Consultation, decision making, LACS and the Lake District National Park...

palo1

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 July 2012
Messages
6,830
Visit site
I know that only some posters will be interested in the subject matter of the thread and I understand that it is contentious but I wanted to post this article about the way in which decisions have been taken about the LD National Park. Those decisions about a legal activity have been made without consultation, without formal meetings or minutes/records, without evidence of need, without offering any right to reply to any stakeholder and without reference to the official structure of authority relating to the Park organisation. I don't think this is how democracy or a public authority is supposed to work.


BY CAPTAIN ED SWALES

Every rural and hunting Cumbrian certainly does. It’s part of their rural heritage. The famous early 19th century farmer and fell huntsman of the Lake District, lay undisturbed in St Kentigern’s Churchyard in Caldbeck from 1854 until one grim night in 1977, when his grave was desecrated and his remains disinterred by Mike Huskisson, an operative of the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS). Huskisson subsequently served a 6-month jail sentence for that despicable act. I wonder if he learnt the words to the famous song during his confinement.

gIfcdGn__400x400.jpg

Richard Leafe

Richard Leafe, the Chief Executive of the Lake District National Park Authority (LDNPA) made an extraordinary decision to ban the legal activity of Trail Hunting on LDNPA land last month. He could neither confirm nor deny to what degree he consulted with LACS in the run up to this decision, as a lot of this interaction had taken the form of verbal briefings, with no minutes recorded.

This startlingly unjust and biased decision had been made without ever once consulting the Central Committee of Fell Packs (CCFP), which represents 8 individual hunts – there was no contact until Wednesday 6th July. The reason for this meeting was to explain why the message that the LDNPA had banned Trail Hunting on its land had leaked to the press, prior to any notification or dialogue with the CCFP.

The CCFP was told by Richard Leafe, during this first ever conversation relating to his decision, that we had ‘reached the end of the road’ and that his office’s inbox was full to bursting with ‘evidence’ of illegal activity.

Staggering.

To put that into context:

  • There have never been any convictions of any hunt in the Lake District.
  • Trail Hunting is a perfectly legal activity, recognised as such by DEFRA, which is LDNPA’s higher authority.
  • There are no ongoing investigations by Cumbria Police related to any CCFP activity.
  • The LDNPA Board has not been involved with Richard Leafe’s decision, apart from in an informal briefing, with no minutes taken. Leafe thought this ‘unnecessary’.
  • None of the LDNPA’s received ‘evidence’ has gone forward for prosecution.
  • Neither the CCFP nor its individual packs have been presented with any alleged ‘evidence’ of illegal hunting by LDNPA or the Police.
  • Several further offers from the CCFP to enter into dialogue on this decision were declined.
internal.jpg

Well, it might indeed be the ‘end of the road’ for Richard Leafe, as it appears that a case for Gross Professional Misconduct in Public Office might be appropriate for this apparatchik.​
The impression given to the public by this announcement that trail hunting is banned on LDNPA land is that this would extend to cover the Lake District as a whole, as opposed to the 3.9% of it owned by LDNPA. A request for a press release from LDNPA to correct this assumption was made by CCFP. Still no luck with Mr Leafe, who said they would put something on their website instead.

UNESCO inscribed the Lake District as a World Heritage site in 2017, under the category of a ‘cultural landscape’, based entirely on the globally unique agro-pastoral land-use system, created by man’s association with hefted Herdwick sheep flocks. The whole look and feel of the Lake District reflect the result of this association between man and nature, with its grazed upland common and fell pastures, stone walls, byres and farm buildings.

Wildlife management in the fells with dogs was always an essential part of livestock rearing, as well as maintaining the numbers of upland breeding and nesting birds. Consequently, Cumbrian fell hunting tradition and its culture is a ‘protected belief’, so unique and strong to this day, despite the efforts of the National Trust (25% land ownership) and Richard Leafe to curtail it. Trail hunting is the cultural living embodiment of this millennial legacy of man hunting with dogs, in this landscape.

Instead of supporting the Cumbrian upland stock farmer, the National Trust, in some back-room agreement with Natural England, United Utilities and the LDNPA, seem to be acting more like the Sheriff of Nottingham. As well as banning their pastime and recreational activity, the NT are behaving like the worst example of tyrannical landlords from the past; dictating farming policy objectives and declining to reissue farm business tenancies with any meaningful length of tenure, instead just rolling them forward, year by year.

They would rather the generational Cumbrian sheep farmer just accepted the cash pay-out, so that the NT could take its property back in hand, replace a family with a manager, de-stock the fells and plant them up with conifer. They can then take all the cash subsidies for both farming and forestry, turn the farms and buildings into holiday lets and glamping pod moonscape and congratulate themselves on a job well done.

This is the most appalling, self-defeating and short-termist behaviour. No other landowner anywhere in UK would get away with treating its tenants like that and quite rightly so. It’s like witnessing the Highland Clearances in reverse. The NT’s motto of ‘For everyone – for ever’ might be rebranded as ‘For everyone who does what we dictate – for as long as we sign your lease’.

‘Yan, tan, tethera, pethera, pip’. No, not a typo; no need for an anxiety attack that your iphone’s packed in. These are the first 4 words of the ancient numbering system of an old Brythonic Celtic language, Cumbric, spoken in Northern England, which had largely died out by the 6th century. Lakeland shepherds still use this language today for counting sheep. The proud, old Regiments of Foot of Westmorland and Cumberland merged to form the Border Regiment, of Arnhem fame. As those gallant Cumbrian men left home, they did so marching to the uplifting tune that reminded them of their beloved fell country, the regimental march, ‘D’ye ken John Peel’. They are also known to have sung it at the relief of the siege of Lucknow, in India in 1857.

Advertisement




And some individual from the LDNPA, with a singularly woke agenda, reckons he’s got a chance of crushing that legacy under the heel of his vegan sneakers?

I doubt it very much; almost as much as I doubt whether UNESCO would endorse the persecution of the rural minority Cumbrian farming community and continue to endorse its ‘cultural landscape’ inscription.​
It might end up like Liverpool, being one of only 3 places in nearly 50 years to have its World Heritage status removed. Let’s hope LDNPA, United Utilities and the NT can see some sense and start behaving properly. And if they don’t, we’ll help them.

Chaple-Stile-Xmas-2003-041-edited-1024x683.jpg

Beatrix Potter, who left significant landholdings to the National Trust, stipulated in her will that the National Trust must always allow foxhunting to continue on her estates. She was a keen follower of the Coniston hounds, immortalised in her ‘Tale of Jemima Puddleduck’. After the LDNPA meeting, I sat listening to Michael Nicholson, Master and Huntsman of the Coniston, at his farm in Troutbeck, on that very same land. The injustice of the present situation in the Lake District is unacceptable. Next to him, Neil Salisbury, CCFP Secretary, was unsatisfied with the LDNPA outcome and was going in to bat. I could almost hear the lyrics of ‘John Peel’ echoing down the valley:

“Then here’s to John Peel with my heart and soul,
Come fill – fill to him another strong bowl
And we’ll follow John Peel through fair and through foul
While we’re waked by his horn in the morning”​


The CCFP Chairman, an 83-year-old generational Cumbrian farmer whose wife’s family had been Beatrix Potter’s tenants, looked grim-faced but determined to keep the flame of his ancestors alive. This was not going to happen on his watch.

41-Eskdale-Ennerdale-at-Moss-Rigg-.jpg

Roger Westmoreland.

The clue’s in the name.
 

FestiveG

Over the hill and far awa
Joined
14 September 2006
Messages
16,216
Location
West Yorkshire
Visit site
Whatever your beliefs are about hunting and trail hunting, surely those systems which are in place, for decision making, should be followed. That one person can dictate what will happen, seems extremely undemocratic.
He is not the land owner and is surely answerable to his employers?
 

palo1

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 July 2012
Messages
6,830
Visit site
Whatever your beliefs are about hunting and trail hunting, surely those systems which are in place, for decision making, should be followed. That one person can dictate what will happen, seems extremely undemocratic.
He is not the land owner and is surely answerable to his employers?

Not only answerable to his employers but also required to follow good working practices, due diligence around stakeholders and eventually, actually the final decision maker about access and all manner of other things will be DEFRA. I wonder what other decisions he might want to make, or have made in this way? It is simply wrong.
 

Ratface

Well-Known Member
Joined
23 September 2021
Messages
3,477
Visit site
So - what's the plan to stop this apparently illegal behaviour?
I'm sure it's not beyond the capacity of HHO members to create a legal challenge and place it before the relevant authorities.
 

palo1

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 July 2012
Messages
6,830
Visit site
It's is particularly horrible to think too that the NT are not providing farm tenancies with any security (that is also the case in other parts of the UK I know; a neighbour of ours is a NT tenant). The horrible spectre of the fells increasingly covered in conifer and the exit of an entire way of life is just utterly grim to contemplate, notwithstanding the need to adapt to a changing environmental and wildlife situation. Some of these antics have been temporarily, and rather desperately repulsed in parts of Wales where ancient farms and valleys started to disappear into corporate forestry schemes. It is an extraordinary testament to the farmers and communities there that they have not taken the money, which is undoubtedly generous in some instances, to pack up and retire to their veg gardens or whatever! Instead they have campaigned and fought to maintain their way of life. Sadly the impact of LDNP decisions is a bit different to the Welsh situation, even though it only impacts on a small area of the Lake District. The same fight will be had in Wales I know too. I understand the article is about the single decision making of the Chief Exectuive of the LDNP on the issue of trail hunting, but is astounding that one person has the power to make these decisions, apparently arbitrarily. I feel so angry about this...

ETA: I have previously and on numerous occasions contacted the office of the Minister of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to request clarification about the UK's committment to UNESCO's ICH (Intangible Cultural Heritage) charter - in particular in relation to things like the May Day Obby Oss Festival in Padstow, the preservation of some of our unique traditional crafts (pargeting for example and other things), dialect and local language and stories. There is still no UK signature to this charter and I have not once received any kind of answer from the Ministry. If there are things you love about where you live or cultural elements of life in the UK they remain, currently, unprotected and at the mercy of individual decisions...
 
Last edited:

dominobrown

Well-Known Member
Joined
15 March 2010
Messages
4,334
Location
North England
Visit site
Thanks for posting this. Not sure how it completely passed me by, living, farming and working in the Lake District and owning land that the hunt crosses no one told me!
 

palo1

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 July 2012
Messages
6,830
Visit site
Thanks for posting this. Not sure how it completely passed me by, living, farming and working in the Lake District and owning land that the hunt crosses no one told me!

Well the 'ban' only impacts on land owned by the LKNP which accounts for about 3% of the Lake District NP itself; so unless your land is owned by the LDNP or your land borders that or is surrounded by it, it won't have an effect on you. Even so, it is infuriating that this has been brought in on the sly in terms of neighbour relations!
 

ycbm

Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
Joined
30 January 2015
Messages
58,796
Visit site
That article seems very skewed to me and reads as a witch hunt against the Chief Executive. The Lake District Authority which made this decision consists of 20 members appointed as follows, and staff.

https://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/aboutus/members

Less biased reports say that the Lake District Authority ban is a continuation of a decision made by the Authority after the webinar leaks that resulted in a criminal conviction for promoting illegal hunting. This is not a new decision out of the blue.

The Chief Executive did not make this decision alone and statements like

"Well, it might indeed be the ‘end of the road’ for Richard Leafe, as it appears that a case for Gross Professional Misconduct in Public Office might be appropriate for this apparatchik."

devalue the entire debate.

It's also not possible to discuss this properly outside the context of the leaked webinars which led to the original ban, which has simply been continued, and that's been done to death and beyond on other threads.
.
 

palo1

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 July 2012
Messages
6,830
Visit site
That article seems very skewed to me and reads as a witch hunt against the Chief Executive. The Lake District Authority which made this decision consists of 20 members appointed as follows, and staff.

https://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/aboutus/members

Less biased reports say that the Lake District Authority ban is a continuation of a decision made by the Authority after the webinar leaks that resulted in a criminal conviction for promoting illegal hunting. This is not a new decision out of the blue.

The Chief Executive did not make this decision alone and statements like

"Well, it might indeed be the ‘end of the road’ for Richard Leafe, as it appears that a case for Gross Professional Misconduct in Public Office might be appropriate for this apparatchik."

devalue the entire debate.

It's also not possible to discuss this properly outside the context of the leaked webinars which led to the original ban, which has simply been continued, and that's been done to death and beyond on other threads.
.

It is certainly not an unbiased article but the facts about consultation, recording of meetings and/or minutes of those, decision making frameworks, evidence of need and providing the right to reply to stakeholders are true. That is wholly inappropriate and in view of the fact that there are no recorded legal issues relating to trail hunting in the LDNP and DEFRA has not made that decision it is wrong, unfair and undemocratic in every sense.
 

ycbm

Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
Joined
30 January 2015
Messages
58,796
Visit site
It is certainly not an unbiased article but the facts about consultation, recording of meetings and/or minutes of those, decision making frameworks, evidence of need and providing the right to reply to stakeholders are true. That is wholly inappropriate and in view of the fact that there are no recorded legal issues relating to trail hunting in the LDNP and DEFRA has not made that decision it is wrong, unfair and undemocratic in every sense.

The decision relates to under 4% of the land in the National Park which is owned by the Authority itself. They can make what decisions they like about their own land, like any other landowner in the Lake District National Park. They are simply continuing a decision which was made a fair time ago after serious doubts were raised about the ability to ensure hunting was being done legally on their land by the leak of webinars training hunters how to evade the law and continue to hunt live quarry. You really can't undertake this discussion outside the history of the context of those webinars and the criminal conviction which ensued.
.
 

palo1

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 July 2012
Messages
6,830
Visit site
The decision relates to under 4% of the land in the National Park which is owned by the Authority itself. They can make what decisions they like about their own land, like any other landowner in the Lake District National Park. They are simply continuing a decision which was made a fair time ago after serious doubts were raised about the ability to ensure hunting was being done legally on their land by the leak of webinars training hunters how to evade the law and continue to hunt live quarry. You really can't undertake this discussion outside the history of the context of those webinars and the criminal conviction which ensued.
.

The responsibilities of the LDNP Authority are different to an 'ordinary' landlord and decisions about legal activities have to be referred to DEFRA who have final resonsibility for National Parks. Although the context of scandal and concerns about the webinars is pertinent that is not sufficient to impose a ban on activities which are not evidenced to be illegal. All sorts of activities which are illegal go on in national parks and more widely but the NP authorities cannot just ban people who are not involved in those.
 

GoldenWillow

Well-Known Member
Joined
15 June 2015
Messages
2,926
Visit site
I think it is a very skewed and emotive article, and it quite angers me, as a rural Cumbrian! Yes it makes much of the heritage and history of hunting but this can be said of many of things from the past that we are horrified by in today's world. I would like to read the full sentence at the beginning of the article "every rural and hunting Cumbrian does".

I don't agree with how they have gone about it with, it seems, only one meeting and lack of consultation though. There are reports in local papers that there was one meeting and members agreed to the continuation of the ban.

I do think there are far, far bigger problems with LDNPA, NT and Natural England and what is happening in the Ĺake District than hunting.

As an aside our local hunt is one that covers part of LD and if their behaviour around us is typical of how they behave everywhere they really, really do not help themselves or hunting as a whole and based on them alone I can understand the LDNPA ban.
 

palo1

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 July 2012
Messages
6,830
Visit site
I think it is a very skewed and emotive article, and it quite angers me, as a rural Cumbrian! Yes it makes much of the heritage and history of hunting but this can be said of many of things from the past that we are horrified by in today's world. I would like to read the full sentence at the beginning of the article "every rural and hunting Cumbrian does".

I don't agree with how they have gone about it with, it seems, only one meeting and lack of consultation though. There are reports in local papers that there was one meeting and members agreed to the continuation of the ban.

I do think there are far, far bigger problems with LDNPA, NT and Natural England and what is happening in the Ĺake District than hunting.

As an aside our local hunt is one that covers part of LD and if their behaviour aroun us is typical of how they behave everywhere they really, really do not help themselves or hunting as a whole and based on them alone I can understand the LDNPA ban.

I hear you. I was interested in the article too to read about the elements of language (counting sheep) and other things so whilst I understand how controversial the hunting thing is, there was other stuff in the article too I thought. I absolutely agree there are more serious issues than hunting though that is part of the picture. Sorry to hear you local hunt is not helpful; that is really frustrating and counter productive obviously!

ETA - apologies; I obviously failed to copy the first few words and the title of the article which is ''D’ye ken John Peel?''.
 

SEL

Well-Known Member
Joined
25 February 2016
Messages
13,778
Location
Buckinghamshire
Visit site
I've said it on the hunting forum more than once but if hunts want to continue and not have landowners ban them (whether private, NT or other) then they ALL need to work together to ensure ALL hunts follow the law as regards trails, don't trespass and don't commit criminal damage. It can't beyond them all to get together can it? If they genuinely care about hunting as a rural sport, a rural way of life and jobs then tbh I'd expect to see more effort.

I have huge sympathy with the tenant farmers who the NT is not imo treating fairly in many cases. But that situation is separate to the bad PR hunts have had. It may not be the specific hunts in the LD but mud sticks.
 

Fellewell

Well-Known Member
Joined
5 June 2010
Messages
841
Visit site
This is just typical of the general apathy in today's society; leave the decision making to a relatively small ill-informed bunch of extremists with thousands of different email addresses. Don't bother with evidence or the fact that these are lawful activities carried by hunts with a vested interest in protecting and maintaining the countryside for all, unlike the NT it seems.
The impression was given by Mr Leafe that the ban would extend to the whole of the LD and not just the 3.9%. This was questioned by the CCFP but since the LDNPA had refused to enter into a dialogue with them, on any level, the question went unanswered. Is this how democracy works?

There have never been any convictions of any hunt in the Lake District
 

GoldenWillow

Well-Known Member
Joined
15 June 2015
Messages
2,926
Visit site
I hear you. I was interested in the article too to read about the elements of language (counting sheep) and other things so whilst I understand how controversial the hunting thing is, there was other stuff in the article too I thought. I absolutely agree there are more serious issues than hunting though that is part of the picture. Sorry to hear you local hunt is not helpful; that is really frustrating and counter productive obviously!

ETA - apologies; I obviously failed to copy the first few words and the title of the article which is ''D’ye ken John Peel?''.

I love the local dialect and the counting is still in use in various areas today, the dialect is very area dependent and I find it slightly amusing but worryingly inaccurate that that article whilst talking about Cumbrian dialect and relying heavily on heritage and history in all their arguments actually quoted the Yorkshire dialect for counting rather than the Cumbrian. I had to double check as I wondered if it was I that had had it wrong but no, I know it as yan, tan, tethera, methera, pimp, which is the Borrowdale dialect which makes sense as it is probably the closest to us.

This doesn't give credence to the other facts being accurate to me.
 

palo1

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 July 2012
Messages
6,830
Visit site
I love the local dialect and the counting is still in use in various areas today, the dialect is very area dependent and I find it slightly amusing but worryingly inaccurate that that article whilst talking about Cumbrian dialect and relying heavily on heritage and history in all their arguments actually quoted the Yorkshire dialect for counting rather than the Cumbrian. I had to double check as I wondered if it was I that had had it wrong but no, I know it as yan, tan, tethera, methera, pimp, which is the Borrowdale dialect which makes sense as it is probably the closest to us.

This doesn't give credence to the other facts being accurate to me.

That is interesting - about dialect stuff. Similarly here, there are many words, phrases and language things that, if not 'captured' somehow accurately, soon, will be lost and that would be a real cultural tragedy. Thankfully (to me) I think some of the other facts can be more easily verified.
 

GoldenWillow

Well-Known Member
Joined
15 June 2015
Messages
2,926
Visit site
This had completely passed me by but a quick look look on our local paper's website showed they covered it.

"They invited comments from several Cumbrian hunt groups, but none was prepared to go on the record, with one declaring that there would now be few people prepared to publicly defendant the tradition."

That was the only comment they had from the eight hunts that are involved.

There were long statements from LDNPA, LACS and a former MP.

Why were none of the hunts prepared to comment if they can defend their actions and are working within the law, I find that strange, they are generally vocal enough.

I've also found this reported as being some of the evidence that the LDNPA referred to.

As part of its licence agreement with the LDNPA, a hunt agrees to fill in a ‘daily record sheet’ for each of its meets:


67 meets resulted in hounds chasing a fox, with at least two more chases that “possibly” took place.11 meets included hounds killing a fox. Hounds “possibly” killed a fox in a further seven meets.

That means, over seven years on LDNPA land, the Blencathra Foxhounds:

Chased a fox during 57% of meets.Killed a fox during 9% of meets. Taking ‘possible’ kills into account raises the figure to 15%.

Chases also happened during consecutive meets. For example, the Blencathra Foxhounds chased a fox on both 8 and 10 November 2012. Hounds “possibly” killed a fox on 10 November. The sheets also show hounds chased foxes on 11, 13 and 15 November 2014. Both the 11 and 15 November meets resulted in hounds definitely killing a fox, while the 13 November meet possibly killed a fox. Meets on both 15 and 17 December 2016 resulted in hounds chasing foxes.

LDNPA were licensing 6 hunts at the time. Most of the hunts were contemptuous in their responses, some didn't even bother returning their record sheets.

I rang out of time to go looking for more.

I wonder if the National Trust and Forestry commission will follow suit as they hold a far greater percentage of land.

I've also been on some local fb pages and whilst I was pleasantly surprised at how civil and generally non combative the comments were the general theme was that hunts are still hunting rather than trail hunting, they are a very small minority of the community and it should be consigned to the history books if they cannot prove that they are trail hunting and in control of their hounds so that accidents do not occur. I do realise why individuals who support hunting would not possibly want to make their views and names visible so it is likely to be biased in favour against hunting.

I am now coming out of my rabbit hole ?
 

GoldenWillow

Well-Known Member
Joined
15 June 2015
Messages
2,926
Visit site
That is interesting - about dialect stuff. Similarly here, there are many words, phrases and language things that, if not 'captured' somehow accurately, soon, will be lost and that would be a real cultural tragedy. Thankfully (to me) I think some of the other facts can be more easily verified.

One of my most cherished memories of my grandad, whom I lost when I was a child, was sitting on his knee and being taught to count and learn new words in dialect.
 

Keith_Beef

Novice equestrian, accomplished equichetrian
Joined
8 December 2017
Messages
11,857
Location
Seine et Oise, France
Visit site
I think it is a very skewed and emotive article,

And so very badly written!

‘Yan, tan, tethera, pethera, pip’... are the first 4 words of the ancient numbering system [that] Lakeland shepherds still use ... today for counting sheep.

Four words? The captain can't count.
 

palo1

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 July 2012
Messages
6,830
Visit site
This had completely passed me by but a quick look look on our local paper's website showed they covered it.

"They invited comments from several Cumbrian hunt groups, but none was prepared to go on the record, with one declaring that there would now be few people prepared to publicly defendant the tradition."

That was the only comment they had from the eight hunts that are involved.

There were long statements from LDNPA, LACS and a former MP.

Why were none of the hunts prepared to comment if they can defend their actions and are working within the law, I find that strange, they are generally vocal enough.

I've also found this reported as being some of the evidence that the LDNPA referred to.

As part of its licence agreement with the LDNPA, a hunt agrees to fill in a ‘daily record sheet’ for each of its meets:


67 meets resulted in hounds chasing a fox, with at least two more chases that “possibly” took place.11 meets included hounds killing a fox. Hounds “possibly” killed a fox in a further seven meets.

That means, over seven years on LDNPA land, the Blencathra Foxhounds:

Chased a fox during 57% of meets.Killed a fox during 9% of meets. Taking ‘possible’ kills into account raises the figure to 15%.

Chases also happened during consecutive meets. For example, the Blencathra Foxhounds chased a fox on both 8 and 10 November 2012. Hounds “possibly” killed a fox on 10 November. The sheets also show hounds chased foxes on 11, 13 and 15 November 2014. Both the 11 and 15 November meets resulted in hounds definitely killing a fox, while the 13 November meet possibly killed a fox. Meets on both 15 and 17 December 2016 resulted in hounds chasing foxes.

LDNPA were licensing 6 hunts at the time. Most of the hunts were contemptuous in their responses, some didn't even bother returning their record sheets.

I rang out of time to go looking for more.

I wonder if the National Trust and Forestry commission will follow suit as they hold a far greater percentage of land.

I've also been on some local fb pages and whilst I was pleasantly surprised at how civil and generally non combative the comments were the general theme was that hunts are still hunting rather than trail hunting, they are a very small minority of the community and it should be consigned to the history books if they cannot prove that they are trail hunting and in control of their hounds so that accidents do not occur. I do realise why individuals who support hunting would not possibly want to make their views and names visible so it is likely to be biased in favour against hunting.

I am now coming out of my rabbit hole ?

Can you tell me which paper covered this? :)
 

ycbm

Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
Joined
30 January 2015
Messages
58,796
Visit site
The responsibilities of the LDNP Authority are different to an 'ordinary' landlord and decisions about legal activities have to be referred to DEFRA who have final resonsibility for National Parks. Although the context of scandal and concerns about the webinars is pertinent that is not sufficient to impose a ban on activities which are not evidenced to be illegal. All sorts of activities which are illegal go on in national parks and more widely but the NP authorities cannot just ban people who are not involved in those.


This post makes no sense at all to me, Palo. You write as if anyone doing anything legal is allowed to do that activity anywhere they like in a national park. This is not the case. I own 10 acres of the first national park ever created in this country. As the landowner I can ban whoever I like from coming onto my land. I believe that landowners in the Lake District National Park have the same rights as landowners in the Peak District National Park.
.
 

ponynutz

Well-Known Member
Joined
16 December 2018
Messages
1,763
Location
UK
Visit site
All I have to say about this is that the only downside to trail hunting would be the destruction to land. But the Lake District is one of the most visited parts of this country for hiking, camping, etc. Heck I even did my Duke of Edinburgh there (and I think a bunch of 14 year olds alone and causing chaos for the first time is much more destructive than trail hunting).

Wouldn't surprise me if the next thing they do is ban horses in genera in certain areas (which would be a shame because some of the hiking routes are amazing for longer 'box-up and go' type hacks).

Shame he's acted without democracy. @Ratface is right, what can we do about this?
 

palo1

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 July 2012
Messages
6,830
Visit site
This post makes no sense at all to me, Palo. You write as if anyone doing anything legal is allowed to do that activity anywhere they like in a national park. This is not the case. I own 10 acres of the first national park ever created in this country. As the landowner I can ban whoever I like from coming onto my land. I believe that landowners in the Lake District National Park have the same rights as landowners in the Peak District National Park.
.

@ycbm - you know that the remit of the LDNP is different to that of an ordinary landowner - it is a bit daft to suggest otherwise but I know how you feel about trail hunting.
 

ycbm

Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
Joined
30 January 2015
Messages
58,796
Visit site
@ycbm - you know that the remit of the LDNP is different to that of an ordinary landowner - it is a bit daft to suggest otherwise but I know how you feel about trail hunting.



But in the case you've raised in starting this thread, they were acting only as landowners for the 3.9% of the land in the Park that they own.
.
 
Last edited:

palo1

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 July 2012
Messages
6,830
Visit site
But in the case you've raised in starting this thread, they were acting only as landowners for the 3.9% of the land in the Park that they own.

And your own strong desire to see a return to hunting fox colours everything you write about hunting.
.

That is a completely unfair and unfounded statement @ycbm. I have asserted time and time again that I do and wish to carry on hunting within the law. I have stated that I believe the Hunting Act to be wrong and that hunting pre-ban was 'better' in many ways but I have NEVER said that I wish to see a return to hunting fox. Please remove or edit this post.
 

FestiveG

Over the hill and far awa
Joined
14 September 2006
Messages
16,216
Location
West Yorkshire
Visit site
But in the case you've raised in starting this thread, they were acting only as landowners for the 3.9% of the land in the Park that they own.

And your own strong desire to see a return to hunting fox colours everything you write about hunting.
.
Please don't state as fact, something which you believe about another poster.
 

palo1

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 July 2012
Messages
6,830
Visit site
I've said it on the hunting forum more than once but if hunts want to continue and not have landowners ban them (whether private, NT or other) then they ALL need to work together to ensure ALL hunts follow the law as regards trails, don't trespass and don't commit criminal damage. It can't beyond them all to get together can it? If they genuinely care about hunting as a rural sport, a rural way of life and jobs then tbh I'd expect to see more effort.

I have huge sympathy with the tenant farmers who the NT is not imo treating fairly in many cases. But that situation is separate to the bad PR hunts have had. It may not be the specific hunts in the LD but mud sticks.

But the following are facts:-

  • There have never been any convictions of any hunt in the Lake District.
  • Trail Hunting is a perfectly legal activity, recognised as such by DEFRA, which is LDNPA’s higher authority.
  • There are no ongoing investigations by Cumbria Police related to any CCFP activity.
  • The LDNPA Board has not been involved with Richard Leafe’s decision, apart from in an informal briefing, with no minutes taken. Leafe thought this ‘unnecessary’.
  • None of the LDNPA’s received ‘evidence’ has gone forward for prosecution.
  • Neither the CCFP nor its individual packs have been presented with any alleged ‘evidence’ of illegal hunting by LDNPA or the Police.
  • Several further offers from the CCFP to enter into dialogue on this decision were declined.
 
Top