Disgusted at behaviour of the hunt

[Always Henesy]

Crikey! Is this still going on?

Good posts from all...but please agree to disagree and put this to bed.
Stupid me gets notified on my phone every time there is a reply...it takes me 1/2 hour just to delete them all!

 

[Alec Swan]

.......
Stupid me gets notified on my phone every time there is a reply...it takes me 1/2 hour just to delete them all!

Put your 'phone on vibrate? Perhaps. Just a thought!!

Alec.

 

[cptrayes]

cptrayes, or what ever your new guise is,

My guise is cptrayes as has always been clear. For fun I have taken Santa Paws for Christmas as a logon but my true name is at the bottom of the page.

over the last year, or so, you've entertained us with your hypothesised nonsense, and the strange thing is, and I'll include myself in this, you've managed to entrap others in debate.

Please explain what you think is hypothesized nonsense and I will attempt to explain the basis of my opinion and observation. As far as I am aware, I have "hypothesized" nothing, but I am happy to clarify if you think that I have.

I don't seek to "entrap" anyone in debate. I come onto these threads to put a different point of view to people who may come on and read it, and to correct things that are completely wrong, like the idea that drag packs somehow depend on fox hunts and attacking someone as a troll on the basis that recompense for wrongdoing was made with a bottle of vodka and not a bottle of whisky.

There is a simple fact which you seem to overlook; you argue from the standpoint of someone with little or no experience,

I do not. I argue from the standpoint of an ex fox hunter with three hunts, a drag hunter of many years standing with three drag packs, and a long term country dweller and landowner who has read the reports and done my research.

You fall once again into the argument "you simply don't understand". I do understand. I do not agree. Unfortunately for you and others, failure to agree with you is, in your definition, a failure to understand that fox hunting is right. What I do understand is that your passion for your sport, which I admire, had caused a huge feeling of loss for you all, with which I wholly sympathise.

But it does not mean that you can simply write off the opinions of anyone who does not agree with you as a failure to understand your sport.

those of us daft enough to engage you in debate, make little or no progress,

"Progress" meaning that no matter how many times you repeat yourselves that I will not believe that modern day fox hunting holds any more relevance than the local golf club?

Correct, you cannot make that "progress".

Not one of the dire predictions of the Countryside Alliance - shot hounds, people out of work - has come true since the ban and there are now 10% more people hunting than there were before. Do you think all those people have joined because they are so incensed that hunting has been banned that they want to support it? No, most of them have come out because they want to hunt without chasing fox and there was no drag pack in their area.

Why can you hunting people who argue like this on this forum not accept valid criticism of your sport, put right what is clearly wrong (like the original post of this thread) and then accept that there are those of us who simply do not agree with you about the rest?

rockysmum, I'm sorry if you find me arrogant, but were you to argue with someone who insists upon laying down factual statements, as evidence, which the bulk of us know to be nonsense, would you not become a little impatient?

Please enlighten me as to the nonsense that I am talking, because so far the only nonsense I can see is stuff like Fiagai saying that illegal lamping can be controlled by a fox hunt acting in concert with farmers, others saying fox hounds can't be called off a live scent when drag hounds can, that somehow hunting fox on hounds is absolutely essential for farmers etc etc.

My major statements so far have been:

Some packs are hunting fox by failing to call hounds off a live scent when they pick it up when following a trail.

A small number (possibly only the two of which I have close knowledge) are deliberately hunting fox illegally.

Drag hounds are not routinely sabbed because they don't hunt fox.

Lamping illegally cannot be completely controlled and never has been.

The majority of foxes in hunted areas were never killed by the hunt, they were killed by other means.

Burns says that shooting is at least as humane as hunting and there is no idependant source to show that it is not.

Many areas never were fox hunted by hounds and this demonstrates the fallacy of saying that fox hunting by hounds is essential to farmers.

And a few other bits and pieces.

Now, if you have some evidence that those are not correct, please present it and lets discuss it. I would love to.

Meanwhile I will go back to reading my inbox of people telling me they agree with what I am writing but that they are too scared of the attacks that are made on this forum by supporters of hunting to post for themselves.

Continue, if you wish to educate, but I suspect that you'll give up, as I now am.

Alec you do not wish to educate. You wish to make people who have a moral objection to culling foxes with a pack of hounds followed by a pack of riders agree with you that they are wrong.

They are not wrong.

I am not wrong.

We all hold a different opinion from you and it is time that you began to respect it, because this new generation of young people feel even stronger about it.

 

[Alec Swan]

Santa Paws,

there was a point, some while back, when the stupidity of your points was irksome. No longer.

It isn't that I can't debate the points of hunting with you, but more that I wont. Both you and I see the world through different eyes. You may quote all the reports which you wish, but do you actually speak with experience? I've read your claims of knowledge and experience, but had you kept your eyes and ears open, you would have come away with a different viewpoint, and it would be at odds with your current stance.

I would point out to you, that quoting the idiot, does little to further the quoters point.

Alec.

 

[Fiagai]

Oh dear S_P

Your comments which started as ludicrous have now descended into hilarity: you ignore posters who have given you concrete examples as once of incidences and yet to continue to bandy about your one alleged incident of some unnamed secretary in some unnamed hunt to make the uncorroborated statement about all hunts that have historically hunted fox continue to do so!

You do appear to have a most wonderful knack of making friends! I understand from your posts you are on your third drag hunt in three years? Taking the example of your behaviour here I am really not that surprised. You would appeared to have successfully insulted and derided practically every poster who has replied to you. As for one who has always hunted with the same hunt I can only presume that your bed hopping is perhaps as a result of similar behaviour that you have engaged in here namely shouting your views while insulting those that do not agree with you. I do dearly hope that you will follow suit and maybe find somewhere where someone might listen to your rantings....

btw the way you are one who claimed lamping was great fun! This really is hilarious.

 

[cptrayes]

With friends like you pair fox hunting needs no enemies, does it?

Congratulations guys, you have both brought this discussion down to gratuitous insults, and I am sure that I am not the only one who will notice that it is the pro-hunters who have done that and not the antis.

 

[Fiagai]

With friends like you pair fox hunting needs no enemies, does it?

Congratulations guys, you have both brought this discussion down to gratuitous insults, and I am sure that I am not the only one who will notice that it is the pro-hunters who have done that and not the antis.

erhhh so you are saying you are an Anti!

 

[YorksG]

However SantaPaws, you are the only one who has openly admitted committing an offence Plus if you hunt on Saddleworth Moor, which mounted pack can you possibly hunt with?

 

[Alec Swan]

......., you have both brought this discussion down to gratuitous insults, and I am sure that I am not the only one who will notice that it is the pro-hunters who have done that and not the antis.

It's a strange thing, but the person who has no valid argument, all so often refers to the corrective, as an insult. Reading through the posts of Fiagai, I can see little to take offence at, and for myself, I can assure you, that that was never my intent.

If I have indeed caused offence, then you have my unreserved apology. That said, damaging and factually inaccurate statements will be rebuffed, and on occasions firmly. The simple fact is that if you insist on talking tripe, then those who see the world as it is, will speak up. Sorry, but that's a fact of life.

Cheer up, it'll soon be Christmas!

Alec.

 

[cptrayes]

erhhh so you are saying you are an Anti!

Have I not made it clear enough that on a personal basis I believe hunting fox on horseback with hounds is unjustfiable? Were you asleep ?

 

[cptrayes]

However SantaPaws, you are the only one who has openly admitted committing an offence Plus if you hunt on Saddleworth Moor, which mounted pack can you possibly hunt with?

Yorks G


I do not hunt Saddleworth moor. I did not say that I did.

What offence are you accusing me of having committed?

 

[YorksG]

The offence of having knowlege of others committing offences and you being an accessory by not informing the authorities of this
Well I knew you did not hunt with a mounted pack on Saddleworth Moor, but you did seem to suggest a close acquaintance with the place, while discussing your hunting.

 

[Fiagai]

Have I not made it clear enough that on a personal basis I believe hunting fox on horseback with hounds is unjustfiable? Were you asleep ?

Sish, Just in case you missed it (ahem), that last statement was meant as ironic! S_P I am really quite old enough to know fairy tales from reality. So I'm afraid I believe in you and your uncorroberated views as much as I belive in your namesake (ie Santa) and thankfully Its now time to return to reality

 

[cptrayes]

Yorks don't be silly

If failing to report everyone you ever see or hear of doing things which are illegal was a prosecution which would hold up in court, though it is technically an offence, we would all be in court every day reporting speeding drivers and people who have a fag in the toilet of a pub.

It takes a bit more than someone inviting me to join a fox hunt and me declining for me to have commited a criminal offence, thankfully, particularly as I have broadcast it on this forum and will happily provide any policeman reading it with the details should they ask.

If you are unhappy with that explanation can I suggest that you will yourself be committing an offence if you do not now report me to the Police? Pop along to your local station tomorrow morning.

 

[YorksG]

I can assure you that I am not being at all silly. You stated very clearly that you had been invited to hunt illegally and also stated that people should not choose which laws they obeyed. Therefore by your own moral standpoint, you have a duty to report the actual law breaking and the intended law breaking, by the hunts who invited you to hunt fox.

 

[cptrayes]

Please pop along and report me Yorks, do. You are quite correct, I am not following my own moral code with regard to the letter of the law in failing to report my friends for telling me that they hunt fox.

 

[YorksG]

I have no intent or interest in reporting you, however I do find your hypocrisy somewhat odd. and your posting style unpleasant in the attempt to be patronising, but each to their own

 

[Alec Swan]

....... for telling me that they hunt fox.

Psst, just a tip for you, nobody who hunts would use your terminology. We "Ride to Hounds", we don't "hunt fox", ever. Our cousins on the other side of the pond may, but then they're a curious lot!!

cpt, let me take you under my wing, and help you in sounding a little more plausible. This is a genuine offer of assistance.

Alec.

 

[stormhill]

Santa paws,
I have read your threads over the past few days initially with amusement but increasingly with complete disgust. Since the ban a lot of people have worked very hard under a lot of pressure to maintain what for many is a way of life.They have done a brilliant job and more people are following hounds than ever. You obviously have no problem with killing foxes hence your lamping comment. Sadly since the ban we have no way of legally putting the badly shot victims of your 'sport' out of their misery. I know that people will agree that the fox population in this country is in a worse state than ever since 2005. It is obvious that the purpose of your posts is soley to upset and aggrivate so please abuse me as I am sure you will and then GO AWAY because you are very BORING

 

[Herne]

Please explain what you think is hypothesized nonsense and I will attempt to explain the basis of my opinion and observation. As far as I am aware, I have "hypothesized" nothing, but I am happy to clarify if you think that I have.

To me the strongest evidence of the fact that that you are merely spouting anti-hunt rhetoric rather than speaking from a real knowledge and understanding of the countryside is the way you continually and repeatedly try to make out that the main alternative to hunting is for foxes and deer to be controlled by "marksmen".

"Marksmen" is a term used by those who are trying to hide the fact, as stated by Lord Burns, that every form of animal control has adverse welfare implications.

Animals in the British countryside are not shot by "marksmen". They are shot by "people with guns".

Whether they are trained SAS snipers or people who could not hit a barn door at 10 feet with a blunderbuss is left entirely down to luck - but from my personal experience on the shooting field there are more of the latter than the former.

There is no qualification of accuracy necessary, there is no assessment of efficiency made and there is no specification as to the suitability of the type and calibre of firearm used.

Hopefully, most gamekeepers and professional stalkers are relatively competent with the tools of their trade - but again this is a hope rather than any form of verified statistic.

But gamekeepers and professional stalkers are only a small proprtion of those shooting foxes out in our countryside.


And the point is, when you compare hunting with hounds to shooting by properly trained, experienced marksmen with a 95-99% accuracy rate, then the amount of suffering involved in hunting may compare unfavourably to the shooting.

However, when you start comparing it to shooting done by people with a 60-70% accuracy rate - ie: normal people - where one shot in three is botched, then the balance swings wayyyy in the other direction.

And when you start comparing hunting to the other forms of fox control, such as trapping, snaring and poisoning then the balance crashes like a ton of bricks in favour of hunting.


The problem with most anti-hunt arguers is that they try to compare what happens in hunting with hounds to some utopian ideal of how they wish little foxy would live in comfort without the nasty hunters being involved.

The reality is that every fox in the wild dies a nasty death involving suffering. The choice is not, as antis would have it, between suffering and not-suffering; it is between which type of unpleasant death the fox will endure.

And with your constant repetition of the "marksman" myth, you place yourself squarely in the unrealistic end of the spectrum.

 

[A1fie]

CPTrayes/Santa paws is the only member of the forum I have ever felt the need to put on user ignore. I find her ignorant, uninformed and self righteous in her views on everything from barefoot to hunting and the internet equivalent of the person at a party who talks loudly at you, not listening to a word you say.

 

[NeilM]

There is no qualification of accuracy necessary, there is no assessment of efficiency made and there is no specification as to the suitability of the type and calibre of firearm used.

Not entirely true, certainly not for deer, and as a 'retired' marksman, I would like to defend those who use rifles for both deer and fox. I know of no one who would be satisfied with anything other than 100% clean kill. First, because these people take a pride in keeping suffering to an absolute minimum, regardless of what they are shooting, and second because a missed shot means a high velocity rifle round flying through the countryside, and for that you could easily lose your FAC.

As for those using shotguns...that is a different matter. There are those who are very good and there are those who are not.

That said, I believe in freedom of choice, and the hunting ban restricts that freedom.

 

[cptrayes]

To me the strongest evidence of the fact that that you are merely spouting anti-hunt rhetoric rather than speaking from a real knowledge and understanding of the countryside is the way you continually and repeatedly try to make out that the main alternative to hunting is for foxes and deer to be controlled by "marksmen".

"Marksmen" is a term used by those who are trying to hide the fact, as stated by Lord Burns, that every form of animal control has adverse welfare implications.

Animals in the British countryside are not shot by "marksmen". They are shot by "people with guns".

Whether they are trained SAS snipers or people who could not hit a barn door at 10 feet with a blunderbuss is left entirely down to luck - but from my personal experience on the shooting field there are more of the latter than the former.

There is no qualification of accuracy necessary, there is no assessment of efficiency made and there is no specification as to the suitability of the type and calibre of firearm used.

Hopefully, most gamekeepers and professional stalkers are relatively competent with the tools of their trade - but again this is a hope rather than any form of verified statistic.

But gamekeepers and professional stalkers are only a small proprtion of those shooting foxes out in our countryside.


And the point is, when you compare hunting with hounds to shooting by properly trained, experienced marksmen with a 95-99% accuracy rate, then the amount of suffering involved in hunting may compare unfavourably to the shooting.

However, when you start comparing it to shooting done by people with a 60-70% accuracy rate - ie: normal people - where one shot in three is botched, then the balance swings wayyyy in the other direction.

And when you start comparing hunting to the other forms of fox control, such as trapping, snaring and poisoning then the balance crashes like a ton of bricks in favour of hunting.


The problem with most anti-hunt arguers is that they try to compare what happens in hunting with hounds to some utopian ideal of how they wish little foxy would live in comfort without the nasty hunters being involved.

The reality is that every fox in the wild dies a nasty death involving suffering. The choice is not, as antis would have it, between suffering and not-suffering; it is between which type of unpleasant death the fox will endure.

And with your constant repetition of the "marksman" myth, you place yourself squarely in the unrealistic end of the spectrum.

You omit anywhere in this rant to mention that while fox hunting was legal the majority of foxes, even in areas covered by hunts, were killed in the ways you mention, good and bad. Banning hunting with hounds has changed very little in that respect.

I make no apologies for the use of the term marksman. When my friends require fox or deer to be culled they call in one of several local marksmen.

Perhaps you are all so entrenched in your hunting with hounds model that you are unaware what happens in vast areas of the countryside which are not covered by a fox pack?

 

[cptrayes]

Santa paws,
I have read your threads over the past few days initially with amusement but increasingly with complete disgust. Since the ban a lot of people have worked very hard under a lot of pressure to maintain what for many is a way of life.They have done a brilliant job and more people are following hounds than ever. You obviously have no problem with killing foxes hence your lamping comment. Sadly since the ban we have no way of legally putting the badly shot victims of your 'sport' out of their misery. I know that people will agree that the fox population in this country is in a worse state than ever since 2005. It is obvious that the purpose of your posts is soley to upset and aggrivate so please abuse me as I am sure you will and then GO AWAY because you are very BORING

Stormhill there is a button that you can press so that you will not see my posts. Please use it.

I do not shoot and therefore it is not my sport, but you are correct that I have no problem with vermin animals being culled.

You have " no way of legally putting the badly shot victims of your 'sport' out of their misery" You couldn't catch and shoot a fox which has already been disabled by a poor shot, even using two hounds to flush it to a gun? Dear me, that's a sad admission isn't it?

There are more people following hounds then ever? Yes, they are hunting a trail. The latent demand for hunting without hunting fox was there, can you not see that? If/when you get the ban lifted I predict an increasingly aging field with dwindling numbers, because the kids coming out of school now are more against the chasing of live quarry with a pack of hounds before killing it than the generation before them. It is past its time.

 

[Herne]

You omit anywhere in this rant to mention that while fox hunting was legal the majority of foxes, even in areas covered by hunts, were killed in the ways you mention, good and bad. Banning hunting with hounds has changed very little in that respect.

Perhaps you are all so entrenched in your hunting with hounds model that you are unaware what happens in vast areas of the countryside which are not covered by a fox pack?

No, dear heart, I am perfectly aware of what happens in non-hunting areas of the countryside. I have lived and worked in non-hunting area and I have shot foxes myself with different calibres and types of firearms.

The difference between you and me is that I am not trying to make out that hunting is so much better than shooting that shooting ought to be banned in favour of hunting.

What I am saying, and what you are trying to avoid addressing, is that hunting is not so much worse than shooting that it should be banned in favour of shooting.

I make no apologies for the use of the term marksman. When my friends require fox or deer to be culled they call in one of several local marksmen.

No. Your friends call in one of several people with guns who like to shoot things.

If any single one of them had ever asked any of those people to provide any form of accuracy certificate or, better still, made them set up targets and prove their competency in person before setting them loose on the local wildlife, I would be surpised.

It will be based on hearsay and the assertions of the so-called marksmen themselves, not any any form of qualification or assessment.

 

[Herne]

There are more people following hounds then ever? Yes, they are hunting a trail. The latent demand for hunting without hunting fox was there, can you not see that?

Nonsense.

There is not a former quarry pack in the country that is now advertising itself as a "pacifist" pack that doesn't approve of killing foxes.

Every single one of them is advocating a return to quarry hunting and and campaigning for that return and nearly every single one of them is still actively involved in killing foxes by the various legal methods available to maintain the link between fox control and the Hunt in the minds of farmers and landowners in their area.

Any anti-quarry-hunt person finding themselves happy and comfortable in such an environment and surrounded by such people would have to be so unperceptive as to be almost comatose.

The latent demand for hunting without hunting fox was there, can you not see that?

Of course it was, and it was already being addressed by the existing drag packs.

Had there been extra demand before the ban, then there would have been more or bigger drag packs before the ban to address it.

 

[Herne]

You omit anywhere in this rant to mention...

Incidentally, your description of my perfectly calm, rational and inoffensive response to your question as a "rant" is also quite revealing...

 

[Lizzie66]

There are more people following hounds then ever? Yes, they are hunting a trail. The latent demand for hunting without hunting fox was there, can you not see that? If/when you get the ban lifted I predict an increasingly aging field with dwindling numbers, because the kids coming out of school now are more against the chasing of live quarry with a pack of hounds before killing it than the generation before them. It is past its time.

You do like to contradict yourself don't you !

According to your previous posts more people than ever are hunting now. Also according to your previous posts most foxhound packs are still chasing live quarry. Therefore by your own definition more people than ever are out hunting live quarry. The British have always been perverse, the more you tell us we can't do something the more we want to do it !

I would also like to point out that there are a number of well reported cases of senior active LACS members that have, upon closer studying of the animal welfare issues relating to hunting with hounds, made the informed decision to change sides. Not yet heard of a former MFH campaigning for LACS, but feel free to prove me wrong !

The point is that hunting with hounds is the best method of conservation of a healthy fox population. Nature can be "cruel" in the sense that the sick and infirm are left to fend for themselves or die. Hunting with hounds brings this suffering to an end fairly rapidly or, in the case of a healthy fox, the animal gets away free from injury.

If all we wanted was a good day out then we would all be happy to continue hunting a trail or with drag hounds. The point is that many of us fervently believe that hunting with hounds is in the best interests of maintaining a healthy fox population at manageable numbers.

The fact that you don't like the idea of hunting live quarry is not a problem to me nor I imagine to anyone on here. I don't take pleasure in the kill, the pleasure is in watching hounds work to find and follow a trail, and satisfaction in them doing the job they were bred and trained for, roll on the repeal! I must say I used to get a bit of a kick when one did get away !

What I find a problem is the sanctimonious and patronising tone that you have taken on this thread. You have a different opinion - fine, you are more than entitled to it. However you keep harping on as though your opinion is fact, whereas it is actually based on fluffy bunny rhetoric. You don't care about animal welfare, you don't even appear to care about preserving life at all cost (you have said you are happy to have them shot), at least if this were the case I could quite happily agree to differ.

 

[EAST KENT]

Urghh .

Oxymetazoline.
Paracetamol.
Menthol.

If I'm lucky in a minute and there is any left, mulled Merlot.

I hope you feel better than me

Blimey..all that and the dreaded Saddleworth Moor..no wonder you are so cross. Cheer up,we have ten minutes more daylight already,smile

 

[cptrayes]

according to your previous posts most foxhound packs are still chasing live quarry.

I have never said this.

The point is that hunting with hounds is the best method of conservation of a healthy fox population.

I do not agree with you. Please respect my right to disagree.

What I find a problem is the sanctimonious and patronising tone that you have taken on this thread. You have a different opinion - fine, you are more than entitled to it. However you keep harping on as though your opinion is fact, whereas it is actually based on fluffy bunny rhetoric.

Please tell me what facts I have quoted whch are incorrect and I will gladly learn from you.

You don't care about animal welfare

You make an enormous leap from me expressing the opinion that chasing a fox with hounds followed by a pack of people on horses is not the correct way to conserve and manage them in the 21st century to a complete lack of care about animal welfare, don't you?