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

[palo1]

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 ?

All of these allegations are historic - going back over a decade with nothing at all recent and this information is not verified by anyone it would seem. Sorry.

 

[palo1]

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.
.

Thank you for removing the part of this post in which you expressed an opinion about my views as a fact. I understand that mistakes and misunderstandings happen. I want to make it very clear that I understand the nature of a public forum/social media and that I try to be considered and truthful in what I write and how I present my views. I also want to make it clear that I know the risks of posting on any public forum about issues that are contentious; it is really important to be clear and fair to others I think. For the record, again, I do not support illegal hunting.

 

[ycbm]

For the record, again, I do not support illegal hunting.

I never said you did.


The part of my post which I removed at your request is thankfully still visible in your own post and YorksG's for me to rebut this accusation.

I stated that you would welcome a return to hunting fox with hounds by which I meant a LEGAL return to hunting fox with hounds, otherwise I would not have used the word "return", since in many areas, illegal hunting has never stopped.

.

 

[GoldenWillow]

All of these allegations are historic - going back over a decade with nothing at all recent and this information is not verified by anyone it would seem. Sorry.

Information was from freedom of information requests and up to season 2018/2019, it was published in a paper and not refuted.

Coalition group Stop Hunting on the Nation’s Land submitted freedom of information requests to the LDNPA about hunting on its land. The returned documents included 120 sheets completed by the Blencathra Foxhounds for all seven seasons between 2012/13 and 2018/19. In addition to detailing the “death of any fox or hare”, each one also includes details about wildlife chased during a meet.

 

[palo1]

Information was from freedom of information requests and up to season 2018/2019, it was published in a paper and not refuted.

Coalition group Stop Hunting on the Nation’s Land submitted freedom of information requests to the LDNPA about hunting on its land. The returned documents included 120 sheets completed by the Blencathra Foxhounds for all seven seasons between 2012/13 and 2018/19. In addition to detailing the “death of any fox or hare”, each one also includes details about wildlife chased during a meet.

That is useful and interesting to know and the FOI request results should be good quality information. There is stuff in there that is frustrating but from my point of view it is heartening that paperwork is completed and the vast majority of hunts have resulted in no deaths (91% of hunts have not had a fox killed ). I know that anti-hunt people will not see that as good enough and I understand why. I don't know what to make of the statistic that over that 7 year period 57% of meets resulted in foxes being chased. I am not sure what is classed as chasing a fox (ie who has decided this, what that actually means etc) as I know that some anti groups will identify a chased fox as one that is moving in the opposite direction in response to hound activity regardless of whether there is an issue or not. Some of the information from the group (in your post) is clearly their view which is to be expected. I also know that hunts near me have to complete similar paperwork for the MOD etc so the information is available. The attached is an example of FOI requests made to the MOD in 2016. No foxes reported killed in the previous 5 years. https://assets.publishing.service.g...chment_data/file/579934/20161215-FOI11014.pdf

 

[palo1]

I wonder what impact, if any, this news will have on the LDNPA? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ppeal-against-conviction-encouraging-illegal/