheshire Monitors Facebook page, unfortunately the witness was very intimidated and was too scared to give evidence, when the main footage can’t be used it seemed a strange decision to take it to court knowing the evidence would be dismissed. It’s extremely blatant hunting though.
		
Click to expand...

The same Cheshire Monitors of which 8 were arrested for intimidating a young woman and of which at least 1 had form and a conviction for assault? 

And this weekend East Northants Hunt Sabs vehicle was impounded because the driver had no licence and no insurance...Yes, the vehicle was taxed and MOT'd but still no licence or insurance for the driver.  They are calling Police corruption of course.


----------



## Koweyka (4 December 2022)

palo1 said:



			The same Cheshire Monitors of which 8 were arrested for intimidating a young woman and of which at least 1 had form and a conviction for assault?

And this weekend East Northants Hunt Sabs vehicle was impounded because the driver had no licence and no insurance...Yes, the vehicle was taxed and MOT'd but still no licence or insurance for the driver.  They are calling Police corruption of course.
		
Click to expand...

No the Cheshire Monitors are a peaceful monitoring group you are very much mistaken.

Was it the East Kent Hunts terrier quads that were seized a week or so ago by the police for some sort of illegality…..


----------



## Tiddlypom (4 December 2022)

No, don't believe the absolute rot that Hunting for Truth spouts 🤷‍♀️. You've been sold a lie.

The Cheshire Monitors are just that - law abiding and peaceful monitors. The sort that you have said that you have no problem with. They film but do not actively sab. They do, of course, annoy the illegal fox hunters hugely by spoiling their fun. They may be non violent, but they are very determined and very tenacious.

There are various sab groups in Cheshire, but the Cheshire Monitors are not them.


----------



## Millionwords (4 December 2022)

palo1 said:



			The same Cheshire Monitors of which 8 were arrested for intimidating a young woman and of which at least 1 had form and a conviction for assault?

And this weekend East Northants Hunt Sabs vehicle was impounded because the driver had no licence and no insurance...Yes, the vehicle was taxed and MOT'd but still no licence or insurance for the driver.  They are calling Police corruption of course.
		
Click to expand...

"But sabs..."

Makes the Wynnstays / whatever hunts illegal (enough for the police to be chasing prosecution) actions alright then


----------



## Koweyka (6 December 2022)

This huntsman is one of the most ruthless killers of foxes in the U.K.


----------



## Koweyka (6 December 2022)

I believe the Beaufort are also in court later this week.


----------



## Millionwords (6 December 2022)

Koweyka said:



			This huntsman is one of the most ruthless killers of foxes in the U.K.
		
Click to expand...

So, this legal trail they all bang on about.....

I'm amazed that any pro hunt expect even a single person to believe any of them when the most famous hunts who are watched by the most public aren't even trying to hide what they're doing. Why would the smaller hunts bother using a "trail"?

Prepare for silence from the hunting community in the hope it all blows over and the plebs forget about it.


----------



## Koweyka (6 December 2022)

Millionwords said:



			So, this legal trail they all bang on about.....

I'm amazed that any pro hunt expect even a single person to believe any of them when the most famous hunts who are watched by the most public aren't even trying to hide what they're doing. Why would the smaller hunts bother using a "trail"?

Prepare for silence from the hunting community in the hope it all blows over and the plebs forget about it.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly so many hunts are never watched, there aren’t enough of us, literally thousands of hunt days take place and anything could happen and who would know, nobody holds them accountable, though it’s very telling that when a hunt that is never monitored suddenly gets “visitors” they pack up and go home.

When you have hunts like the  Warwickshire, Quorn, Beaufort the Ledbury still blatantly hunting despite being watched you would be extremely naive to claim all the others are behaving.


----------



## sakura (6 December 2022)

As much as people complain about sabs and monitors, at the end of the day, they won't be the downfall of the hunting that currently remains legal. Someone letting you know about a behaviour doesn't make them responsible for that behaviour - they are simply telling you of it. 

The behaviour of sabs is another topic entirely, imo. It's not why hunting is in trouble. Hunting is in trouble because too many hunts cannot or will not change their behaviour and attitude to something the general public will support.


----------



## Koweyka (6 December 2022)

sakura said:



			As much as people complain about sabs and monitors, at the end of the day, they won't be the downfall of the hunting that currently remains legal. Someone letting you know about a behaviour doesn't make them responsible for that behaviour - they are simply telling you of it.

The behaviour of sabs is another topic entirely, imo. It's not why hunting is in trouble. Hunting is in trouble because too many hunts cannot or will not change their behaviour and attitude to something the general public will support.
		
Click to expand...

Hunts will be there own downfall, no wonder he punched a policewoman when she tried to seize his phone, some very disgusting stuff from him and different hunt masters regarding killing foxes on there.


----------



## Millionwords (6 December 2022)

Ive tried to screenshot in order, but the order doesnt really matter.

The punishment is pathetic, and wont put anyone off. Im positive that the him and HRSA are simply chuckling waiting for the next hunt day to come around to carry on.


----------



## Millionwords (6 December 2022)

sakura said:



			As much as people complain about sabs and monitors, at the end of the day, they won't be the downfall of the hunting that currently remains legal. Someone letting you know about a behaviour doesn't make them responsible for that behaviour - they are simply telling you of it.

The behaviour of sabs is another topic entirely, imo. It's not why hunting is in trouble. Hunting is in trouble because too many hunts cannot or will not change their behaviour and attitude to something the general public will support.
		
Click to expand...

THIS, A thousand times this.


----------



## Koweyka (6 December 2022)

Millionwords said:



			Ive tried to screenshot in order, but the order doesnt really matter.

The punishment is pathetic, and wont put anyone off. Im positive that the him and HRSA are simply chuckling waiting for the next hunt day to come around to carry on.
		
Click to expand...

The Cheshire Hunt almost lost a lot of land when they were on a killing spree several years ago, I wonder how the landowners feel that they have a convicted huntsman at the helm, I doubt it will be the last time Finnegan is in court.


----------



## Tiddlypom (6 December 2022)

ITV report up now. The police got hold of his phone, it was all on there in text messages.

FGS, I posted a few months ago that the masters of my local pack must have had a brain f@rt when they appointed their new huntsman for the current season. This is him 😳.

Local pack have squandered the hard won reprieve they got from being sabbed and monitored that they achieved after switching to trail. The antis were, by and large, trusting them and leaving them alone. Now this. The antis will never buy it that he is trail hunting here.

https://www.itv.com/news/2022-12-06...h-dogs-after-police-unearth-fox-hunting-texts

_Magistrates said Finnegan had a “pattern of offending over a period of time”._

_"Following the conviction, a spokesperson for the British Hound Sports Association (BHSA) said: "We can confirm that a current member of the BHSA has today pleaded guilty to illegal hunting on 7th January 2022, near Hartbury, Glos. _

_"This organisation does not condone illegal activity and the matter has been referred to the Hound Sports Regulatory Authority (HSRA) which is the regulatory body responsible for disciplinary matters."_


----------



## Miss_Millie (6 December 2022)

Imagine thinking you're so untouchable that you openly talk about fox hunting on Whatsapp. A phone that could get lost or stolen, a message that could be forwarded to anyone at any time. A phone that could be seized by the police...😏

Finnegan is either grossly arrogant or a bit thick. I'm going to guess both. 

Trail hunting is on borrowed time.


----------



## CrunchieBoi (6 December 2022)

Did the thick twat not get the memo about using a different phone for bragging about your illegal hunting exploits? What a simpleton! 

The other folk he was in touch with must have serious squeaky bum syndrome.


----------



## Koweyka (6 December 2022)

CrunchieBoi said:



			Did the thick twat not get the memo about using a different phone for bragging about your illegal hunting exploits? What a simpleton!

The other folk he was in touch with must have serious squeaky bum syndrome.
		
Click to expand...

I suspect he was thrown under a bus by several masters and a guilty plea was damage limitation to stop even more evidence about the lie that is trail hunting.


----------



## Millionwords (6 December 2022)

CrunchieBoi said:



			Did the thick twat not get the memo about using a different phone for bragging about your illegal hunting exploits? What a simpleton!

The other folk he was in touch with must have serious squeaky bum syndrome.
		
Click to expand...

Hes probably not thick, just arrogant and assuming he'll never be caught, the same as all the other people caught sending inappropriate things on WhatsApp...like the police.


----------



## Tiddlypom (7 December 2022)

I posted the below on 22 July of this year.



Tiddlypom said:



			We've had a few seasons of blissful peace since then. But the masters have had a complete brain f@rt and have appointed for this season a new huntsman with a distinctly chequered past which will be like a red rag to a bull to the antis who have largely been leaving local pack alone recently.

Not looking forward to the new season here at all.
		
Click to expand...

So today what does the freshly convicted illegal fox hunter do? Why, turn up at a meet and ride out as huntsman of my local pack as if nothing has happened. The antis are not impressed.

My misgivings from July were all too well founded. Wtf is the governing body of hunting doing allowing this farce?


----------



## Millionwords (7 December 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			I posted the below on 22 July of this year.



So today what does the freshly convicted illegal fox hunter do? Why, turn up at a meet and ride out as huntsman of my local pack as if nothing has happened. The antis are not impressed.

My misgivings from July were all too well founded. Wtf is the governing body of hunting doing allowing this farce?
		
Click to expand...

Dont forget regulatory bodies are investigating.😳🙄
Ex Quorn whip is also in court this week with another huntsman too.


----------



## teapot (10 December 2022)

I see the Royal Artillery Hunt had some issues with sabs this morning


----------



## Sossigpoker (10 December 2022)

teapot said:



			I see the Royal Artillery Hunt had some issues with sabs this morning
		
Click to expand...

Sounds hilarious.


----------



## dotty1 (10 December 2022)

Koweyka said:



			I believe the Beaufort are also in court later this week.
		
Click to expand...

The 2 day trial was dropped by the CPS the day before……..they continue to get away with blatant hunting…..how much evidence is needed!!


----------



## Millionwords (10 December 2022)

teapot said:



			I see the Royal Artillery Hunt had some issues with sabs this morning
		
Click to expand...

Because they're unusually aggressive and have been regularly filmed breaking the law and common decency.


----------



## teapot (10 December 2022)

Sossigpoker said:



			Sounds hilarious.
		
Click to expand...




Millionwords said:



			Because they're unusually aggressive and have been regularly filmed breaking the law and common decency.
		
Click to expand...

Failing to notice both that they were only on hound exercise this morning and trespass on MoD land is a big no no


----------



## Millionwords (10 December 2022)

teapot said:



			Failing to notice both that they were only on hound exercise this morning and trespass on MoD land is a big no no 

Click to expand...

They can't complain that sabs have turned up given their previous behaviour.

"Aww its not fair, sabs have turned up when we're not breaking any rules even though we said we weren't....despite them having videos of our usual behaviour"

🤣🤣🤣


----------



## Sossigpoker (10 December 2022)

Tbh I have no idea who these jokers are and what they were hoping to achieve.
It's not something the groups I follow would do.
What exactly did that achieve apart from make them look silly?


----------



## Millionwords (10 December 2022)

This RA hunt? The huntsman himself fillmed chasing  a fox when out hunting?
https://fb.watch/hkLmRawOMm/


----------



## Sossigpoker (10 December 2022)

Millionwords said:



			This RA hunt? The huntsman himself fillmed chasing  a fox when out hunting?
https://fb.watch/hkLmRawOMm/

Click to expand...

Them and Avon Vale are horrendous,  don't even pretend to within the law.


----------



## Koweyka (14 December 2022)

Millionwords said:



			This RA hunt? The huntsman himself fillmed chasing  a fox when out hunting?
https://fb.watch/hkLmRawOMm/

Click to expand...

The heavily edited footage failed to show the huntsman running two sabs over ….go figure 🙄


----------



## Millionwords (14 December 2022)

Koweyka said:



			The heavily edited footage failed to show the huntsman running two sabs over ….go figure 🙄
		
Click to expand...

Sorry it was a post from sabs or monitors showing him actively pursuing a fox. Rather than just the hounds, the huntsman is close behind and chasing the fox.

The RA hunt care nothing for the law.


----------



## Koweyka (14 December 2022)

Fantastic to see the Warwickshire Hunt given a Community Protection Notice, about time these criminals were treated as such.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?st...UYZ6jDgYJL3zGXjKozPxDf6cel&id=241689802622821


----------



## Koweyka (14 December 2022)

Millionwords said:



			Sorry it was a post from sabs or monitors showing him actively pursuing a fox. Rather than just the hounds, the huntsman is close behind and chasing the fox.

The RA hunt care nothing for the law.
		
Click to expand...

There was a post earlier that was very heavily edited about Sabs turning up for hound exercise, they never showed the footage where the huntsman ran a sab over, actually did a U turn to do it ! They are a vile hunt.


----------



## Millionwords (14 December 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Fantastic to see the Warwickshire Hunt given a Community Protection Notice, about time these criminals were treated as such.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?st...UYZ6jDgYJL3zGXjKozPxDf6cel&id=241689802622821

Click to expand...

Thats quite something indeed! 

I wonder how they will enforce it though.  Use of timestamped sab or monitor footage would be very useful for this.


----------



## Koweyka (14 December 2022)

Millionwords said:



			Thats quite something indeed!

I wonder how they will enforce it though.  Use of timestamped sab or monitor footage would be very useful for this.
		
Click to expand...

I am sure that will be readily available!


----------



## Tiddlypom (14 December 2022)

Goodness, the CPN on the Warwickshire Hunt is big news for hunting. About time. Too many hunts think that they are number one priority traffic and that all others must defer to them.

Screen shots here from Warwickshire Rural Crime Team.


----------



## ycbm (14 December 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Fantastic to see the Warwickshire Hunt given a Community Protection Notice....

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?st...UYZ6jDgYJL3zGXjKozPxDf6cel&id=241689802622821

Click to expand...

What excellent news. 
.


----------



## ycbm (14 December 2022)

Is it wrong to have a little smile about how annoying the hunt officials will find it  to read the hounds called dogs? 
.


----------



## bluehorse (14 December 2022)

ycbm said:



			Is it wrong to have a little smile about how annoying the hunt officials will find it  to read the hounds called dogs?
.
		
Click to expand...

I thought that, hilarious!! its about time hunts were held to account by the authorities that are there to protect the general public. Not too much of that going on in my area yet though sadly.


----------



## Sossigpoker (14 December 2022)

So last year it kicked off at the Avon Vale meet after the Red Lion pub in Lacock. The pub received such a back lash that now they've said that they won't even open until after the hunt has been.
No establishment in the village wants to be associated with these thugs now. 
Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of thugs 🤣🤣


----------



## bluehorse (14 December 2022)

Sossigpoker said:



			So last year it kicked off at the Avon Vale meet after the Red Lion pub in Lacock. The pub received such a back lash that now they've said that they won't even open until after the hunt has been.
No establishment in the village wants to be associated with these thugs now.
Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of thugs 🤣🤣
		
Click to expand...

The tide is turning and let’s be honest, we’re not ‘townies’ are we.


----------



## Landcruiser (15 December 2022)

Can anyone give me an alternative explanation to the two options I have come up with for pack of hounds crossing my fields? Late last month I happened to be in my yard, just back from work where I have my youngster in a small pen rehabbing from ops on both stifles. My two old boys are  loose on the yard/turnout off the yard keeping her company. I became aware horses were on high alert and staring west. Before I could take action, I realised the hunt were coming up the road, which runs alongside my 3 acre narrow strip of land. My yard/house is about midway. Exciting but not disastrous, my lot are used to horses passing and the hunt have been by before many times with no real problems. 
Anyway, before I knew what was happening the pack of hounds came through a fenced gap in my hedge (thank you, careless driver on ice last winter), and crossed straight over my middle field to the woods behind, just at the end of my arena which is off my turnout, so only 40m or so from the oldsters and in full view of baby horse.  At this point it got dangerous, all 3 horses including youngster were turning themselves inside out. Because she was closely contained she was rearing, bucking, charging backwards and forwards..not helped by the huntsmen cantering fast up the tarmac all up one side of our property while the hounds ran all the way up the back in the woods, passing metres from the back of the stables, including hers, in full cry. I was incredibly worried she was going to seriously injure herself. It turned out that the hunt had caused all sorts of havoc that same day, and hounds had crossed other people's land locally including that of a livery yard and a youngstock/training yard. I wrote to the Master and received an apology after the event.


My horses did not eat their nets the night after the hunt came through, and were still deeply unsettled late into the night. I'd say it was 36 hours until they were "back to normal." This is Not OK. 

The only two reasons I can think of for a pack of hounds crossing my (and other's) land are 1. A trail was laid over private land without permission ie trespass, or 2. They were hunting a fox. Have I missed any options?


----------



## Koweyka (15 December 2022)

Landcruiser said:



			Can anyone give me an alternative explanation to the two options I have come up with for pack of hounds crossing my fields? Late last month I happened to be in my yard, just back from work where I have my youngster in a small pen rehabbing from ops on both stifles. My two old boys are  loose on the yard/turnout off the yard keeping her company. I became aware horses were on high alert and staring west. Before I could take action, I realised the hunt were coming up the road, which runs alongside my 3 acre narrow strip of land. My yard/house is about midway. Exciting but not disastrous, my lot are used to horses passing and the hunt have been by before many times with no real problems.
Anyway, before I knew what was happening the pack of hounds came through a fenced gap in my hedge (thank you, careless driver on ice last winter), and crossed straight over my middle field to the woods behind, just at the end of my arena which is off my turnout, so only 40m or so from the oldsters and in full view of baby horse.  At this point it got dangerous, all 3 horses including youngster were turning themselves inside out. Because she was closely contained she was rearing, bucking, charging backwards and forwards..not helped by the huntsmen cantering fast up the tarmac all up one side of our property while the hounds ran all the way up the back in the woods, passing metres from the back of the stables, including hers, in full cry. I was incredibly worried she was going to seriously injure herself. It turned out that the hunt had caused all sorts of havoc that same day, and hounds had crossed other people's land locally including that of a livery yard and a youngstock/training yard. I wrote to the Master and received an apology after the event.


My horses did not eat their nets the night after the hunt came through, and were still deeply unsettled late into the night. I'd say it was 36 hours until they were "back to normal." This is Not OK.

The only two reasons I can think of for a pack of hounds crossing my (and other's) land are 1. A trail was laid over private land without permission ie trespass, or 2. They were hunting a fox. Have I missed any options?
		
Click to expand...

I would be favouring option 2 personally, did the “master” give you an explanation? 

Did you report this incident to the police ? Even if there is nothing they can do after the event, the police will mark it as intelligence, our rural crime team welcome all incidents and footage as they say it builds up a picture of the incidents that repeatedly happen and where and in some cases as with the Warwickshire it can help make the hunts accountable for their behaviour.

I hope your horses are ok, one of mine suffered when a similar thing happened to him, he still goes on high alert when the hunt are nearby and this incident happened over 10 years ago.


----------



## GoldenWillow (15 December 2022)

Landcruiser said:



			Can anyone give me an alternative explanation to the two options I have come up with for pack of hounds crossing my fields? Late last month I happened to be in my yard, just back from work where I have my youngster in a small pen rehabbing from ops on both stifles. My two old boys are  loose on the yard/turnout off the yard keeping her company. I became aware horses were on high alert and staring west. Before I could take action, I realised the hunt were coming up the road, which runs alongside my 3 acre narrow strip of land. My yard/house is about midway. Exciting but not disastrous, my lot are used to horses passing and the hunt have been by before many times with no real problems.
Anyway, before I knew what was happening the pack of hounds came through a fenced gap in my hedge (thank you, careless driver on ice last winter), and crossed straight over my middle field to the woods behind, just at the end of my arena which is off my turnout, so only 40m or so from the oldsters and in full view of baby horse.  At this point it got dangerous, all 3 horses including youngster were turning themselves inside out. Because she was closely contained she was rearing, bucking, charging backwards and forwards..not helped by the huntsmen cantering fast up the tarmac all up one side of our property while the hounds ran all the way up the back in the woods, passing metres from the back of the stables, including hers, in full cry. I was incredibly worried she was going to seriously injure herself. It turned out that the hunt had caused all sorts of havoc that same day, and hounds had crossed other people's land locally including that of a livery yard and a youngstock/training yard. I wrote to the Master and received an apology after the event.


My horses did not eat their nets the night after the hunt came through, and were still deeply unsettled late into the night. I'd say it was 36 hours until they were "back to normal." This is Not OK.

The only two reasons I can think of for a pack of hounds crossing my (and other's) land are 1. A trail was laid over private land without permission ie trespass, or 2. They were hunting a fox. Have I missed any options?
		
Click to expand...

I'd go with 2 as well. I've never had any explanation and only half hearted apologies from the hunt secretary when the hunt has gone through my field which is in a block of around 30 acres that the hunt have expressly got no permission to go on. And it happened time after time. They have lost permission from large landowners to hunt on their land after continually going on land they have been specifically asked not to go on. So like you LC I can only think of 2 reasons and the second one, for our hunt, seems much more likely.


----------



## Landcruiser (15 December 2022)

Koweyka said:



			I would be favouring option 2 personally, did the “master” give you an explanation?

Did you report this incident to the police ? Even if there is nothing they can do after the event, the police will mark it as intelligence, our rural crime team welcome all incidents and footage as they say it builds up a picture of the incidents that repeatedly happen and where and in some cases as with the Warwickshire it can help make the hunts accountable for their behaviour.

I hope your horses are ok, one of mine suffered when a similar thing happened to him, he still goes on high alert when the hunt are nearby and this incident happened over 10 years ago.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't report it to the police. It was kicking off all over local FB as they went over so much private land and upset so many people and animals. Someone said the police were aware. I didn't report my case as I had no proof and no material damage to show for it.  This particular hunt are in court anyway for fox hunting so I guess that's a clue to which option it was.


----------



## Landcruiser (15 December 2022)

And, no, no explanation offered, just profuse apology.


----------



## Miss_Millie (15 December 2022)

Landcruiser said:



			Can anyone give me an alternative explanation to the two options I have come up with for pack of hounds crossing my fields? Late last month I happened to be in my yard, just back from work where I have my youngster in a small pen rehabbing from ops on both stifles. My two old boys are  loose on the yard/turnout off the yard keeping her company. I became aware horses were on high alert and staring west. Before I could take action, I realised the hunt were coming up the road, which runs alongside my 3 acre narrow strip of land. My yard/house is about midway. Exciting but not disastrous, my lot are used to horses passing and the hunt have been by before many times with no real problems.
Anyway, before I knew what was happening the pack of hounds came through a fenced gap in my hedge (thank you, careless driver on ice last winter), and crossed straight over my middle field to the woods behind, just at the end of my arena which is off my turnout, so only 40m or so from the oldsters and in full view of baby horse.  At this point it got dangerous, all 3 horses including youngster were turning themselves inside out. Because she was closely contained she was rearing, bucking, charging backwards and forwards..not helped by the huntsmen cantering fast up the tarmac all up one side of our property while the hounds ran all the way up the back in the woods, passing metres from the back of the stables, including hers, in full cry. I was incredibly worried she was going to seriously injure herself. It turned out that the hunt had caused all sorts of havoc that same day, and hounds had crossed other people's land locally including that of a livery yard and a youngstock/training yard. I wrote to the Master and received an apology after the event.


My horses did not eat their nets the night after the hunt came through, and were still deeply unsettled late into the night. I'd say it was 36 hours until they were "back to normal." This is Not OK.

The only two reasons I can think of for a pack of hounds crossing my (and other's) land are 1. A trail was laid over private land without permission ie trespass, or 2. They were hunting a fox. Have I missed any options?
		
Click to expand...

I'm sorry that this happened to you and your horses and having followed this thread from the first post, your story is not an uncommon one. Several people on the forum have had hounds rioting onto their land and last year in the news a lady's horse died when a pack of hounds entered his field. I have no suggestions but I think it's quite obvious that many hunts do not have control of their hounds and/or are hunting fox. Thank god your horses were not injured.


----------



## Sossigpoker (15 December 2022)

Landcruiser said:



			And, no, no explanation offered, just profuse apology.
		
Click to expand...

I'd ask for financial compensation too. 
There must be a way of getting through to these thugs


----------



## sakura (15 December 2022)

Landcruiser said:



			The only two reasons I can think of for a pack of hounds crossing my (and other's) land are 1. A trail was laid over private land without permission ie trespass, or 2. They were hunting a fox. Have I missed any options?
		
Click to expand...

I'm so sorry that happened to you. How is your youngster getting on now? 

It'll most likely be option #2 and that they were in pursuit of a fox, which will also be why the hunt master did not offer up an explanation. 

This is exactly why monitors are needed and why sabs are still very much in action.


----------



## Fransurrey (15 December 2022)

Landcruiser said:



			Can anyone give me an alternative explanation to the two options I have come up with for pack of hounds crossing my fields? Late last month I happened to be in my yard, just back from work where I have my youngster in a small pen rehabbing from ops on both stifles. My two old boys are  loose on the yard/turnout off the yard keeping her company. I became aware horses were on high alert and staring west. Before I could take action, I realised the hunt were coming up the road, which runs alongside my 3 acre narrow strip of land. My yard/house is about midway. Exciting but not disastrous, my lot are used to horses passing and the hunt have been by before many times with no real problems.
Anyway, before I knew what was happening the pack of hounds came through a fenced gap in my hedge (thank you, careless driver on ice last winter), and crossed straight over my middle field to the woods behind, just at the end of my arena which is off my turnout, so only 40m or so from the oldsters and in full view of baby horse.  At this point it got dangerous, all 3 horses including youngster were turning themselves inside out. Because she was closely contained she was rearing, bucking, charging backwards and forwards..not helped by the huntsmen cantering fast up the tarmac all up one side of our property while the hounds ran all the way up the back in the woods, passing metres from the back of the stables, including hers, in full cry. I was incredibly worried she was going to seriously injure herself. It turned out that the hunt had caused all sorts of havoc that same day, and hounds had crossed other people's land locally including that of a livery yard and a youngstock/training yard. I wrote to the Master and received an apology after the event.


My horses did not eat their nets the night after the hunt came through, and were still deeply unsettled late into the night. I'd say it was 36 hours until they were "back to normal." This is Not OK.

The only two reasons I can think of for a pack of hounds crossing my (and other's) land are 1. A trail was laid over private land without permission ie trespass, or 2. They were hunting a fox. Have I missed any options?
		
Click to expand...

We had similar at my yard, except they'd come quite far off forestry commission land and gone through multiple private paddocks, with dogs (oh so sorry, I mean hounds) running in and out of paddocks with horses in, mine included. I have a mare who is dog-phobic. Luckily (I can't bear watching horses turn themselves inside out) it was a mid-week hunt and I was at work. No apology as far as I'm aware. That was Surrey Union, about 6 years ago.


----------



## Sossigpoker (15 December 2022)

Fransurrey said:



			We had similar at my yard, except they'd come quite far off forestry commission land and gone through multiple private paddocks, with dogs (oh so sorry, I mean hounds) running in and out of paddocks with horses in, mine included. I have a mare who is dog-phobic. Luckily (I can't bear watching horses turn themselves inside out) it was a mid-week hunt and I was at work. No apology as far as I'm aware. That was Surrey Union, about 6 years ago.
		
Click to expand...

How is this supposed to be OK (in their minds?)
Imagine if anyone else lost control of their dogs and they were running wild on your property ? Yet somehow when it's  "hounds" (i.e dogs ) it's supposed to be OK? 
We've had a fox run across the yard with the pack of dogs behind it - yet none of the scum even apologised for it .


----------



## Landcruiser (15 December 2022)

sakura said:



			I'm so sorry that happened to you. How is your youngster getting on now?

I
		
Click to expand...

She's bloomin' fed up but no further excitement since thank goodness. Hounds were due to meet even closer to us yesterday. I wrote to the Master and reiterated that I don't give permission to be on my land and asking for consideration of rehabbing horse when laying trails (!). Thankfully the meet was cancelled due to the ice.


----------



## SEL (15 December 2022)

@Landcruiser I don't even have gaps in my fencing - they come straight over the top. I'm relieved your injured one was ok.


----------



## paddy555 (15 December 2022)

Landcruiser said:



			I wrote to the Master and received an apology after the event.
		
Click to expand...

sorry but not good enough. When it happened to me hounds came over a fence which they demolished onto my land I rang up and got the master out the next day. We walked the boundary and I explained exactly where they couldn't go. In your case I would have asked "precisely why did they go onto my land" 
no, I don't want to hear it was an accident, I want to know why? did you lay a trail over my land? (v unlikely) so the choices are you were either after a fox or you can't control your dogs, which is it? how can I be sure it won't happen in the future, why did you canter up the road past my very upset horses? why did you show such little consideration for my horses? 

No good in a letter, they can reply with whatever platitudes they like, face to face even if you have to go to the kennels and press for a precise answer to each question. 

Since our incident we have made progress. This seems to be the only way ie to get pretty nasty with them and let them get away with nothing. Shouldn't have to of course, we all have a right to peacefully enjoy our horses.


----------



## Miss_Millie (15 December 2022)

It is interesting reading the comments on that Facebook post by Warwickshire Rural Crime team, how many stories people have to tell of their various run ins with the hunt(s) over the years. These are not 'townies' as pro hunt propaganda like to tell us, but farmers and land owners who have had hounds cross their land without permission, livestock let out onto the roads etc. One lady said she hit a hound which sprung through a hedge out of no-where. 

Most stupid comment award goes to this bright spark:

'Horses were used long before cars etc! Leave the countryside and its activities alone!'


----------



## saalsk (15 December 2022)

My local hunt have been coming through ( not on my land, but passing the other side of fences ) for the past 5-7 years. They always come round before, tell me route and timings etc so I can move various animals ( I have horses and sheep). They are lovely. Haven't seen them this year, nor last year (they leave a card if they come round and I am not in, for me to call for the info) so I assume I am not in their planned route this time. The last 2 years, I have had a small (10-12) pack of hounds with men on foot (6, maybe more, no horses, no followers) with guns, and some quad bikes. No contact with them, but can see them in the distance, as the hounds run riot on my land, quartering and searching my fields, with my horses and sheep in them. The dogs are not hunting the sheep, nor chasing the horses, but as they search the fields, the sheep go mad, the horses run around like loons, and the hounds come onto my yard, scatter chickens, freak out the cats, and the men are 4 or 5 fields away, with no obvious control over them. They have horns - they use them - the dogs seem to do what they want, and actively hunted and chased a fox across my fields, which luckily (for me - not the fox) meant they then left my land. The men never set foot on my land. I contacted the hunt - it wasn't them ( I never thought it was ) and said that they knew who it was and would talk to them. I talked to the police - the men were not on my land, so no trespass, I couldn't name/identify any of them, so no go there either, and as the dogs didn't touch any of my animals, that wasn't a crime either. I asked about dogs being out of control, and they told me that hunt dogs were different, so seeing as none of my animals were hurt, why was I complaining ? I pointed out that 3 of my sheep are elderly (10 year old pet lawnmowers), 4 were pregnant, and they said if I had any vet bills I would need to take up a civil law action with the people....that I have no idea of the names of....   Nice. I know these people have nothing to do with the local hunt, but they are not doing anyone any favours. Out of control hunting, be it real disguised at trail, or simply not bothering to hide their intentions, are turning the people that would have maybe supported legal hunting or at least not be totally anti it, against them. The local proper hunts around here ( south west wales) have a pretty good reputation generally, unlike those in the north. I can see it being ended totally at this rate


----------



## Chianti (19 December 2022)

If anyone wants to see the mentality of hunt supporters they might like to look at the Facebook page of the North London Hunt Saboteurs. Video of one of the sabs being racially abused by the hunt master and his friends ' I didn't know there was a zoo round here'. Ref to Bob Marley. I don't know how to attach it but it's pretty bad and I think shows what they really are.


----------



## Sossigpoker (19 December 2022)

This one?
Not even surprised by the depths the knuckle draggers sink to.
https://fb.watch/hwBF0PGtRi/


----------



## Koweyka (19 December 2022)

Sossigpoker said:



			This one?
Not even surprised by the depths the knuckle draggers sink to.
https://fb.watch/hwBF0PGtRi/

Click to expand...

They are disgusting cretins.


----------



## Fransurrey (20 December 2022)

Sossigpoker said:



			This one?
Not even surprised by the depths the knuckle draggers sink to.
https://fb.watch/hwBF0PGtRi/

Click to expand...

No surprise that they go straight from the pub to their cars. Same happens near us. All the police would have to do is turn up there on a hunt day (or shoot - they're the same round here) to triple their drink drive figures.


----------



## Chianti (20 December 2022)

Sossigpoker said:



			This one?
Not even surprised by the depths the knuckle draggers sink to.
https://fb.watch/hwBF0PGtRi/

Click to expand...


Yes. I don't know what's the most upsetting, the laughter, the fact they think it's acceptable in broad day light, the smug look on his face? It's like going back to the 1970s. The poor man it was aimed at. I can't imagine what it must be like to be put in that situation.


----------



## Sossigpoker (20 December 2022)

Chianti said:



			Yes. I don't know what's the most upsetting, the laughter, the fact they think it's acceptable in broad day light, the smug look on his face? It's like going back to the 1970s. The poor man it was aimed at. I can't imagine what it must be like to be put in that situation.
		
Click to expand...

The ironic thing is that racism has been linked to lower intelligence , so the moron thinking he's terribly clever by saying to a non-white person they belong in a zoo ,.essentially,  is just confirming their own, low intellectual and most likely educational status.

In any circumstances saying such a thing would result in a chat with the coppers- but I guess these scum are excluded from those laws as well.


----------



## Millionwords (25 December 2022)

Imagine as a hunt knowingly wasting police time to this extent, and considering yourself in the right.

The same group had all 4 of their tyres slashed by a hunt recently too.

https://www.itv.com/news/2022-12-24...armed-police-officers-stop-fox-hunt-saboteurs


----------



## Burnttoast (26 December 2022)

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ing-of-hunting-act-and-vows-to-close-loophole


----------



## ycbm (26 December 2022)

Burnttoast said:



https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ing-of-hunting-act-and-vows-to-close-loophole

Click to expand...

Unfair on legitimate trail hunts,  but predictable (and predicted many times on this forum!). Legitimate trail hunts need to act decisively to prevent losing their sport. 

Hint:

Stop using fox scent to lay trails! 
.


----------



## sakura (26 December 2022)

Yes, unfortunate for the legitimate but predictable. All this crying of “well sabs do x, y , z” meanwhile public opinion continues to solidify against all hunting with each atrocity. 

Do better, or lose it all.


----------



## Millionwords (26 December 2022)

I saw a compilation video today of the Grove & Rufford, all seperate incidents of hunting foxes, and hunt followers;
- smashing vehicle windows with a hammer, 
- slashing tyres, 
- deliberately ramming into sab vehicles with a pickup...

Then there's actions from other hunts, the mowing down of a pedestrian sab, assaults, other tyre slashing, riding sabs down,  hitting them with crops, racial abuse, fat abuse, physical assault, smashing of vehicle windscreens, theft of property...all captured on film...

But sabs do x y z (despite the evidence seemingly being much more difficult to track down🤔)...so its alright then?


----------



## Tiddlypom (26 December 2022)

Local pack's meltdown following its exceptionally unwise appointment of new huntsman for the current season continues. All we residents can do is to watch on with our jaws dropping open even more as the saga continues.

Whether or not to continue with an individual who has just been found slam dunk guilty in court of illegal hunting should not even be an option for the hunt - the governing body should have imposed an immediate ban on that individual continuing in the employ of a registered pack. But we now know how effective the governing body is at driving out the bad elements from hunting 😬.

Local pack has pulled out of attending their Boxing Day fixture at short notice. Most of us have probably tried, at one time or another, to evade an invitation by citing illness. Best get your facts straight.

A pack which was out on a joint meet with another pack on Christmas Eve has to pull out of the Boxing Day meet because of kennel cough, but will then apparently be cleared to hunt two days later at the children's meet 🤷‍♀️.






Erm, the isolation period for kennel cough is, according to the PDSA and other knowledgable sources, 2/3 *weeks*, not days.

https://www.pdsa.org.uk/pet-help-and-advice/pet-health-hub/conditions/kennel-cough

_Keep your dog away from others - remember your dog will be very contagious whilst they are poorly and can continue to spread kennel cough for 2-3 weeks after their symptoms have cleared. During this time, keep them away from other dogs and public spaces._
The antis have all sorts of theories as to why they really pulled out of the Boxing Day meet, but a convenient and apparently remarkably brief case of kennel cough is not one of them.


----------



## Millionwords (26 December 2022)

"
BREAKING: We've had a report of five hounds being hit by a car as a hunt crossed a main road near Okehampton, Devon today.

They are believed to have been from the Eggesford Hunt.

Please get in touch if you have any further information."


----------



## mariew (26 December 2022)

Millionwords said:



			I saw a compilation video today of the Grove & Rufford, all seperate incidents of hunting foxes, and hunt followers;
- smashing vehicle windows with a hammer, 
- slashing tyres, 
- deliberately ramming into sab vehicles with a pickup...

Then there's actions from other hunts, the mowing down of a pedestrian sab, assaults, other tyre slashing, riding sabs down,  hitting them with crops, racial abuse, fat abuse, physical assault, smashing of vehicle windscreens, theft of property...all captured on film...

But sabs do x y z (despite the evidence seemingly being much more difficult to track down🤔)...so its alright then?
		
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has ever said that this kind of behaviour is ok from anyone, hunt person, sab or anyone else?


----------



## suestowford (26 December 2022)

Nothing would surprise me about the Eggesford Hunt. They must have their own parking space at the local courthouse, they are in it so often!


----------



## Millionwords (26 December 2022)

mariew said:



			I don't think anyone has ever said that this kind of behaviour is ok from anyone, hunt person, sab or anyone else?
		
Click to expand...

Anything negative in the news or social media brings out hundreds of comments by hunt supporters saying "but sabs do x y z" as if it nullifies the acts by hunts.


----------



## mariew (26 December 2022)

Millionwords said:



			Anything negative in the news or social media brings out hundreds of comments by hunt supporters saying "but sabs do x y z" as if it nullifies the acts by hunts.
		
Click to expand...

I wouldn't know whether violence is approved of elsewhere as I tend to stay away from any other social media in relation to hunting.  I haven't seen it here on this thread though so unlikely to need to worry about anyone agreeing with those kind of actions from anyone here.


----------



## paddy555 (26 December 2022)

there is a request on my FB from someone whose son and  7m pregnant partner pulled in to let the hunt pass and the huntsmam whipped theor windscreen and smashed it. They are requesting witnesses. I think it is Great Torrington area. Anyone know any more about this?


----------



## Dexter (26 December 2022)

Koweyka said:



			They are disgusting cretins.
		
Click to expand...

Thats a pretty disgusting word to be using to describe someone, no matter what the have done.


----------



## Millionwords (26 December 2022)

Millionwords said:



			"
BREAKING: We've had a report of five hounds being hit by a car as a hunt crossed a main road near Okehampton, Devon today.

They are believed to have been from the Eggesford Hunt.

Please get in touch if you have any further information."
		
Click to expand...

One of the terrier men drove at high speed into a sab with his quad bike. Knocking them into the air.

https://fb.watch/hFIuU5GjLF/


----------



## Koweyka (26 December 2022)

Dexter said:



			Thats a pretty disgusting word to be using to describe someone, no matter what the have done.
		
Click to expand...

Actually that’s being rather kind.


----------



## sakura (26 December 2022)

Dexter said:



			Thats a pretty disgusting word to be using to describe someone, no matter what the have done.
		
Click to expand...

To be fair, it’s much kinder than the racist language used in the video koweyka was responding to.


----------



## YorksG (26 December 2022)

I don't agree that language which is discriminatory to people with a disability is "better" or "kinder" than racist language, but the fact that some posters do speaks volumes about those posters.


----------



## Koweyka (26 December 2022)

I swear this thread is like stepping into the “Twilight Zone” at times.


----------



## sakura (26 December 2022)

FestiveG said:



			I don't agree that language which is discriminatory to people with a disability is "better" or "kinder" than racist language, but the fact that some posters do speaks volumes about those posters.
		
Click to expand...

I think we should go back to what this thread is about.


----------



## Koweyka (26 December 2022)

sakura said:



			I think we should go back to what this thread is about.
		
Click to expand...

It says it all when the pro hunt start spitting their dummies for racist bigoted disgusting hunters/ hunt support being called out as such (vulgar and insensitive) yet completely ignore all the other context of this thread.


----------



## sbloom (27 December 2022)

At least two phone ins on LBC yesterday.  What is it with equestrianism and social licence?  Why do so few understand the concept?!


----------



## ycbm (27 December 2022)

I don't understand your question SB, can you give some more detail?
.


----------



## Koweyka (27 December 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Local pack's meltdown following its exceptionally unwise appointment of new huntsman for the current season continues. All we residents can do is to watch on with our jaws dropping open even more as the saga continues.

Whether or not to continue with an individual who has just been found slam dunk guilty in court of illegal hunting should not even be an option for the hunt - the governing body should have imposed an immediate ban on that individual continuing in the employ of a registered pack. But we now know how effective the governing body is at driving out the bad elements from hunting 😬.

Local pack has pulled out of attending their Boxing Day fixture at short notice. Most of us have probably tried, at one time or another, to evade an invitation by citing illness. Best get your facts straight.

A pack which was out on a joint meet with another pack on Christmas Eve has to pull out of the Boxing Day meet because of kennel cough, but will then apparently be cleared to hunt two days later at the children's meet 🤷‍♀️.



View attachment 105024


Erm, the isolation period for kennel cough is, according to the PDSA and other knowledgable sources, 2/3 *weeks*, not days.

https://www.pdsa.org.uk/pet-help-and-advice/pet-health-hub/conditions/kennel-cough

_Keep your dog away from others - remember your dog will be very contagious whilst they are poorly and can continue to spread kennel cough for 2-3 weeks after their symptoms have cleared. During this time, keep them away from other dogs and public spaces._
The antis have all sorts of theories as to why they really pulled out of the Boxing Day meet, but a convenient and apparently remarkably brief case of kennel cough is not one of them.
		
Click to expand...

He is going at the end of the season apparently, it’s disgusting he wasn’t immediately sanctioned and given the boot, though he clearly took the rap for a lot more people so he is being “looked” after.


----------



## Dexter (27 December 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Actually that’s being rather kind.
		
Click to expand...

Wow.


Koweyka said:



			It says it all when the pro hunt start spitting their dummies for racist bigoted disgusting hunters/ hunt support being called out as such (vulgar and insensitive) yet completely ignore all the other context of this thread.
		
Click to expand...

I am not pro illegal hunting. In fact I am leaning very heavily towards it being banned as the best option, I think I've commented on here 2 maybe 3 times, and just read it as an interesting debate.

My experience of sabs has been that they are violent thugs who have their own agenda, and I'd been impressed to hear about how you say you behave. But what you said was disgusting. Given this and your defence of your behaviour, I think its quite clear what sort of person you are, and vulgar and insensitive is a good descripion. And in doing that, the growing support I had for you is gone.


----------



## Dexter (27 December 2022)

sakura said:



			To be fair, it’s much kinder than the racist language used in the video koweyka was responding to.
		
Click to expand...

Is it? It might be for you, it certainly wont be for everyone.


----------



## sakura (27 December 2022)

Dexter said:



			Is it? It might be for you, it certainly wont be for everyone.
		
Click to expand...

And that’s fine, we all have our own personal lines when it comes to language. So can we get back to discussing hunts breaking the law? I apologise for responding to that line of discussion. 

This thread isn’t about sabs behaviour and I don’t think it’s very helpful to insinuate anything about any poster - either side of the debate. 

Labour have announced their plan to effectively ban trail hunting. Given their current likelihood of potentially winning the next GE, that seems an important thing to discuss on this thread.


----------



## Koweyka (27 December 2022)

Dexter said:



			Wow.


I am not pro illegal hunting. In fact I am leaning very heavily towards it being banned as the best option, I think I've commented on here 2 maybe 3 times, and just read it as an interesting debate.

My experience of sabs has been that they are violent thugs who have their own agenda, and I'd been impressed to hear about how you say you behave. But what you said was disgusting. Given this and your defence of your behaviour, I think it’s quite clear what sort of person you are, and vulgar and insensitive is a good descripion. And in doing that, the growing support I had for you is gone.
		
Click to expand...

Wow, well I am sorry if calling out racist behaviour offends you so much, I find it utterly bizarre that you would rather attack the people condemning it therefore by proxy supporting the racist behaviour. If that’s the sort of support I have then more than happy to lose it. 

Cretin… from Oxford Dictionary modern informal …. A stupid, vulgar, or insensitive person. I think that description of men openly being racist is a very apt description of their behaviour.


----------



## HashRouge (27 December 2022)

Dexter said:



			Is it? It might be for you, it certainly wont be for everyone.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not defending their use of language, but remember that a lot of people actually don't know what the original usage/ meaning of that word is. I honestly only know because of this forum, although it's not a word I would ever have used anyway. But I'm assuming from their responses that the posters you are addressing don't actually understand what you're calling them out for.


----------



## shortstuff99 (27 December 2022)

People are upset because cretin used to be used to be derogatory to neuro divergent people in the same way as sp*z or m*ng etc.


----------



## Koweyka (27 December 2022)

shortstuff99 said:



			People are upset because cretin used to be used to be derogatory to neuro divergent people in the same way as sp*z or m*ng etc.
		
Click to expand...

It was not my intention to offend people in that way, I haven’t actually heard of that word being used in that context, only the more modern way of describing them as I have mentioned before.


----------



## AdorableAlice (27 December 2022)

Koweyka said:



			It was not my intention to offend people in that way, I haven’t actually heard of that word being used in that context, only the more modern way of describing them as I have mentioned before.
		
Click to expand...

I find it very sad that you and a few others on this particularly boring and monotonous thread, actually need to, or find pleasure in calling other members of HHO names of any kind, regardless of whether your level of education allows you to understand the meaning of the words you so frequently use.

Reading through your numerous comments it does seem it is very much your intention to offend or upset other users.  Bullying and intimidation comes in many guises.


----------



## suestowford (27 December 2022)

paddy555 said:



			there is a request on my FB from someone whose son and  7m pregnant partner pulled in to let the hunt pass and the huntsmam whipped theor windscreen and smashed it. They are requesting witnesses. I think it is Great Torrington area. Anyone know any more about this?
		
Click to expand...

Would this be the Torrington Farmers Hunt? They are known to be quite aggressive, but how stupid to attack someone's car, pulled over to let them pass.

Hunts in Devon & Cornwall do seem to do as they like. Peninsula mentality maybe, or just arrogance. That's how it seems anyway.


----------



## Koweyka (27 December 2022)

AdorableAlice said:



			I find it very sad that you and a few others on this particularly boring and monotonous thread, actually need to, or find pleasure in calling other members of HHO names of any kind, regardless of whether your level of education allows you to understand the meaning of the words you so frequently use.

Reading through your numerous comments it does seem it is very much your intention to offend or upset other users.  Bullying and intimidation comes in many guises.
		
Click to expand...

Pot Kettle Black


----------



## ester (27 December 2022)

There's no 'modern way' of using the c word. . it's an ableist slur


----------



## Koweyka (27 December 2022)

Crikey ….can I say Crikey they are all coming out of the woodwork now, never mind the racism and the veiled slurs on mine and others “level of education” the “c” word is now commonly used as a term for stupid and ignorant people in modern language. That was the inference for the people racially abusing a man. No condemnation by some about that.

Desperate times it seems, if this is the best you can come up with, to deflect the thread when I have explained my point of verbal references then crack on.


----------



## sakura (27 December 2022)

I didn’t use the C word, but I also didn’t know of its historic meaning. I certainly didn’t mean to be ableist, I never would by intention. Because I didn’t know of it’s meaning, I considered the racist language to be worse. I am wrong by ignorance, and I am sorry for that. I do, however, believe this is now taking away from the despicable behaviour shown in the video all of this stemmed from, which deserves to be called out and talked about. I don’t believe calling out racism is ever boring or monotonous. 

I don’t know if I’m one of the posters others are referencing, but I don’t believe I have ever used personal insults on this thread.


----------



## paddy555 (27 December 2022)

suestowford said:



			Would this be the Torrington Farmers Hunt? They are known to be quite aggressive, but how stupid to attack someone's car, pulled over to let them pass.

Hunts in Devon & Cornwall do seem to do as they like. Peninsula mentality maybe, or just arrogance. That's how it seems anyway.
		
Click to expand...

yes Torrington farmers. I think they may be more arrogant as there is more open land and more possibly older established farmers who have always supported them. I did  notice with ours yesterday that one farm they used to ride over extensively was no longer ridden on. (change of farmer) Even the huntsman didn't ride over nor hounds. That is great as every farm they no longer ride over is one more bit of restriction.


----------



## Koweyka (27 December 2022)

sakura said:



			I didn’t use the C word, but I also didn’t know of its historic meaning. I certainly didn’t mean to be ableist, I never would by intention. Because I didn’t know of it’s meaning, I considered the racist language to be worse. I am wrong by ignorance, and I am sorry for that. I do, however, believe this is now taking away from the despicable behaviour shown in the video all of this stemmed from, which deserves to be called out and talked about. I don’t believe calling out racism is ever boring or monotonous.

I don’t know if I’m one of the posters others are referencing, but I don’t believe I have ever used personal insults on this thread.
		
Click to expand...

This is exactly how I feel, I used the word but not in the context of the old ableist meaning, that I actually had never heard of, I had to look it up. Sorry my state school education was not up to scratch . It’s a word I see and hear commonly used and have been called it many times by hunty folk

Also I am the mother of a disabled son, so before people jumped on me they way they did, maybe actually point it out in a reasonable manner. I find that incredibly presumptuous and ignorant behaviour.

I am on the receiving end of many veiled and not so veiled insults….queue the we never see it brigade, but I have and so have others. I will always defend myself and if some don’t like that fact then hit the UI button.


----------



## Tiddlypom (27 December 2022)

I was just going to wade in and agree that cretin is a term that was formerly (certainly in my schooldays) used commonly in playground spats but is now seen to be very inappropriate, but I see that Koweyka has now explained herself.

Gave a wry smile at this thread being dismissed as 'boring and monotonous' by an experienced hunting person, seeing as it details how hunting is imploding and destroying itself but with numerous suggestions from many, including the OP (me), as to how it could still try and save itself.

Dismiss it at your peril - ignoring the self inflicted own goals is just hastening the end.


----------



## sbloom (27 December 2022)

ycbm said:



			I don't understand your question SB, can you give some more detail?
.
		
Click to expand...

That, like the monarchy, we can only carry on doing what we do with animals if the rest of the country finds it acceptable.  Individual freedoms cannot trump that, though so many like to think that they do.  I know SL is a recent concept but if we don't get with it we're on a slippery slope to being toast.


----------



## ycbm (27 December 2022)

sbloom said:



			That, like the monarchy, we can only carry on doing what we do with animals if the rest of the country finds it acceptable.  Individual freedoms cannot trump that, though so many like to think that they do.  I know SL is a recent concept but if we don't get with it we're on a slippery slope to being toast.
		
Click to expand...

I still don't understand.  Were the people phoning in saying we shouldn't be riding horses,  or that people shouldn't be riding them to follow hounds chasing a wild animal, or that Boxing Day meets of legal trail hunts shouldn't be crowding out their local pub and the local roads? 

Not having heard the broadcast/phone-in you're talking about it's difficult to get the gist of what you mean. 
.


----------



## sbloom (27 December 2022)

ycbm said:



			I still don't understand.  Were the people phoning in saying we shouldn't be riding horses,  or that people shouldn't be riding them to follow hounds chasing a wild animal, or that Boxing Day meets of legal trail hunts shouldn't be crowding out their local pub and the local roads?

Not having heard the broadcast/phone-in you're talking about it's difficult to get the gist of what you mean.
.
		
Click to expand...

Or maybe that we shouldn't be hunting wild animals full stop?  It's just that we're equestrians and we mostly hunt because it's fun riding.

It's actually more a comment on the whole thread, the activity of hunting as a whole, which is mostly equestrian.  There were many different perspectives, you can find the broadcasts on Global player if you'd like to listen, Matthew Wright and Sangita Myska on Xmas Eve.


----------



## ycbm (27 December 2022)

sbloom said:



			Or maybe that we shouldn't be hunting wild animals full stop?  It's just that we're equestrians and we mostly hunt because it's fun riding.

It's actually more a comment on the whole thread, the activity of hunting as a whole, which is mostly equestrian.  There were many different perspectives, you can find the broadcasts on Global player if you'd like to listen, Matthew Wright and Sangita Myska on Xmas Eve.
		
Click to expand...

SB I still don't understand what point you are trying to make with this comment,  sorry.



sbloom said:



			At least two phone ins on LBC yesterday.  What is it with equestrianism and social licence?  Why do so few understand the concept?!
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Millionwords (27 December 2022)

Social


sbloom said:



			Or maybe that we shouldn't be hunting wild animals full stop?  It's just that we're equestrians and we mostly hunt because it's fun riding.

It's actually more a comment on the whole thread, the activity of hunting as a whole, which is mostly equestrian.  There were many different perspectives, you can find the broadcasts on Global player if you'd like to listen, Matthew Wright and Sangita Myska on Xmas Eve.
		
Click to expand...

I think most anti hunt folk agree with your inital statement in this quote,

But without context of what callers to the program were saying or what the call in was about, the rest doesn't mean anything to anyone who didn't hear it.

Do you have a link to it so we can listen?


----------



## blitznbobs (27 December 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Actually that’s being rather kind.
		
Click to expand...

pretty offensive to baby with thyroid disease though … which is where the term cretin actually comes from …


----------



## sbloom (27 December 2022)

Has no-one heard of a rhetorical question...and I did put above where you can hear the broadcasts.  I should have separated my comment about LBC from my questions, they are not directly related, but obviously on the same topic.  Not sure what else to say!


----------



## Millionwords (27 December 2022)

sbloom said:



			Has no-one heard of a rhetorical question...and I did put above where you can hear the broadcasts.  I should have separated my comment about LBC from my questions, they are not directly related, but obviously on the same topic.  Not sure what else to say!
		
Click to expand...

Of course we have, but both statements were made with the assumption that we undersood the context. Which noone apart from you does.

I tried to search on Google podcasts but cannot find what you are referring to as I don't know what it is and again the statement assumes some prior knowledge of the program.

ycIts quite hard to understand what you don't understand about @ycbm or my confusion/questions? When we're actively trying to understand what you're referring to...


----------



## Koweyka (27 December 2022)

blitznbobs said:



			pretty offensive to baby with thyroid disease though … which is where the term cretin actually comes from …
		
Click to expand...

Refer to my previous posts, before being so judgy eh


----------



## paddy555 (27 December 2022)

sakura said:



			Labour have announced their plan to effectively ban trail hunting. Given their current likelihood of potentially winning the next GE, that seems an important thing to discuss on this thread.
		
Click to expand...

alternatively given their likelihood of creating even more chaos.  Who was the PM who pushed through the original hunting ban so efficiently. TB and labour come to mind. As it does seem likely labour will win the next GE I can see this promises to be a very long and timeless thread.


----------



## ycbm (27 December 2022)

sbloom said:



			Has no-one heard of a rhetorical question...and I did put above where you can hear the broadcasts.  I should have separated my comment about LBC from my questions, they are not directly related, but obviously on the same topic.  Not sure what else to say!
		
Click to expand...

OK these are the possible things I am guessing that you could mean by "What is it with equestrianism and social licence? Why do so few understand the concept?!"  on a hunting thread. 

Please tick all which apply. 

1. Do hunting people not understand that they need social licence in order to carry on hunting, and why aren't they acting on that? 

2. Do people not reallse that we all need social licence to continue to carry out legal activities in public, so they should cut equestrians/hunting folk some slack. 

3. Why don't more people who have horses understand that social licence is required for them to be able to continue to do so in future,  and why aren't they acting on that? 

4. Why is there so much social licence towards the use/abuse of horses in equestrianism? 

5. None of the above. 


If 1 and/or 3, what would you like to see change? 
.


----------



## sbloom (27 December 2022)

ycbm said:



			OK these are the possible things I am guessing that you could mean by "What is it with equestrianism and social licence? Why do so few understand the concept?!"  on a hunting thread.

Please tick all which apply.

1. Do hunting people not understand that they need social licence in order to carry on hunting, and why aren't they acting on that?

2. Do people not reallse that we all need social licence to continue to carry out legal activities in public, so they should cut equestrians/hunting folk some slack.

3. Why don't more people who have horses understand that social licence is required for them to be able to continue to do so in future,  and why aren't they acting on that?

4. Why is there so much social licence towards the use/abuse of horses in equestrianism?

5. None of the above.


If 1 and/or 3, what would you like to see change?
.
		
Click to expand...

Wow.  It was a rhetorical question, we could spend hours on this topic, and in essence the whole thread is about it.  Cutting some slack is NOT what I mean though, for sure.  Social licence is granted by the population at large, it's like trying to hold back the tides.

My point was simply that they spent two whole hours on LBC on this topic, that it's in the news, it was nothing about what was said on these programmes.  I shall make sure I type at more length next time.  There is no context, the context is this thread - my comment on social licence was a general one and not sure what else I can say to clarify it.  

Broadcasts not podcasts, radio shows.

https://www.globalplayer.com/catchup/lbc/uk/


----------



## sakura (27 December 2022)

paddy555 said:



			alternatively given their likelihood of creating even more chaos.  Who was the PM who pushed through the original hunting ban so efficiently. TB and labour come to mind. As it does seem likely labour will win the next GE I can see this promises to be a very long and timeless thread. 

Click to expand...

The thread will continue as long as hunts continue to actively hunt and kill foxes with hounds 🤷🏻‍♀️


----------



## Millionwords (27 December 2022)

sbloom said:



			Wow.  It was a rhetorical question, we could spend hours on this topic, and in essence the whole thread is about it.  Cutting some slack is NOT what I mean though, for sure.  Social licence is granted by the population at large, it's like trying to hold back the tides.

My point was simply that they spent two whole hours on LBC on this topic, that it's in the news, it was nothing about what was said on these programmes.  I shall make sure I type at more length next time.  There is no context, the context is this thread - my comment on social licence was a general one and not sure what else I can say to clarify it. 

Broadcasts not podcasts, radio shows.

https://www.globalplayer.com/catchup/lbc/uk/

Click to expand...

Oh right, rhetorical questions about attitudes expressed on a broadcast only really work if the folk posed the question have also heard said broadcast.

I might have a listen later.


----------



## GoldenWillow (27 December 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Gave a wry smile at this thread being dismissed as 'boring and monotonous' by an experienced hunting person, seeing as it details how hunting is imploding and destroying itself but with numerous suggestions from many, including the OP (me), as to how it could still try and save itself.

Dismiss it at your peril - ignoring the self inflicted own goals is just hastening the end.
		
Click to expand...

Catching up with a friend today I found out that our hunt has now lost four more farms permission to use their land as they went through stock gathered near the farms. They sent the stock through fences and some into a river. I believe but am not 100% sure the stock had been gathered there since at least the previous day so they either laid a trail right through stock or were not trail hunting. 

For all hunts that are trail hunting hunts like ours are doing nothing to help the survival of hunting.


----------



## ycbm (27 December 2022)

sbloom said:



			my comment on social licence was a general one and not sure what else I can say to clarify it.
		
Click to expand...

The clarification I was looking for was to understand whether you believe that the hunts need to take more notice of the fact that they require social licence in order to carry on  (agreed),  or that there should be more social licence from people towards legal trail hunting (very selectively agreed),  or both.
.


----------



## Nasicus (27 December 2022)

Millionwords said:



			One of the terrier men drove at high speed into a sab with his quad bike. Knocking them into the air.

https://fb.watch/hFIuU5GjLF/

Click to expand...

All discussion about words aside, this seems to have gone unnoticed in this thread.
The Hunt running people over AGAIN?


----------



## sbloom (28 December 2022)

Millionwords said:



			Oh right, rhetorical questions about attitudes expressed on a broadcast only really work if the folk posed the question have also heard said broadcast.

I might have a listen later.
		
Click to expand...

My two statements were separate and I have said so many times.  One was not about the other.


----------



## sbloom (28 December 2022)

As a marker of how salient this discussion is, that we're not the only people talking about it, an indication that hunting really is in trouble, especially considering all the other "more important" issues our country faces, LBC dedicated two.seoarate hours, at least, to the topic the other day.

This whole thread, everything we are discussing, and the rest of equestrianism and its issues with how we treat horses and other animals, makes me wonder why equestrians can't understand that if they don't do better they may face a time when we can no longer ride horses?  

Rhetorical question, more an expression of surprise, as it typically can be, than a genuine attempt to start a discussion on this specific point.


----------



## Millionwords (28 December 2022)

Nasicus said:



			All discussion about words aside, this seems to have gone unnoticed in this thread.
The Hunt running people over AGAIN?
		
Click to expand...

And SIXTEEN hunt supporters reacted with a laughing emoji to the original....

Comments such as:

May of been on land were they was not allowed  🚫 😏

just thugs that’s all they are, bullies really they also intimidate little kids, thugs mate, 🦊🦊 tally ho , we’re legal the sabs ain’t

 if you were a farmer would you like a fox killing your livestock etc.  No you wouldn't. So why shouldn't people kill foxes etc. If your deem the harmless animals.


----------



## sakura (28 December 2022)

sbloom said:



			As a marker of how salient this discussion is, that we're not the only people talking about it, an indication that hunting really is in trouble, especially considering all the other "more important" issues our country faces, LBC dedicated two.seoarate hours, at least, to the topic the other day.

This whole thread, everything we are discussing, and the rest of equestrianism and its issues with how we treat horses and other animals, makes me wonder why equestrians can't understand that if they don't do better they may face a time when we can no longer ride horses? 

Rhetorical question, more an expression of surprise, as it typically can be, than a genuine attempt to start a discussion on this specific point.
		
Click to expand...

Perfectly put! 

Do better, or lose it all.


----------



## Koweyka (28 December 2022)

Millionwords said:



			And SIXTEEN hunt supporters reacted with a laughing emoji to the original....

Comments such as:

May of been on land were they was not allowed  🚫 😏

just thugs that’s all they are, bullies really they also intimidate little kids, thugs mate, 🦊🦊 tally ho , we’re legal the sabs ain’t

if you were a farmer would you like a fox killing your livestock etc.  No you wouldn't. So why shouldn't people kill foxes etc. If your deem the harmless animals.
		
Click to expand...

Also the monitors that go to the South Dorset hunt, where just last week a 77 yr old monitor was beaten around the head with an iron bar by two hunt thugs, also had 17 tyres slashed on Xmas Day to stop them going to the hunt.

Also no mention of the member of the public taken to hospital after she was trying to keep the hounds killing her cat.

The two members of the public who were held up in traffic waiting for the hunt to leave, obviously looked a certain “way” and had their tyres slashed.

A member of the public had their windscreen smashed by the huntsman.

The sab run over by the quad is sickening.

These are just off the top of my head from the last few days, yet the Countryside Alliance was making a huge effort, sending memo’s about catching Sabs up to no good, they need to look at themselves.


----------



## scats (28 December 2022)

I can’t help but feel now, that due to the behaviour from both sides of the fence, any form of hunting should be banned.  Too many hunts have proved that they can’t hunt within the legal boundaries and too many sabs think they can take the law into their own hands.  We haven’t got the police resources to deal with this ridiculousness.  Shut the lot of them up and ban it.


----------



## YorksG (28 December 2022)

scats said:



			I can’t help but feel now, that due to the behaviour from both sides of the fence, any form of hunting should be banned.  Too many hunts have proved that they can’t hunt within the legal boundaries and too many sabs think they can take the law into their own hands.  We haven’t got the police resources to deal with this ridiculousness.  Shut the lot of them up and ban it.
		
Click to expand...

Interesting view point that because sabs think they can take the law into their own hands, that hunting should end. That rather suggests that any activity which "attracts" violent opposition, should be made illegal. To my mind that will encourage violence in those opposed to all sorts of legal activities.


----------



## scats (28 December 2022)

FestiveG said:



			Interesting view point that because sabs think they can take the law into their own hands, that hunting should end. That rather suggests that any activity which "attracts" violent opposition, should be made illegal. To my mind that will encourage violence in those opposed to all sorts of legal activities.
		
Click to expand...

Fair point, I didn’t see it like that. But I simply find the whole thing ridiculous.  By allowing ‘legal’ hunting, it’s virtually impossible to police when it tips over into illegal hunting.  So the sabs take it into their own hands.  People are getting injured, police resources and time are being taken up.  The only way I can see the situation being stopped is to ban all hunting.
I’m not an anti-hunt, for what it’s worth, I actually used to support the Wynnstay hunt.

Saying that, it’s not just the sabs behaviour is it?  It’s also the behaviour of the hunts.


----------



## Lulwind (28 December 2022)

Koweyka said:



			Also the monitors that go to the South Dorset hunt, where just last week a 77 yr old monitor was beaten around the head with an iron bar by two hunt thugs, also had 17 tyres slashed on Xmas Day to stop them going to the hunt.

Also no mention of the member of the public taken to hospital after she was trying to keep the hounds killing her cat.

The two members of the public who were held up in traffic waiting for the hunt to leave, obviously looked a certain “way” and had their tyres slashed.

A member of the public had their windscreen smashed by the huntsman.

The sab run over by the quad is sickening.

These are just off the top of my head from the last few days, yet the Countryside Alliance was making a huge effort, sending memo’s about catching Sabs up to no good, they need to look at themselves.
		
Click to expand...

Are your initials HN?   BTW it was 19 tyres.  You seem to have forgotten about a certain court case involving a sab?


----------



## Thundering (28 December 2022)

FestiveG said:



			Interesting view point that because sabs think they can take the law into their own hands, that hunting should end. That rather suggests that any activity which "attracts" violent opposition, should be made illegal. To my mind that will encourage violence in those opposed to all sorts of legal activities.
		
Click to expand...

But hunting the way its happening in a lot of cases is not legal.   In far far to many cases its not trail hunting at all and until people are honest about that then all hunting is at risk.   Hunting people need to be honest.


----------



## YorksG (28 December 2022)

May i remind people that sabs existed and behaved violently, while all hunting was still legal?


----------



## Amymay (28 December 2022)

FestiveG said:



			May i remind people that sabs existed and behaved violently, while all hunting was still legal?
		
Click to expand...

Obviously 🤷🏻‍♀️


----------



## scats (28 December 2022)

FestiveG said:



			May i remind people that sabs existed and behaved violently, while all hunting was still legal?
		
Click to expand...

Totally.  But the situation has changed now and not all forms of hunting are legal.  We can only act on the situation we are in now, not keep harking back to the past.  This is where we are and this is what is happening.


----------



## paddy555 (28 December 2022)

FestiveG said:



			May i remind people that sabs existed and behaved violently, while all hunting was still legal?
		
Click to expand...

and the hunt at that time behaved extremely violently towards the sabs. I watched 2 mounted riders seriously whip a sab to the ground and then some when they thought they were out of sight. 
I picked another sab up off the road covered in blood, I didn't support the sabs and certainly not the hunt but I could hardly leave someone lying on the ground covered in blood as the hunt were doing.

.


----------



## sakura (28 December 2022)

FestiveG said:



			May i remind people that sabs existed and behaved violently, while all hunting was still legal?
		
Click to expand...

Sure, but it doesn’t change the also despicable behaviour of hunts and the fact that all hunting will likely be banned before too long. I don’t think anyone here are praising sabs.


----------



## rextherobber (28 December 2022)

FestiveG said:



			May i remind people that sabs existed and behaved violently, while all hunting was still legal?
		
Click to expand...

I live and work rurally, the only intimidating, aggressive and obstructive behaviour I have ever encountered has been from the Hunt and it's supporters, both mounted and car followers. The only damage to my property has been from hounds destroying fencing, the only distress to my livestock has been caused by hounds being where they have no right to be, with the huntsman 30 minutes behind them. I don't think I have ever seen any saboteurs, although cannot say for sure as I am often not the only vehicle held up by idiotic parking etc.


----------



## rabatsa (28 December 2022)

Why do both hunt supporters and sabs remind me of football fans?


----------



## L&M (28 December 2022)

scats said:



			I can’t help but feel now, that due to the behaviour from both sides of the fence, any form of hunting should be banned.  Too many hunts have proved that they can’t hunt within the legal boundaries and too many sabs think they can take the law into their own hands.  We haven’t got the police resources to deal with this ridiculousness.  Shut the lot of them up and ban it.
		
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more - and from a once avid hunter who is now totally fed up and disillusioned by the whole situation.

You can't defend the indefensible, and that applies to both hunting folk and the antis.


----------



## Tiddlypom (28 December 2022)

scats said:



			Fair point, I didn’t see it like that. But I simply find the whole thing ridiculous.  By allowing ‘legal’ hunting, it’s virtually impossible to police when it tips over into illegal hunting.  So the sabs take it into their own hands.  People are getting injured, police resources and time are being taken up.  The only way I can see the situation being stopped is to ban all hunting.
I’m not an anti-hunt, for what it’s worth, I actually used to support the Wynnstay hunt.

Saying that, it’s not just the sabs behaviour is it?  It’s also the behaviour of the hunts.
		
Click to expand...

Well put.

The record here when the local pack was still trying to front it out and carry on fox hunting despite the antis being right on them was 8 or 9 police cars plus a police helicopter all out at once tied up policing the hunt/anti interface. Absolute madness given how limited police resources are. That was a small number of years ago.


----------



## Millionwords (28 December 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			Well put.

The record here when the local pack was still trying to front it out and carry on fox hunting despite the antis being right on them was 8 or 9 police cars plus a police helicopter all out at once tied up policing the hunt/anti interface. Absolute madness given how limited police resources are. That was a small number of years ago.
		
Click to expand...

Ive heard tale of that, was it the M&SS?


----------



## Tiddlypom (28 December 2022)

Millionwords said:



			Ive heard tale of that, was it the M&SS?
		
Click to expand...

No, another pack.


----------



## Millionwords (28 December 2022)

Tiddlypom said:



			No, another pack.
		
Click to expand...

Well thats two with a similar amount of police resources wasted then!😑


----------



## Tiddlypom (28 December 2022)

Millionwords said:



			Well thats two with a similar amount of police resources wasted then!😑
		
Click to expand...

Yes 😬.

I saw the helicopter circling and some of the police vehicles on the day. IIRC there was a false allegation of a firearm being seen.


----------



## millikins (28 December 2022)

FestiveG said:



			May i remind people that sabs existed and behaved violently, while all hunting was still legal?
		
Click to expand...

I was evacuated from my home in the mid 80's because sabs had put a bomb, yes a real one, under what they thought was the hunt supporting farrier's car. It wasn't, it was his neighbour who unknowingly picked up the sports bag and moved it aside, thank goodness it didn't go off but we had the full Army bomb disposal team out.


----------



## Millionwords (29 December 2022)

Millionwords said:



			It always amazes me how the pro hunt (which i too was) will defend tooth and nail reasons for hunting, words "taken out of context", long winded explanations of surrounding issues, BUT
With the several unarguable incidents like this one, prosecutions, bullying footage, pet killing footage, assault footage...go very quiet.

They should be banging down the doors of their governing bodies, demanding hunts be suspended, rallying for change, forcing these "bad apples" (which there seem to be a Cartload of) out to stop the fall of the sport they support.

Yet they are quiet...hand wringing, hoping it will blow over, be forgotten, or blaming sabs and saying "yes, but...." is that the actions of those who continually claim to want change?


Speaks volumes.

Eta; not just here, but also in general.
		
Click to expand...

I do find it intensely irritating there has been little more than the odd brief peep from the usual pro hunt posters over any of the earlier or more recent incidents for weeks.
Although its hard to defend the indefensible.


----------



## ycbm (29 December 2022)

Millionwords said:



			I do find it intensely irritating there has been little more than the odd brief peep from the usual pro hunt posters over any of the earlier or more recent incidents for weeks.
Although its hard to defend the indefensible.
		
Click to expand...

I think this is a bit silly MW, pointlessly provocational and devalues the discussion.  

The pro legal hunting people have stated over and over that this behaviour is wrong.  There is no need for them to keep repeating it for every incident you list. 
.


----------



## ycbm (29 December 2022)

millikins said:



			I was evacuated from my home in the mid 80's because sabs had put a bomb, yes a real one, under what they thought was the hunt supporting farrier's car. It wasn't, it was his neighbour who unknowingly picked up the sports bag and moved it aside, thank goodness it didn't go off but we had the full Army bomb disposal team out.
		
Click to expand...


This incident is only 30 years old, not 40 years ago,  and the bomb went off in this case. 

*HSA news release 2nd October 1994*
On Sunday the 2nd of October 1994 an explosive device was placed on or underneath the car of a well known member of the Three Shires Hunt Saboteurs who lives in Milton Keynes. The device exploded at around 09:00, destroying the underside of the vehicle. The timing and nature of the device was such that no consideration was shown to members of the public in the immediate area which on a Sunday morning would have included children. 
.


----------



## Millionwords (29 December 2022)

ycbm said:



			I think this is a bit silly MW, pointlessly provocational and devalues the discussion.

The pro legal hunting people have stated over and over that this behaviour is wrong.  There is no need for them to keep repeating it for every incident you list.
.
		
Click to expand...

That may be...it is not just a statement about people on this forum however; is there nothing that hunts or individuals are doing? Writing to the governing bodies demanding action as a hunt, or as a hunt member, organising other hunts into action,cracking down on their followers behaviour, ousting the perpetrators, something so they are not complicit in their silence?


----------



## ycbm (29 December 2022)

Millionwords said:



			That may be...it is not just a statement about people on this forum however; is there nothing that hunts or individuals are doing? Writing to the governing bodies demanding action as a hunt, or as a hunt member, organising other hunts into action,cracking down on their followers behaviour, ousting the perpetrators, something so they are not complicit in their silence?
		
Click to expand...

You devalue the discussion by turning the forum into your personal campaign tool. We've been through all these arguments. 
.


----------



## HashRouge (29 December 2022)

Millionwords said:



			That may be...it is not just a statement about people on this forum however; is there nothing that hunts or individuals are doing? Writing to the governing bodies demanding action as a hunt, or as a hunt member, organising other hunts into action,cracking down on their followers behaviour, ousting the perpetrators, something so they are not complicit in their silence?
		
Click to expand...

But you specifically referred to the "usual pro hunt posters". They've all said they don't support illegal actions by hunts or by sabs - they aren't trying to defend the indefensible.


----------



## Miss_Millie (29 December 2022)

sbloom said:



			As a marker of how salient this discussion is, that we're not the only people talking about it, an indication that hunting really is in trouble, especially considering all the other "more important" issues our country faces, LBC dedicated two.seoarate hours, at least, to the topic the other day.

*This whole thread, everything we are discussing, and the rest of equestrianism and its issues with how we treat horses and other animals, makes me wonder why equestrians can't understand that if they don't do better they may face a time when we can no longer ride horses? *

Rhetorical question, more an expression of surprise, as it typically can be, than a genuine attempt to start a discussion on this specific point.
		
Click to expand...

This is one of the best comments on the entire thread.

I do think that a lot of horse people really take their right to own and ride horses for granted. I'm left with a bad taste in my mouth when I see people describe their horses on adverts with insults and swear words 'Little f***er', 'lazy little s**t' etc. I think there is a strong sense of entitlement with a lot of equestrians that their horse should do everything asked of it, and that any unwanted behaviours make that horse lazy, sour, moody. The majority of equestrians whip/hit their horses to punish/correct unwanted behaviours, which is so normalised, but ALL non-horsey people I know are mortified by this. 

Most non-horsey people I know have a very bad impression of equestrians from the few things they have seen in real life and on TV, at the Olympics etc. And no, this isn't because they are ignorant...it's because they haven't been brainwashed from a young age to think that violence against horses is normal, whether that is hitting them or strapping their mouths shut with tack to the point that they can hardly breathe.

I predict that hunting will be banned when Labour inevitably come into power. Public opinion of hunting is at an all time low. Regular people are being affected, whether by roads being blocked by rioting hounds, or their pets being attacked when they enter their private property. Footage of illegal fox hunting is all over social media every year, for the whole world to see. The entitled attitude of pro-hunters 'because tradition' and 'you townies go back to the city where you belong' only strengthens the argument that those who hunt are entitled and arrogant.

As equestrians, we all need to do better. We must be open minded and question social norms. Just because something has 'always been done that way', doesn't mean it's the best way or the right way.

I will breathe a sigh of relief when hunting is finally laid to rest.


----------



## Sandstone1 (29 December 2022)

Miss_Millie said:



			This is one of the best comments on the entire thread.

I do think that a lot of horse people really take their right to own and ride horses for granted. I'm left with a bad taste in my mouth when I see people describe their horses on adverts with insults and swear words 'Little f***er', 'lazy little s**t' etc. I think there is a strong sense of entitlement with a lot of equestrians that their horse should do everything asked of it, and that any unwanted behaviours make that horse lazy, sour, moody. The majority of equestrians whip/hit their horses to punish/correct unwanted behaviours, which is so normalised, but ALL non-horsey people I know are mortified by this.

Most non-horsey people I know have a very bad impression of equestrians from the few things they have seen in real life and on TV, at the Olympics etc. And no, this isn't because they are ignorant...it's because they haven't been brainwashed from a young age to think that violence against horses is normal, whether that is hitting them or strapping their mouths shut with tack to the point that they can hardly breathe.

I predict that hunting will be banned when Labour inevitably come into power. Public opinion of hunting is at an all time low. Regular people are being affected, whether by roads being blocked by rioting hounds, or their pets being attacked when they enter their private property. Footage of illegal fox hunting is all over social media every year, for the whole world to see. The entitled attitude of pro-hunters 'because tradition' and 'you townies go back to the city where you belong' only strengthens the argument that those who hunt are entitled and arrogant.

As equestrians, we all need to do better. We must be open minded and question social norms. Just because something has 'always been done that way', doesn't mean it's the best way or the right way.

I will breathe a sigh of relief when hunting is finally laid to rest.
		
Click to expand...

I said I would not post on this thread again as its all been said really, just goes round in circles.  However, I just had to say I agree 100% with this.   If people on a forum such as this feel this way, how do you think other people feel who are not connected to horses or the countryside?    As a horse owner and someone born and bred in the countryside I am embarrassed by the way some hunts and supporters behave.    Lets just be honest about trail hunting being a smokescreen and not a very good one at that.


----------



## sakura (29 December 2022)

Miss_Millie said:



			This is one of the best comments on the entire thread.

I do think that a lot of horse people really take their right to own and ride horses for granted. I'm left with a bad taste in my mouth when I see people describe their horses on adverts with insults and swear words 'Little f***er', 'lazy little s**t' etc. I think there is a strong sense of entitlement with a lot of equestrians that their horse should do everything asked of it, and that any unwanted behaviours make that horse lazy, sour, moody. The majority of equestrians whip/hit their horses to punish/correct unwanted behaviours, which is so normalised, but ALL non-horsey people I know are mortified by this.

Most non-horsey people I know have a very bad impression of equestrians from the few things they have seen in real life and on TV, at the Olympics etc. And no, this isn't because they are ignorant...it's because they haven't been brainwashed from a young age to think that violence against horses is normal, whether that is hitting them or strapping their mouths shut with tack to the point that they can hardly breathe.

I predict that hunting will be banned when Labour inevitably come into power. Public opinion of hunting is at an all time low. Regular people are being affected, whether by roads being blocked by rioting hounds, or their pets being attacked when they enter their private property. Footage of illegal fox hunting is all over social media every year, for the whole world to see. The entitled attitude of pro-hunters 'because tradition' and 'you townies go back to the city where you belong' only strengthens the argument that those who hunt are entitled and arrogant.

As equestrians, we all need to do better. We must be open minded and question social norms. Just because something has 'always been done that way', doesn't mean it's the best way or the right way.

I will breathe a sigh of relief when hunting is finally laid to rest.
		
Click to expand...

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

I actually couldn’t watch all of the London international horse show this year cos I was so uncomfortable with how normalised pulling and kicking and hitting horses in the name of sport is.


----------



## NinjaPony (29 December 2022)

As I keep thinking, if hunts are losing the support of people on a forum quite literally called Horse and Hound, just imagine what the rest of the country must think. I fear that hunts who have refused to follow the law or even just basic courtesy have dug the graves of those who do.


----------



## Landcruiser (29 December 2022)

I'm already getting stressed about the fact that the VWH are meeting within a mile of my property on 1st Feb. Their meet in November caused utter chaos locally, including when hounds crossed my land close to my yard, then passed the back of my stables in full cry - while my injured, rehabbing 3 yr old climbed the walls and went hysterical inside. Just why are these people allowed to tear around causing mayhem, damaging property, and causing stress and injury to humans,  stock and wildlife? I feel that the non horsey public tar us all with the same brush (as has been discussed on on this thread). The antagonism from motorists that I/many of us experience is, I am sure, exacerbated by the idea that we are all rich entitled tw@ts toffs running around wherever we want to instead of staying in our own box.


----------



## Sandstone1 (29 December 2022)

Landcruiser said:



			I'm already getting stressed about the fact that the VWH are meeting within a mile of my property on 1st Feb. Their meet in November caused utter chaos locally, including when hounds crossed my land close to my yard, then passed the back of my stables in full cry - while my injured, rehabbing 3 yr old climbed the walls and went hysterical inside. Just why are these people allowed to tear around causing mayhem, damaging property, and causing stress and injury to humans,  stock and wildlife? I feel that the non horsey public tar us all with the same brush (as has been discussed on on this thread). The antagonism from motorists that I/many of us experience is, I am sure, exacerbated by the idea that we are all rich entitled tw@ts toffs running around wherever we want to instead of staying in our own box.
		
Click to expand...

Can you email the hunt sec so you have a record of it and insist they do not cross your land?   It probably will not make any difference but you will at least have a record of your request.    Then should you have any problems you can take it further.


----------



## Chianti (29 December 2022)

sakura said:



			👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

I actually couldn’t watch all of the London international horse show this year cos I was so uncomfortable with how normalised pulling and kicking and hitting horses in the name of sport is.
		
Click to expand...

I put it on a couple of times but couldn't watch. That was both the dressage and the jumping.


----------



## Landcruiser (29 December 2022)

Sandstone1 said:



			Can you email the hunt sec so you have a record of it and insist they do not cross your land?   It probably will not make any difference but you will at least have a record of your request.    Then should you have any problems you can take it further.
		
Click to expand...

Already done!


----------



## paddy555 (29 December 2022)

Landcruiser said:



			I'm already getting stressed about the fact that the VWH are meeting within a mile of my property on 1st Feb. Their meet in November caused utter chaos locally, including when hounds crossed my land close to my yard, then passed the back of my stables in full cry - while my injured, rehabbing 3 yr old climbed the walls and went hysterical inside. Just why are these people allowed to tear around causing mayhem, damaging property, and causing stress and injury to humans,  stock and wildlife? I feel that the non horsey public tar us all with the same brush (as has been discussed on on this thread). The antagonism from motorists that I/many of us experience is, I am sure, exacerbated by the idea that we are all rich entitled tw@ts toffs running around wherever we want to instead of staying in our own box.
		
Click to expand...

ring the master 3 or 4 days beforehand, explain what happened last time and what is wrong with your horse. Ask if he knows which is your land. When we had hounds come through our place and destroy the fence and very nearly my GSD ( or at least the neighbours sheep if he had followed the hounds) the master who I called out didn't even know who owned what and we had been here 40 years. 

Ask him questions so from his replies you can be sure he knows which is your land and stables. 

Ask which way they are going and approx what time they will go near your place. Tell him what you want ie no hounds , walking past you not cantering or whatever it is. 
He may be an arrogant barsteward but OTOH he may be helpful if you have a chat with him. That is the approach I have now with our relatively new  master. My horse needed an op at home and a quiet rehap. I rang to explain  so I could book the op in around the hunt meets. He was a horseman, understood and was helpful and pleasant. 

I find it works better if you can get a dialogue going with them. It doesn't make me any less anti but it does make things easier for my horses. Of course you may just find he is an arrogant git you have to tell in no uncertain terms but trying to get co operation is sometimes easier.


----------



## dotty1 (29 December 2022)

Landcruiser said:



			I'm already getting stressed about the fact that the VWH are meeting within a mile of my property on 1st Feb. Their meet in November caused utter chaos locally, including when hounds crossed my land close to my yard, then passed the back of my stables in full cry - while my injured, rehabbing 3 yr old climbed the walls and went hysterical inside. Just why are these people allowed to tear around causing mayhem, damaging property, and causing stress and injury to humans,  stock and wildlife? I feel that the non horsey public tar us all with the same brush (as has been discussed on on this thread). The antagonism from motorists that I/many of us experience is, I am sure, exacerbated by the idea that we are all rich entitled tw@ts toffs running around wherever we want to instead of staying in our own box.
		
Click to expand...

The local hunt come to the local village approx every 3 weeks as most of the village think they’re great …..the whole yard has to keep horses in (16-20)….we are all just expected to pay for the extra hay, and mashed up bedding and extra journeys just so they can play. No one on the yard hunts. 
My home bred is unrideable as when rehabbing from annular ligament op they let themselves into her field and galloped round it attempting to jump the electric fences and breaking them. She was stabled but went ballistic. 
The roads are carnage, bridleways trashed, like you I don’t understand how they are allowed to do it, no other group of people would get away with holding up traffic on main roads and having dogs rampaging through private gardens and across roads.
When they are around I have to stay away as if I see them the red mist rises and my blood boils, I hate them so much
I hope for the day that is banned properly as the blatant disregard of the law makes me even madder, the fact that even if asked if coming our way they say that they don’t know proves it.  Sadly I think only a tragic accident will make the police/government take notice of what a dangerous and outdated ‘sport’ it is.


----------



## sbloom (30 December 2022)

sakura said:



			👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

I actually couldn’t watch all of the London international horse show this year cos I was so uncomfortable with how normalised pulling and kicking and hitting horses in the name of sport is.
		
Click to expand...




Chianti said:



			I put it on a couple of times but couldn't watch. That was both the dressage and the jumping.
		
Click to expand...

The last dressage I watched properly was 2004 Olympics but now I seldom watch any equestrian sport for these reasons.  I just don't think it's something to aspire to, though completely understand, and won't ever berate (or judge I hope!) anyone for being seriously competition minded.  I just try and encourage a different approach where possible to that where the horse, however well treated, is still a tool to do a job.


----------



## Fern007 (30 December 2022)

Just for my knowledge,  why would a trail hunt using blood hounds start breeding fox hounds?


----------



## Landcruiser (30 December 2022)

paddy555 said:



			ring the master 3 or 4 days beforehand, explain what happened last time and what is wrong with your horse. Ask if he knows which is your land. When we had hounds come through our place and destroy the fence and very nearly my GSD ( or at least the neighbours sheep if he had followed the hounds) the master who I called out didn't even know who owned what and we had been here 40 years.

Ask him questions so from his replies you can be sure he knows which is your land and stables.

Ask which way they are going and approx what time they will go near your place. Tell him what you want ie no hounds , walking past you not cantering or whatever it is.
He may be an arrogant barsteward but OTOH he may be helpful if you have a chat with him. That is the approach I have now with our relatively new  master. My horse needed an op at home and a quiet rehap. I rang to explain  so I could book the op in around the hunt meets. He was a horseman, understood and was helpful and pleasant.

I find it works better if you can get a dialogue going with them. It doesn't make me any less anti but it does make things easier for my horses. Of course you may just find he is an arrogant git you have to tell in no uncertain terms but trying to get co operation is sometimes easier.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you for your reply. I had quite the dialogue going after the November incident, and have made it very clear that they are not to enter my land ever again(it's very clear where my boundaries are). Dialogue was re-opened prior to the next local meet in December (thankfully cancelled due to the freeze although my horses spent a day banged up inside as I didn't realise until late in the day that they'd cancelled). I will most certainly be getting it on record prior to Feb, although horses will have a precautionary pyjama day just in case. It's maddening.


----------



## TGM (30 December 2022)

Fern007 said:



			Just for my knowledge,  why would a trail hunt using blood hounds start breeding fox hounds?
		
Click to expand...

That sounds odd as 'trail hunting' is something carried out by foxhound packs.   I have heard of the opposite, where 'trail hunting' packs have switched from foxhounds to bloodhounds.

Have you got more information on this?

Just for extra clarity, as it does seem to get lost in these debates, some distinction between the three main types of hunting with hounds/horses in the UK at present:

'Trail hunting' undertaken by foxhound packs which switched to this practice after the Hunting Act came in. Carried out under the auspices of the Master of Foxhounds Association who were implicated in the 'smokescreen' seminars on trail hunting.

'Hunting the clean boot' or 'bloodhounding' using a pack of bloodhounds who chase the natural scent of human runners who set off about 20 minutes before the hounds.  Most packs were formed and operating long before the Hunting Act.  Comes under the auspices of the Masters of Draghounds and Bloodhounds Association.

'Drag hunting' who follow a 'dragged' artificial scent.  Most drag packs were in existence before the Hunting Act.   Comes under the auspices of the Masters of Draghounds and Bloodhounds Association.


----------



## ycbm (30 December 2022)

Trail hunts do not use bloodhounds. Bloodhounds hunt "the clean boot", a human runner. 

Drag packs and trail packs are all foxhounds. Drags hunt an artificial scent. Trail packs use fox scent and then wonder why sabs don't trust them not to be hunting fox. 
.


----------



## Fern007 (30 December 2022)

TGM said:



			That sounds odd as 'trail hunting' is something carried out by foxhound packs.   I have heard of the opposite, where 'trail hunting' packs have switched from foxhounds to bloodhounds.

Have you got more information on this?

Just for extra clarity, as it does seem to get lost in these debates, some distinction between the three main types of hunting with hounds/horses in the UK at present:

'Trail hunting' undertaken by foxhound packs which switched to this practice after the Hunting Act came in. Carried out under the auspices of the Master of Foxhounds Association who were implicated in the 'smokescreen' seminars on trail hunting.

'Hunting the clean boot' or 'bloodhounding' using a pack of bloodhounds who chase the natural scent of human runners who set off about 20 minutes before the hounds.  Most packs were formed and operating long before the Hunting Act.  Comes under the auspices of the Masters of Draghounds and Bloodhounds Association.

'Drag hunting' who follow a 'dragged' artificial scent.  Most drag packs were in existence before the Hunting Act.   Comes under the auspices of the Masters of Draghounds and Bloodhounds Association.[/QUOTE

So sorry, its bloodhounding.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## lizziebell (30 December 2022)

paddy555 said:



			ring the master 3 or 4 days beforehand, explain what happened last time and what is wrong with your horse. Ask if he knows which is your land. When we had hounds come through our place and destroy the fence and very nearly my GSD ( or at least the neighbours sheep if he had followed the hounds) the master who I called out didn't even know who owned what and we had been here 40 years.

Ask him questions so from his replies you can be sure he knows which is your land and stables.

Ask which way they are going and approx what time they will go near your place. Tell him what you want ie no hounds , walking past you not cantering or whatever it is.
He may be an arrogant barsteward but OTOH he may be helpful if you have a chat with him. That is the approach I have now with our relatively new  master. My horse needed an op at home and a quiet rehap. I rang to explain  so I could book the op in around the hunt meets. He was a horseman, understood and was helpful and pleasant.

I find it works better if you can get a dialogue going with them. It doesn't make me any less anti but it does make things easier for my horses. Of course you may just find he is an arrogant git you have to tell in no uncertain terms but trying to get co operation is sometimes easier.
		
Click to expand...

Sounds like you have a good balance with your local hunt, unfortunately I am in the same area for VWH and they are not very helpful at all. They send the hunt card highlighting when they are in the vicinity, but every time I ask which direction they plan on going, whose land they plan to cross, every time the response I get is “they aren’t sure yet”, and they “might” run close to my land …. This is the same response whether I ask a week before, a day before, or the morning of the hunt.


----------



## paddy555 (30 December 2022)

lizziebell said:



			Sounds like you have a good balance with your local hunt, unfortunately I am in the same area for VWH and they are not very helpful at all. They send the hunt card highlighting when they are in the vicinity, but every time I ask which direction they plan on going, whose land they plan to cross, every time the response I get is *“they aren’t sure yet”, and they “might” run close to my land …. This is the same response whether I ask a week before, a day before, or the morning of the hunt.*

Click to expand...

seems they are all different. I don't get a hunt card so we are left wondering some of the time. 

re your final sentence they possibly haven't consulted the fox yet so the trail is unclear.


----------



## TGM (31 December 2022)

Fern007 said:



			So sorry, its bloodhounding.
		
Click to expand...

Which pack?


----------



## ycbm (31 December 2022)

lizziebell said:



			Sounds like you have a good balance with your local hunt, unfortunately I am in the same area for VWH and they are not very helpful at all. They send the hunt card highlighting when they are in the vicinity, but every time I ask which direction they plan on going, whose land they plan to cross, every time the response I get is “they aren’t sure yet”, and they “might” run close to my land …. This is the same response whether I ask a week before, a day before, or the morning of the hunt.
		
Click to expand...

There is no other reasonable explanation for that than that they are hunting fox. 
.


----------



## lizziebell (31 December 2022)

ycbm said:



			There is no other reasonable explanation for that than that they are hunting fox.
.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly! I also don’t understand why they still have terrier men? I’ve been told it’s so they can open gates for non-jumping riders, but I’m not sure how the box full of terriers they have with them, assists in opening gates 🤷🏻‍♀️


----------



## Fern007 (31 December 2022)

TGM said:



			Which pack?
		
Click to expand...

Have PM'd you


----------



## teapot (31 December 2022)

An acquaintance of mine is very pro the local hunt, if they're not out mounted, they're on foot providing drinks and snacks, raising funds etc. Proper old school type that I'm sure we all know someone like. They posted a video on fb of the Boxing Day meet, saying how the scenes were wonderful, must continue, more people need to embrace it etc.

The first thing that came to my mind was the social licence aspect and actually how it is beginning to look archaic, chaps in jackets with coloured collars and top hats, young kids being dragged with parent on foot etc. What I also noticed, and checked with the prof photos is how smaller the fields have been this season so far. Is that the cost of the cap biting, or are those who once hunted once/twice a week beginning to question their own role in social licence? As a friend said, social licence also involves whether you can drop into conversation with your work colleagues that you spent the weekend hunting (regardless of type). 

Those who hunt do need to start realising the role that they play within the wider context of equestrianism as we're all in it together - using an animal for sport and enjoyment. Also as others have said, if hunts are acting legally why the continued presence of terrier men and terriers too?


----------



## suestowford (31 December 2022)

Perhaps someone who knows more could answer that about the terriers? I'm sorry if it's been answered before but this thread moves on a lot and I may have missed it.
Why are they there for a trail hunt?
It can't be for a jolly, I can't think that sitting on a quad next to a box load of excited yapping terriers is a fun way to spend a day!


----------



## meleeka (31 December 2022)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1609133962474946560


----------



## Tiddlypom (1 January 2023)

The successful prosecution of the former huntsman for the Quorn after the police confiscated his phone and uncovered all the incriminating Whatsapp messages on it has not gone unnoticed. 

Cheshire Rural crime team are taking a lot of interest in the blocked badger setts that are frequently found on the hunting days of a certain pack which sometimes meets on their patch.

No legally operating trail hunt should be blocking badger setts. The net is closing.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?st...Y3TuQewZbKk1Lg6VhqnfBAWKzl&id=100064929210943


----------



## Clodagh (1 January 2023)

suestowford said:



			Perhaps someone who knows more could answer that about the terriers? I'm sorry if it's been answered before but this thread moves on a lot and I may have missed it.
Why are they there for a trail hunt?
It can't be for a jolly, I can't think that sitting on a quad next to a box load of excited yapping terriers is a fun way to spend a day!
		
Click to expand...

It is still legal to use terriers to locate and shoot a fox underground.


----------



## rabatsa (1 January 2023)

Sorry folks, if I got stopped out hacking the police would find a lock knife in my pocket.  I carry one all the time, along with some bale band.  Mine is a Victorinox equestrian and has been my constant companion for well over 20 years.  https://www.victorinox.com/uk/en/Products/Swiss-Army-Knives/Large-Pocket-Knives/Equestrian/p/0.8583


----------



## ycbm (1 January 2023)

Tiddlypom said:



			The successful prosecution of the former huntsman for the Quorn after the police confiscated his phone and uncovered all the incriminating Whatsapp messages on it has not gone unnoticed.
		
Click to expand...


Neither,  I suspect,  has the webinar advice to carry two phones,  one with the basic hunt communications on it and the other for stuff you don't want the police to read,  and only hand over the first one. 

What the hell were our local hunt doing appointing a Huntsman with a recent conviction for illegal hunting.  It  beggars belief! 
.


----------



## suestowford (1 January 2023)

Clodagh said:



			It is still legal to use terriers to locate and shoot a fox underground.
		
Click to expand...

I know this is a serious thread, and I shouldn't be finding amusement in it but I now can't get the image out of my head of terriers heading off into a drain, armed up like John Rambo.
I've had a bloody miserable year but that has tickled me


----------



## Clodagh (1 January 2023)

suestowford said:



			I know this is a serious thread, and I shouldn't be finding amusement in it but I now can't get the image out of my head of terriers heading off into a drain, armed up like John Rambo.
I've had a bloody miserable year but that has tickled me 

Click to expand...

🤣🤣🤣


----------



## Red-1 (1 January 2023)

rabatsa said:



			Sorry folks, if I got stopped out hacking the police would find a lock knife in my pocket.  I carry one all the time, along with some bale band.  Mine is a Victorinox equestrian and has been my constant companion for well over 20 years.  https://www.victorinox.com/uk/en/Products/Swiss-Army-Knives/Large-Pocket-Knives/Equestrian/p/0.8583

Click to expand...

That is a pocket knife not a lock knife, and is legal as long as you have a legal reason to carry it.


----------



## rabatsa (1 January 2023)

The blade locks and you have to push a catch to unlock the blade to put it away.


----------



## Caol Ila (1 January 2023)

If the police found you with this one, https://www.victorinox.com/uk/en/Pr.../Large-Pocket-Knives/Cheese-Master/p/0.8313.W, do you think they would ask you for some cheese?


----------



## Clodagh (1 January 2023)

Anyone who stalks deer, for instance, will carry a large knife. Those ones suggested do not look like they were chosen with knife crime in mind


----------



## lizziebell (Tuesday at 22:09)

Landcruiser said:



			I'm already getting stressed about the fact that the VWH are meeting within a mile of my property on 1st Feb. Their meet in November caused utter chaos locally, including when hounds crossed my land close to my yard, then passed the back of my stables in full cry - while my injured, rehabbing 3 yr old climbed the walls and went hysterical inside. Just why are these people allowed to tear around causing mayhem, damaging property, and causing stress and injury to humans,  stock and wildlife? I feel that the non horsey public tar us all with the same brush (as has been discussed on on this thread). The antagonism from motorists that I/many of us experience is, I am sure, exacerbated by the idea that we are all rich entitled tw@ts toffs running around wherever we want to instead of staying in our own box.
		
Click to expand...

They are meeting in the area tomorrow, not as close as on 01st, but I don’t know which way they are heading.


----------

