80 Years of Campaigning - What a waste of time

[Hercules]

I find it amusing to read the blinkered comments posted by the LACS supporters regarding the recent prosecution of Tony Wright.

18 months ago, these bigots were popping their champagne corks in celebration of the passing of the Hunting Act. Since then, approximately 25000 days of legal hunting have taken place, support for all forms of hunting is stronger than ever, it has cost LACS at least £65k to get one prosecution which is likely to be rejeted at the appeal (and doesn't even merit a criminal record) and police forces still consider hunting to be a very low priority. At the same time, foxes are being killed in greater numbers by less humane means.

Whilst I and an increasing number of others look forward to another hunting season, I would imagine that these animal rights vigilantes are choking on their salads at the Act's innefectiveness.

Dust off your video cameras and spy on your fellow citizens if you must, however noone is really interested in what you think. 80 Years campaigning. What a waste of time.

 

[Paul T]

Call it 'hunting' if you like, but I don't think the likes of the late Ronnie Wallace would have used the term to describe what passes as 'hunting' these days. Of course there are hunts which break the law and do hunt, but the 25,000 days quoted includes a fair percentage of equestrian activities that pose little threat to wildlife.

I can't think of any 'antis' I've spoken with who are unhappy with the Hunting Act.

 

[Hercules]

Karl,

Legal hunting still means legal fox control using hounds. Hunting in Ronnie Wallace's day was not the same as the hunting experienced before motorways and railway lines. Things change and people adapt.

The fact that the police cannot enforce the legislation, that LACS encourages spying and trespass and £65k out of your funds would suggest that the act is totally ineffective.

 

[flying_change]

"the act is totally ineffective"

It's sufficiently effective that you are hunting 'legally'.

 

[Paul T]

No, legal hunting doesn't necessarily mean legal fox control. The number of 'hunting' days you refer to include activities as harmless as chasing an artificial trail.

I know you're bitter but don't let that distort your judgement.

 

[CARREG]

"....I can't think of any 'antis' I've spoken with who are unhappy with the Hunting Act...."

Really.................Carreg

 

[flying_change]

What's interesting is that post-ban, pro's seem to be using a different definition of the word 'hunting'.

RS

 

[Hercules]

No, legal hunting doesn't necessarily mean legal fox control. The number of 'hunting' days you refer to include activities as harmless as chasing an artificial trail.

I know you're bitter but don't let that distort your judgement.

Your naievity astounds me. Plenty of foxes continue to be killed whilst following the artificial trail. The only thing that has changed is the fact that is no longer intended to hunt foxes. As there is little chance of proving the intent against all reasonable doubt (different to Civil Cases where it against the balance of probabilities) it is highly unlikely that the CPS will bother to pursue any allegations of illegal hunting whilst following an artificial trail. It is also highly likely that LACS are now too skint to take out any further civil cases. Maybe they can set up a Freepost address to recoup some of he £65k thay have just spent?

My judgement is not distorted and is based on sound experience and knowledge. I am not even slightly bitter. After all, I am still hunting 4 days a week and my local hunt's memberchip and support has increased by over 20%.

Those who are bitter are those sad little people with their cameras wasting their days watching and videoing a sport which they claim to detest.

 

[Fox_Hunter1]

You must be very naive if you think that hunts are acting within the law, can't wait to start cubbing. Wonder if were have a visit from the anti scum again this season, it was fun when they last came out. Bless them trying to call my hounds away with a real crappy hunting horn which sounded like a cat being straggled!!or maybe it was the person who was blowing it (or trying to).

 

[RunToEarth]

Whilst I and an increasing number of others look forward to another hunting season, I would imagine that these animal rights vigilantes are choking on their salads at the Act's innefectiveness.
.........................
agreed

.........................
You must be very naive if you think that hunts are acting within the law
........................
I wouldnt call it naive...I would call it dense.

 

[severnmiles]

What do you call effective? The fox still dies when hunting legally.

Remember RS yours is a morality issue not a welfare one!

 

[wurzel]

"The number of 'hunting' days you refer to include activities as harmless as chasing an artificial trail."


This is absolutely priceless !! Post of the day "!!!!!!!


Of course we start off following an artificial trail !!!

That is what we agreed with the police.

No foxes being killed by the hunt on Exmoor ! ))

 

[Doreys_Mum]

RS, isn't your objection to hunting the objection to animals being killed for sport?

Isn't the purpose of a gun pack or even the trail packs, who kill foxes to make the trail, futher proving that whatever happens, pros will continue to hunt for sport?

It takes 3-4 dead foxes to make a days hunting whereas before we could get away with 3-4 live foxes, and 1-2 dead ones. Legally, we are forced to kill in order to chase, rather than chasing and letting live.

Hunting IS sport, that is no lie, (although it is also pest control) - but the sport is not in the killing.

When we cannot chase without killing, even prior to the chase to make the scent, or after the chase to abide by the law, then the hunting act isn't working.

It is encouraging killing for sport.

Which goes against your very ethos as an anti.

Of course, those antis who just didn't like people richer than them riding horses aren't too happy either.

However, the majority are foolishly blinded. Most antis I know ARE Pleased hunting is banned, niavely not believing that foxes aren't being killed, and that all the cutey wutey little foxey woxeys are happy now. And as LACS and the RSPCA are the only people who can commune the reality of pain the suffering to these people, having wasted their money over the last 80 years to get to this point.... is it any real wonder that most antis are unaware that the hunting ban is doing more harm than good?

 

[soggy]

No, legal hunting doesn't necessarily mean legal fox control. The number of 'hunting' days you refer to include activities as harmless as chasing an artificial trail.

I know you're bitter but don't let that distort your judgement.

LOL

Your ignorance has certainly distorted your judgement.

"Legal hunting doesn't necessarily mean legal fox control"

The fox dies one why on another, either by the hounds or by the gun. Sounds like legal fox control to me.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

It's less cruel to use dogs to kill foxes that guns because of the different wounding rates.

People would be quite right to put animal welfare above obeying the law.

I do.

 

[combat_claire]

Well said Hercules

 

[flying_change]

You talk about hunting legally and would seem to claim you are hunting legally. Is that not the case ?

If you are hunting legally then I assume that means within the exemptions laid out in the hunting bill. Is that not correct ?

Therefore I conclude that the hunting bill is effective, because you are complying with it.

 

[flying_change]

"RS, isn't your objection to hunting the objection to animals being killed for sport?"

True.


"Isn't the purpose of a gun pack or even the trail packs, who kill foxes to make the trail, futher proving that whatever happens, pros will continue to hunt for sport?"

Unfortunately, also true. I dunno, you sometimes just cant persuade some people to behave morally.

"It takes 3-4 dead foxes to make a days hunting whereas before we could get away with 3-4 live foxes, and 1-2 dead ones"

So stop after killing two ?


RS

 

[Doreys_Mum]

It's whats needed to make a decent scent up - we COULD have technically chased a live fox with no intention of killing it, let it live, not dug it out, fox is happy, hunt is happy, no one dies -maybe shoot those one or two that we would have killed normally.

BUT - for those who find the chasing part abhorrant, it wouldn't stick. So the act said "nope, no chasing allowed - you gotta kill them"

I hope those who do detest the chase don't mind the slaughter that comes from replacing it with a trail, or by shooting every fox they flush as a result of the chase being banned...

 

[Hercules]

Flying-Change,

The last time that you visited the planet Earth, did you just touch down and then sod off?

We are hunting legally by intending to follow a trail, you and your sad and lonely little people cannot prove otherwise. The Act is therefore not working. If it was, why do the retards turn up to spy on and disrupt a legitimate activity?

In the meantime, foxes are still being killed by hounds in the same quantity as they were pre-ban. In addition to kills by hounds, many more foxes are being killed by shooting and snaring in areas where such activity was not permitted pre-ban.
I am still hunting (and so are hundreds of newcomers) and more foxes are being killed than ever before. The only losers here therefore are LACS and its ignorant, misguided supporters, but more importantly, the fox.

Well done LACS!! The cretins.

 

[endymion]

Were you trying to make a point with this post mate cos all you've achieved to is make yourself sound like a very bad (and somewhat deluded) loser.

E X

 

[flying_change]

"I hope those who do detest the chase don't mind the slaughter that comes from replacing it with a trail, or by shooting every fox they flush as a result of the chase being banned... "

I think there are some interesting interpretations of the hunting bill around. As we've seen by the recent prosecution, some of those interpretations are flawed.

 

[flying_change]

"The last time that you visited the planet Earth, did you just touch down and then sod off?"

Oh, so cutting.....

Of course, as alternative, you could try logic.

"We are hunting legally by intending to follow a trail, you and your sad and lonely little people cannot prove otherwise. The Act is therefore not working"

Oxymoron.

"If it was, why do the retards turn up to spy on and disrupt a legitimate activity? "

I suspect it's in case the activity is in reality illegal, or the exemptions to the act are not being followed correctly (as in the recent legal case).

"In the meantime, foxes are still being killed by hounds in the same quantity as they were pre-ban. In addition to kills by hounds, many more foxes are being killed by shooting and snaring in areas where such activity was not permitted pre-ban.
I am still hunting (and so are hundreds of newcomers) and more foxes are being killed than ever before. The only losers here therefore are LACS and its ignorant, misguided supporters, but more importantly, the fox."

If you're upset about the number of foxes being killed, I suggest you stop killing them. Or when you've killed enough, stop.

 

[Paul T]

Some hunts are breaking the law but quite a few others don't seem to want the bother and are adapting to life after the ban.

The fact remains that what you describe as 'hunting' typically bears little relationship to the searching, chasing and killing of foxes by hounds which was the focus of the campaign to ban hunting. Why don't you just admit that the 25,000 'hunting' days are nothing of the sort, and instead consist of a rag-bag mixture of largely equestrian activities, some of which are undoubtedly illegal?

 

[Hercules]

Endymion,

Dogs mate. I am not your mate. You are clearly not the brightest, are you?

I am not deluded in the slightest. I deal only with facts gained through experience.

Support for hunting greater now than before the ban - FACT.
No hunts closed down since the ban - FACT
Foxes killed by hounds whilst trail hunting in same numbers as pre-ban - FACT.
Farmers and landowners now permitting snaring and shooting of foxes when they did not pre-ban - FACT.
No prosecutions (or court appearances)for hunt staff participating in trail hunting - FACT.
Proving intent to hunt against all reasonable doubt will be incredibly difficult - FACT.
Hunting is a very low priority for police forces - FACT.

I have lost nothing (other than respect for those people who spy on their fellow citizens). Polish your camera lens. I look forward to watching you prove nothing again next season.

 

[Paul T]

I glad to see you're concerned about animal welfare and think shooting is cruel. Perhaps you'd join with me in criticising the millions of pheasants that are bred as living targets and released into the countryside each year?

Also I'm pleased to see you're opposed to the current practice of hunts that take pot shots at foxes. There's hope yet!

 

[Hercules]

Karl,

Have you been drinking?

Not once have I stated or even intimated that I think shooting is cruel. However it is less selective and has a higher risk of wounding than hunting (where there is no wounding)

Neither have I said that I am opposed to the current practice of 'hunts that take pot shots at foxes'. However, the only reason that some hunts now shoot foxes is because of the Hunting Act. The only reason that Landowners now allow shooting and snaring on their land is because of the hunting Act.

I have always been interested in animal welfare and conservation. That is why I support hunting.

 

[Paul T]

If you looked at the messages in threaded view you'd see I was responding to Giles, not you.

 

[CARREG]

Hercules
Karl cant help it the LACS have spent the last 80 yrs lying and twisting the facts to suit their way of thinking............Carreg

 

[lucecaldicott]

the act is flawed, no two ways about it. so far there has been 1 prosecution and lets face it, tony wrights appeal is highly likely to be succesful.