Desperate measures - 'UK foxhunters should be protected ethnic minority'

[PurpleSpots]

It sounds like you have been unlucky as going over land that you don’t have permission to be on is extremely rare in our area, similarly if we are following in vehicles we are careful to not park up where we would block the road, nor drive on mowed verges.
We are aware that poor manners on our part will not make for good neighbours. If the hunt is trespassing then report them, the fact that the hunt near you lacks manners doesn’t mean that all should be tarred the same.
Think how people feel that live next to football stadiums where you can have upwards of 40000 people going past your house, some drunk, some looking for a fight, some abusive, some potentially using your garden as a urinal. This would happen 20+ times a year. Should football be banned so that these people can enjoy their house free of fear and inconvenience?

EDIT can I also point out that even if the new government doesn’t manage to ban hunting, they might end some hunts purely by building across the hunting country. As AR does seem determined to urbanise much of rural England. So whilst you might not have a hunt anywhere near you, you could end up with an extra 400 neighbours!! (She is talking about CPO so there might be little choice)

House prices near football stadiums, concert venues, etc, should reflect these inconveniences - or people can for the most part choose not to live there. They are fixed locations, with fixed dates of inconveniences, with advance warning.

 

[Tiddlypom]

Regardless of this debate, the hunts are trail hunting, and are doing this well, and this has also encouraged more riding followers who maybe previously wouldn't have participated

Looks out for flying pigs . Oh no they’re not.

My local pack apparently found trail hunting so boring after they eventually went legit that they sacked the boring legal huntsman and then employed a convicted high profile illegal hunter. He then hunted a fox right under the nose of the rural police crime team and their cameras, and got further convictions to add to his previous ones.

I couldn’t even name a pack in these parts that would be genuinely trail hunting.

ETA Anyway that ground has been covered and re covered extensively on the hunting is in a spot of bother thread.

 

[palo1]

Hunting Kind took over and sadly soon obliterated the really rather reasonable pro legal hunting This is Hunting UK after the death of TIHUK’s founder in 2021.

Initially the new chair paid lip service to TIHUK, but soon the more sensible members who might well have carried it forward were silenced, TIHUK was dropped from the title and the loonies took over the asylum.

And here we are now.

I believe that Hunting Kind have taken the stance they have as a result of seeing how things are in parts of Europe and Scandinavia where hunting is much more engaged with conservation, land access and rural rights and cultural movements. Of course many European countries are much more interested in rural heritage and related activities and have managed to create broader, more aligned groups around that and conservation.

There are issues with that for sure but it is, to me a much more admirable, less polarised approach than here. The UK has a very small rural community and generally a shocking attitude towards cultural heritage (and I dont mean just hunting but also folk history, skills, traditional events, songs, stories, art etc) which is sad and likely to mean we increasingly head toward grim homogeneity and loss o f aspects of these islands identity but successive governments have given the cold shoulder to UNESCO (except where there has been a financial advantage). It is immensely sad and frustrating and I do understand people wanting to save the things that are important to them. Thank goodness falconry and a few other things have been successful in spite of considerable obstacles. There are a great many much poorer, less well resourced countries who are doing the work to save aspects of their cultural heritage. The UK is utterly shiftless by comparison!

 

[skinnydipper]

Does anybody have access to this?

"Abstract
Hunting with dogs is not just an English phenomenon, but the debate in the UK is instructive for its dearth of ethical argument. A good example is the UK Government’s Burns Report (2000), which came to a practical conclusion about hunting without properly examining moral arguments. Most centrally, Burns fails to articulate and address the two moral objections: it is intrinsically wrong to deliberately inflict suffering on a sentient mammal other than for its own individual benefit, and that it is intrinsically wrong to deliberately cause suffering for the purposes of amusement, of recreation, or in the name of sport."

First Case: Hunting with Dogs

Abstract. Hunting with dogs is not just an English phenomenon, but the debate in the UK is instructive for its dearth of ethical argument. A good example i

academic.oup.com

 

[canteron]

Spotted these 2 by our drive this evening. I have no idea of the mentality of people who want to kill them, rather than enjoy their beauty. Sorry, slightly off topic, but I truly have no idea how their minds work.

 

[blitznbobs]

Spotted these 2 by our drive this evening. I have no idea of the mentality of people who want to kill them, rather than enjoy their beauty. Sorry, slightly off topic, but I truly have no idea how their minds work.

well they are delicious... and culling deer is as I understand it, a necessary evil.

 

[Miss_Millie]

I’ve not seen the clip, but according to posts on the Countryside Alliance Hunting FB page the pro hunt speaker Ed Swales was ‘torn to shreds’ on ITV this morning.

Hunting Kind and the Countryside Alliance don’t see eye to eye, the former feel totally let down by the latter.

ETA This is the clip.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1823992083226460580

So in a nutshell, he is saying that if you believe something, then that belief should be protected by law? Even if 80%+ of the public in this country think that said belief is cruel and outdated?

I have second hand embarrassment at him saying that he is as marginalised as the two black women he was debating.

He also said that trail hunting is no more than an equestrian sport, which goes against what most hunt supporters have said on here.

He did not hide that he wants to hunt fox, and was verging on being derogatory about trail hunting. At least he was being honest I suppose.

 

[Clodagh]

Spotted these 2 by our drive this evening. I have no idea of the mentality of people who want to kill them, rather than enjoy their beauty. Sorry, slightly off topic, but I truly have no idea how their minds work.

That’s not really relevant, as they are far more likely to be shot than hunted. Deer are only hunted in a couple of places in the West Country. And you end up with endless car accidents and TB with no deer cull

 

[canteron]

That’s what I mean by totally diametric characters, I see beautiful animals, your first thought is food. It’s like hard left and hard right politics, they are all looking at the same issue but see totally different things.

 

[Clodagh]

That’s what I mean by totally diametric characters, I see beautiful animals, your first thought is food. It’s like hard left and hard right politics, they are all looking at the same issue but see totally different things.

I don’t eat venison! But I look at deer and think they are beautiful while being realistic about their impact.
I really meant that a photo of deer doesn’t really have relevance to the fox hunting debate.

 

[Tiddlypom]

Here’s a thing. A fervent belief that fox hunting is wrong already has Equality Act protection .

Religion And Belief

Shah Qureshi reviews the recent employment tribunal decision which determined that Stoicism qualifies for protection under the Equality Act 2010

www.irwinmitchell.com

Animal rights ​

An employment tribunal held in Hashman v Milton Park (Dorset) Ltd t/an Orchard Park [2011] that a fervent belief that fox hunting is wrong has Equality Act protection. It stressed that not all opponents of fox hunting would be protected but accepted that the employee’s animal rights beliefs affected every aspect of his daily life.

​

 

[SaddlePsych'D]

We're talking employment here again though, same as the veganism one. I'm just not getting how this translates over to pro-hunt beliefs outside of an employment or similar type scenario. I'm still not getting where they are going with this. Say the belief does get protection under the EA, then what?

 

[palo1]

I would hope that any legal recognition or protection would safeguard aspects of hunting as long as those remained within the law of course and would provide some degree of protection from harassment, doxxing and the incitement by anti hunters to destroy businesses that support hunting. I don't personally see how there can be any recourse in law to ban all forms of houndwork/hunting and I would absolutely support use of artificial scent if that enabled hunts to keep their hounds and continue to work them using traditional knowledge and practices. There should be no legal issue with bloodhounding of course. It is hard to convey exactly what being part of a traditional hunting culture and community means but the polarized views about hunting have been seen globally. I find it desperately sad and frustrating that traditional cultures the world over are denigrated and disposed of, usually accompanied by well meaning people using modernity, progress, and a desire to get rid of inconvenience, diversity and older relationships with landscape and environment. Deculturisation is widely seen as a bad thing when it happens far away, but we need to think about it in our own society as well.

We're talking employment here again though, same as the veganism one. I'm just not getting how this translates over to pro-hunt beliefs outside of an employment or similar type scenario. I'm still not getting where they are going with this. Say the belief does get protection under the EA, then what?

 

[PurpleSpots]

I would hope that any legal recognition or protection would safeguard aspects of hunting as long as those remained within the law of course and would provide some degree of protection from harassment, doxxing and the incitement by anti hunters to destroy businesses that support hunting. I don't personally see how there can be any recourse in law to ban all forms of houndwork/hunting and I would absolutely support use of artificial scent if that enabled hunts to keep their hounds and continue to work them using traditional knowledge and practices. There should be no legal issue with bloodhounding of course. It is hard to convey exactly what being part of a traditional hunting culture and community means but the polarized views about hunting have been seen globally. I find it desperately sad and frustrating that traditional cultures the world over are denigrated and disposed of, usually accompanied by well meaning people using modernity, progress, and a desire to get rid of inconvenience, diversity and older relationships with landscape and environment. Deculturisation is widely seen as a bad thing when it happens far away, but we need to think about it in our own society as well.

You missed out the bit about considering welfare and cruelty.

If you conveniently miss out the main issues to many situations then of course the other issues will seem less significant.

It's like saying it would be desperately sad and frustrating if bullfighting were banned for the reasons you've stated above, while completely overlooking the suffering being caused to another living, feeling being just for human pleasure.

What I find desperately sad is when people turn a blind eye to suffering in other beings, just because it suits them better to pretend it doesn't exist.

Compassion and empathy for all beings please.

 

[Fred66]

You missed out the bit about considering welfare and cruelty.

If you conveniently miss out the main issues to many situations then of course the other issues will seem less significant.

It's like saying it would be desperately sad and frustrating if bullfighting were banned for the reasons you've stated above, while completely overlooking the suffering being caused to another living, feeling being just for human pleasure.

What I find desperately sad is when people turn a blind eye to suffering in other beings, just because it suits them better to pretend it doesn't exist.

Compassion and empathy for all beings please.

There is significant evidence that hunting fox with hounds is no more cruel and in many cases less cruel than other methods of control.
Also there is evidence to suggest that the welfare of the fox population has declined under the ban on fox hunting with hounds.
My personal opinion is that the ban should not have been brought in but that hunts should have been licensed with rules based upon animal welfare. However we are where we are and we have to live with the law as it is.

 

[PurpleSpots]

There is significant evidence that hunting fox with hounds is no more cruel and in many cases less cruel than other methods of control.
Also there is evidence to suggest that the welfare of the fox population has declined under the ban on fox hunting with hounds.
My personal opinion is that the ban should not have been brought in but that hunts should have been licensed with rules based upon animal welfare. However we are where we are and we have to live with the law as it is.

Presumably the first sentence refers to the 'best' way a fox could die during a hunt vs the 'worst' way a fox could be maimed or die using other methods, rather than a percentage of the 'best' deaths for each method...

What evidence is there to suggest foxes lived better lives during the times of legal foxhunting please? Bearing in mind we know some illegal foxhunting is still occurring so it can't be a fair comparison.

 

[palo1]

I am confused: this was a response about legal trail hunting. I agree entirely that compassion and empathy for all beings is needed. I was not conveniently missing anything out, I don't think? My comments about deculturisation were also made with a view to history where those 'progressive' policies have largely resulted in significant damage and certainly have not demonstrated compassion or empathy. I don't think either I am turning a blind eye to suffering.

You missed out the bit about considering welfare and cruelty.

If you conveniently miss out the main issues to many situations then of course the other issues will seem less significant.

It's like saying it would be desperately sad and frustrating if bullfighting were banned for the reasons you've stated above, while completely overlooking the suffering being caused to another living, feeling being just for human pleasure.

What I find desperately sad is when people turn a blind eye to suffering in other beings, just because it suits them better to pretend it doesn't exist.

Compassion and empathy for all beings please.

 

[PurpleSpots]

I am confused: this was a response about legal trail hunting. I agree entirely that compassion and empathy for all beings is needed. I was not conveniently missing anything out, I don't think? My comments about deculturisation were also made with a view to history where those 'progressive' policies have largely resulted in significant damage and certainly have not demonstrated compassion or empathy. I don't think either I am turning a blind eye to suffering.

Ah, in that case my apologies. Much of this thread is made up of replies arguing the virtues of foxhunting, as is the original article, and I did make the assumption that your reply was too. I shouldn't have, and should have checked first - will try to ensure I have the correct context in future.

Interestingly though, Fred66 has challenged the post of mine in question based on the assumption that it was a valid response, so there clearly are those who don't view the concepts of cruelty and welfare as others do.

 

[palo1]

I am confused: this was a response about legal trail hunting. I agree entirely that compassion and empathy for all beings is needed. I was not conveniently missing anything out, I don't think? My comments about deculturisation were also made with a view to history where those 'progressive' policies have largely resulted in significant damage and certainly have not demonstrated compassion or empathy. I don't think either I am turning a blind eye to suffering.

You missed out the bit about considering welfare and cruelty.

If you conveniently miss out the main issues to many situations then of course the other issues will seem less significant.

It's like saying it would be desperately sad and frustrating if bullfighting were banned for the reasons you've stated above, while completely overlooking the suffering being caused to another living, feeling being just for human pleasure.

What I find desperately sad is when people turn a blind eye to suffering in other beings, just because it suits them better to pretend it doesn't exist.

Compassion and empathy for all beings please.

So in a nutshell, he is saying that if you believe something, then that belief should be protected by law? Even if 80%+ of the public in this country think that said belief is cruel and outdated?

I have second hand embarrassment at him saying that he is as marginalised as the two black women he was debating.

He also said that trail hunting is no more than an equestrian sport, which goes against what most hunt supporters have said on here.

He did not hide that he wants to hunt fox, and was verging on being derogatory about trail hunting. At least he was being honest I suppose.

So in a nutshell, he is saying that if you believe something, then that belief should be protected by law? Even if 80%+ of the public in this country think that said belief is cruel and outdated?

I have second hand embarrassment at him saying that he is as marginalised as the two black women he was debating.

He also said that trail hunting is no more than an equestrian sport, which goes against what most hunt supporters have said on here.

He did not hide that he wants to hunt fox, and was verging on being derogatory about trail hunting. At least he was being honest I suppose.

I think it is potentially useful to consider the choice people make to eat halal meat, for example. The majority of people in the UK do not find that method of slaughter acceptable but it is made acceptable through legal protection which upholds the value and integrity of tolerance for minorities. I've always been very proud to live in a tolerant society but sometimes it can be uncomfortable. I just think we have to accept a level of discomfort if we want a diverse and tolerant society?

No idea why the quotes are muddled - sorry! Also, I wanted to add that in the post here I am referring to principles rather than responding directly about Ed Swales.

 

[PurpleSpots]

I am confused: this was a response about legal trail hunting. I agree entirely that compassion and empathy for all beings is needed. I was not conveniently missing anything out, I don't think? My comments about deculturisation were also made with a view to history where those 'progressive' policies have largely resulted in significant damage and certainly have not demonstrated compassion or empathy. I don't think either I am turning a blind eye to suffering.




I think it is potentially useful to consider the choice people make to eat halal meat, for example. The majority of people in the UK do not find that method of slaughter acceptable but it is made acceptable through legal protection which upholds the value and integrity of tolerance for minorities. I've always been very proud to live in a tolerant society but sometimes it can be uncomfortable. I just think we have to accept a level of discomfort if we want a diverse and tolerant society?

No idea why the quotes are muddled - sorry! Also, I wanted to add that in the post here I am referring to principles rather than responding directly about Ed Swales.

I truly hope that in time halal slaughter and anything else which causes an animal suffering without it being in their best interests is outlawed and ceases to happen on any level.

I don't care how uncomfortable I or anyone else feels about things happening to another being, though that is of course empathy which is an admirable and desirable trait, but I do care about how the being in question feels about their level of discomfort.

We have no right to inflict any sort of suffering on any other being when it is not in their best interests. And thankfully, we as a society seem to be gravitating towards acknowledging and adopting that principle more and more.

 

[palo1]

Ah, in that case my apologies. Much of this thread is made up of replies arguing the virtues of foxhunting, as is the original article, and I did make the assumption that your reply was too. I shouldn't have, and should have checked first - will try to ensure I have the correct context in future.

Interestingly though, Fred66 has challenged the post of mine in question based on the assumption that it was a valid response, so there clearly are those who don't view the concepts of cruelty and welfare as others do.

Well I do agree with @Fred66's statement in fact and wouldn't want to be disingenuous about my views but I was talking about both my own ethical position about compassion and empathy for all living beings, which I believe is compatible with traditional hunting practices as it happens, and the practice of legal trail hunting. I am aware that may seem contradictory.

 

[palo1]

I truly hope that in time halal slaughter and anything else which causes an animal suffering without it being in their best interests is outlawed and ceases to happen on any level.

I don't care how uncomfortable I or anyone else feels about things happening to another being, though that is of course empathy which is an admirable and desirable trait, but I do care about how the being in question feels about their level of discomfort.

We have no right to inflict any sort of suffering on any other being when it is not in their best interests. And thankfully, we as a society seem to be gravitating towards acknowledging and adopting that principle more and more.

Yes. I cannot see how we can set ourselves up like this though - how do we decide who or what is least deserving where there are competing interests ? Do you assert that people's long held beliefs are less important and thus deny them your empathy and compassion, or do we try to find an imperfect balance that may be less clear, harder to justify but potentially more open, less dogmatic?

 

[Caol Ila]

I’ve not seen the clip, but according to posts on the Countryside Alliance Hunting FB page the pro hunt speaker Ed Swales was ‘torn to shreds’ on ITV this morning.

Hunting Kind and the Countryside Alliance don’t see eye to eye, the former feel totally let down by the latter.

ETA This is the clip.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1823992083226460580

I can't tell the difference between The Thick Of It and real life anymore.

On a more serious note, palo, no one on this forum has a problem with hounds and riders chasing artificial scents or the clean boot. I've read the whole hunting thread. They seriously don't. The bloodhound thing sounds fun.

Things people do have problems with:

Killing foxes when they are not supposed to, which seems to happen frequently. Debating predator control and what is appropriate will continue until the end of the universe (depending on whether you like wildlife, chickens, or are somwhere in the middle), but wherever you stand, they made killing foxes in that manner illegal.

Hounds and hunters running riot over people's land when they don't want them there, causing damage to property and stress, injury, and even death to horses, other livestock, cats, etc. If they were following a trail or a human runner, they shouldn't go anywhere they are not meant to be.

 

[PurpleSpots]

Yes. I cannot see how we can set ourselves up like this though - how do we decide who or what is least deserving where there are competing interests ? Do you assert that people's long held beliefs are less important and thus deny them your empathy and compassion, or do we try to find an imperfect balance that may be less clear, harder to justify but potentially more open, less dogmatic?

I don't profess to have all the answers or think I should be the self-appointed judge of all human matters when it comes to the very grey areas of one person or group of people doing something which starts out as causing unintentional or unpredictable annoyance/irritation/suffering/distress to another person or people. For example noise nuisance or boundary disputes. There are procedures, laws and judges who determine what is fair in these sorts of instances. It doesn't always work in both parties' favour, I think it's impossible to think that it always could, and compromises - with sometimes the imperfect balance you mention - may have to be accepted.

But I do have very strong and straightforward views on what is right when it comes to causing unnecessary harm or suffering deliberately or predictably to others, animals and humans alike. It shouldn't happen. If part of a belief system involves causing suffering to another then that part needs to evolve, or better still completely change, in my opinion. How anyone can give acceptance to or even derive pleasure from causing unnecessary suffering to another is beyond me. We as a species seem to be capable of some quite horrifying things. However, I believe that the human race can do better than it currently is, and although slow, I have seen a positive shift in this direction during my lifetime thus far. Everything develops from the foundations of what came before, and most things are a gradual progression over time.

However, we generally resist change, and things will only ever change for the better if we challenge the status quo. I don't feel it is right to lobby for change based solely on our own desires, just for the sake of wanting change in order to feel powerful, it should be done to benefit others, or others too. If something is a problem to only us, or indeed if something we are doing affects someone else, then we're back to trying to find the best compromise - using the systems in place if it can't be done directly between the two parties.

This answer's currently a bit off the point of this thread, but if you assess foxhunting and drag/trail/any other form of legal hunting by the division I've set out, it should be clear that foxhunting falls into the category of causing unnecessary harm or suffering deliberately and predictably - to the fox, often to those animals following as the fox's course will be random, fox-focused and therefore potentially hazardous to other species, and to people and animals in the local area due to the unpredictability of the course the hunt will follow and when. And legal hunting should only fall into the category of causing unintentional or accidental suffering to others.

Maybe legal hunting is too tame for some - if so then I'm sure there are other extreme sports to enjoy which don't involve causing unnecessary harm and suffering to others.

 

[Caol Ila]

I don't profess to have all the answers or think I should be the self-appointed judge of all human matters when it comes to the very grey areas of one person or group of people doing something which starts out as causing unintentional or unpredictable annoyance/irritation/suffering/distress to another person or people. For example noise nuisance or boundary disputes. There are procedures, laws and judges who determine what is fair in these sorts of instances. It doesn't always work in both parties' favour, I think it's impossible to think that it always could, and compromises - with sometimes the imperfect balance you mention - may have to be accepted.

But I do have very strong and straightforward views on what is right when it comes to causing unnecessary harm or suffering deliberately or predictably to others, animals and humans alike. It shouldn't happen. If part of a belief system involves causing suffering to another then that part needs to evolve, or better still completely change, in my opinion. How anyone can give acceptance to or even derive pleasure from causing unnecessary suffering to another is beyond me. We as a species seem to be capable of some quite horrifying things. However, I believe that the human race can do better than it currently is, and although slow, I have seen a positive shift in this direction during my lifetime thus far. Everything develops from the foundations of what came before, and most things are a gradual progression over time.

However, we generally resist change, and things will only ever change for the better if we challenge the status quo. I don't feel it is right to lobby for change based solely on our own desires, just for the sake of wanting change in order to feel powerful, it should be done to benefit others, or others too. If something is a problem to only us, or indeed if something we are doing affects someone else, then we're back to trying to find the best compromise - using the systems in place if it can't be done directly between the two parties.

This answer's currently a bit off the point of this thread, but if you assess foxhunting and drag/trail/any other form of legal hunting by the division I've set out, it should be clear that foxhunting falls into the category of causing unnecessary harm or suffering deliberately and predictably - to the fox, often to those animals following as the fox's course will be random, fox-focused and therefore potentially hazardous to other species, and to people and animals in the local area due to the unpredictability of the course the hunt will follow and when. And legal hunting should only fall into the category of causing unintentional or accidental suffering to others.

Maybe legal hunting is too tame for some - if so then I'm sure there are other extreme sports to enjoy which don't involve causing unnecessary harm and suffering to others.

Best post of the thread.

 

[blitznbobs]

Here’s a thing. A fervent belief that fox hunting is wrong already has Equality Act protection .

Religion And Belief

Shah Qureshi reviews the recent employment tribunal decision which determined that Stoicism qualifies for protection under the Equality Act 2010

www.irwinmitchell.com

Animal rights ​

An employment tribunal held in Hashman v Milton Park (Dorset) Ltd t/an Orchard Park [2011] that a fervent belief that fox hunting is wrong has Equality Act protection. It stressed that not all opponents of fox hunting would be protected but accepted that the employee’s animal rights beliefs affected every aspect of his daily life.

​

Just because a belief has protection doesn’t mean the other side can’t be protected too…

Believing in a god is protected as is not believing in a god…

 

[palo1]

I don't profess to have all the answers or think I should be the self-appointed judge of all human matters when it comes to the very grey areas of one person or group of people doing something which starts out as causing unintentional or unpredictable annoyance/irritation/suffering/distress to another person or people. For example noise nuisance or boundary disputes. There are procedures, laws and judges who determine what is fair in these sorts of instances. It doesn't always work in both parties' favour, I think it's impossible to think that it always could, and compromises - with sometimes the imperfect balance you mention - may have to be accepted.

But I do have very strong and straightforward views on what is right when it comes to causing unnecessary harm or suffering deliberately or predictably to others, animals and humans alike. It shouldn't happen. If part of a belief system involves causing suffering to another then that part needs to evolve, or better still completely change, in my opinion. How anyone can give acceptance to or even derive pleasure from causing unnecessary suffering to another is beyond me. We as a species seem to be capable of some quite horrifying things. However, I believe that the human race can do better than it currently is, and although slow, I have seen a positive shift in this direction during my lifetime thus far. Everything develops from the foundations of what came before, and most things are a gradual progression over time.

However, we generally resist change, and things will only ever change for the better if we challenge the status quo. I don't feel it is right to lobby for change based solely on our own desires, just for the sake of wanting change in order to feel powerful, it should be done to benefit others, or others too. If something is a problem to only us, or indeed if something we are doing affects someone else, then we're back to trying to find the best compromise - using the systems in place if it can't be done directly between the two parties.

This answer's currently a bit off the point of this thread, but if you assess foxhunting and drag/trail/any other form of legal hunting by the division I've set out, it should be clear that foxhunting falls into the category of causing unnecessary harm or suffering deliberately and predictably - to the fox, often to those animals following as the fox's course will be random, fox-focused and therefore potentially hazardous to other species, and to people and animals in the local area due to the unpredictability of the course the hunt will follow and when. And legal hunting should only fall into the category of causing unintentional or accidental suffering to others.

Maybe legal hunting is too tame for some - if so then I'm sure there are other extreme sports to enjoy which don't involve causing unnecessary harm and suffering to others.

I do agree with you absolutely on these principles. I struggle with many of the choices humans and human societies make: from the battery farming systems which, in my view, have no justification, and environmentally destructive activities that are absolutely 'choices' and which are widely accepted, to the casual racism towards Travellers which I have and continue to see frequently on this forum. On the issue of nuisance, yes we have laws and processes which can and should be used and people individually should really try to do better ,

On the issue of traditional hunting with hounds, the evidence of suffering and cruelty was and never has been compelling (though it has been portrayed as rather one dimensional) and whilst the evidence of benefit has not been properly investigated, there is a great deal to suggest that foxes and other really vulnerable species benefited from this quite low-impact management.

I suppose with that in mind, if the tolerance of putting pigs in gas gondolas is possible, then so should the tolerance of traditional hunting. I am, however, totally clear that what is important to me is the cultural practices and knowledge of traditional hunting which may be possible without the intentional killing of a fox. I understand that becomes performative however, for example like the end of traditional lion hunting by the Maasai, which was necessitated by colonial hunting activities, ironically. In that instance those people experienced a cultural harm, the consequences of which are quite significant and which has certainly not directly benefited lions. I do not think it is simple at all and history often demonstrates that popular attitudes to cultural and environmental practices can be really difficult in the longer term.

 

[Tiddlypom]

Just because a belief has protection doesn’t mean the other side can’t be protected too…

Believing in a god is protected as is not believing in a god…

I realise that.

I’m thinking ahead to the overworked police having to intervene at hunts between two opposing groups who are both waving teacher’s notes saying that they have legal protection for their beliefs.

Gah.

The BHSA (endorsed by the Countryside Alliance) are busy organising their trail hunting demos for next month to show how squeaky clean trail hunting is (except it isn’t), and please let us continue with it, while Hunting Kind are saying feck boring old trail hunting, we want fox hunting back.

 

[Miss_Millie]

I think it is potentially useful to consider the choice people make to eat halal meat, for example. The majority of people in the UK do not find that method of slaughter acceptable but it is made acceptable through legal protection which upholds the value and integrity of tolerance for minorities. I've always been very proud to live in a tolerant society but sometimes it can be uncomfortable. I just think we have to accept a level of discomfort if we want a diverse and tolerant society?

I don't think that halal meat processing is any worse than pigs getting gassed in chambers and day old chicks getting macerated as a by-product of the egg industry, tbh. It's all vile (no I do not eat meat). The main difference I see though is that food is a requirement to basic survival, hunting foxes is not. Factory farming has come about because there are too many humans on this planet, which is a whole other issue.

For what it's worth, I live very rural and am surrounded by farms, my neighbours are farmers. There hasn't been a hunt in this area for some time and the farmers deal with 'pests' with a shotgun if the need arises. Thus so far, no-one has said a good word to me about the hunt that used to be here, or lamented their absence. They have however told many a tale of trespass, land getting trashed and stock-worrying. And they are all old-school country types.

I think that trail hunting needs to read the room if it wants to survive, a large majority of country folk want to see it gone, it's not a towny vs countryside issue or a class war, people are simply fed up of the repeat law-breaking.

 

[palo1]

I don't think that halal meat processing is any worse than pigs getting gassed in chambers and day old chicks getting macerated as a by-product of the egg industry, tbh. It's all vile (no I do not eat meat). The main difference I see though is that food is a requirement to basic survival, hunting foxes is not. Factory farming has come about because there are too many humans on this planet, which is a whole other issue.

For what it's worth, I live very rural and am surrounded by farms, my neighbours are farmers. There hasn't been a hunt in this area for some time and the farmers deal with 'pests' with a shotgun if the need arises. Thus so far, no-one has said a good word to me about the hunt that used to be here, or lamented their absence. They have however told many a tale of trespass, land getting trashed and stock-worrying. And they are all old-school country types.

I think that trail hunting needs to read the room if it wants to survive, a large majority of country folk want to see it gone, it's not a towny vs countryside issue or a class war, people are simply fed up of the repeat law-breaking.

Well, meat eating is a choice, as is the kind of meat production people support. It sounds as if, in your area, the hunt is not supported so no longer exists: that is how it should work I think. Foxes are shot in huge numbers In many places now; I hate seeing piles of them by farm gateways after people have had a night's foxing with nv scopes but that is how they are dealt with. In other areas, trail hunts are supported, even raise money for local charities and support local businesses without causing grief to local people or their pets or doing all of the other things reported. That works too...