Disgusted at behaviour of the hunt

[cptrayes]

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.

There are people, like Neil on this thread, who simply want not to kill fox themselves. As long as they don't kill fox when he is out on horseback then he, and I, wouldn't give a damn about what views they hold the rest of the time and would ride the trail hunt for fun. Because actually, we are a pretty tolerant lot as regards other people holding different views from our own.

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.

It was not being addressed by existing drag packs. Most of the country is not within travelling distance of a drag pack.

Most people would not be able to afford to set up a drag pack if they wanted to drag hunt and there was not one in their area. But given the sudden availability of trail hunting, they will go.

I maintain that there was latent demand for drag/trail hunting and the increase in numbers was most likely to be predominantly due to that. A poll held on this forum suggested as much, but of course it was not statistically valid due to small numbers.

If you put it down to the ban, why did those people not hunt before the ban?

Has the CLA or anyone else had any independent research commissioned into the new hunters and their motivation? I'd love to see it if anyone can point me to it.

 

[cptrayes]

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 am not trying to avoid addressing anything. I am not trying to make out that shooting is better than hunting for the fox, but what I do do is rebut the assertion that it is worse, and I have Burns to back that up.

The principle problem that I have with hunting with hounds is the prolonged chase which is used for entertainment by the followers. In the 21st Century that, to me, is unacceptable. Please respect my right to that opinion.

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

What basis do you have for disagreeing with me on this? You are not here when they shoot. You do not know the men involved or the equipment that they use or the level of skill that they have.

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.

They did not need to. They have been known in the area for a long time for their skill in taking out fox and deer with a clean kill. Not hearsay, observation.

Can you tell me what certificates of competency you show farmers before hunting fox on their land with hounds?

 

[Herne]

It was not being addressed by existing drag packs. Most of the country is not within travelling distance of a drag pack.

Because there was not the demand.

Has the CLA or anyone else had any independent research commissioned into the new hunters and their motivation? I'd love to see it if anyone can point me to it.

Not as far as I am aware.

However, I base my observations on being a Master of Foxhounds and talking to and getting to know every single one of the new subscribers and followers that we have.

Not one of them, not a single one, holds the motivation that you assume.

Now you could try to claim that my hunt was for some reason dramatically unrespresentitive of some national swing, but from my conversation with other Masters, I see no basis for assuming that to be the case.

If you put it down to the ban, why did those people not hunt before the ban?

Right, first of all, you are starting from a false premise. The increase in numbers did not begin with the ban. It started a number of years before the ban and has continued through the years of the ban.

And I put it down to a number of factors:

1) Hunts have woken up to the PR business over the past decade or so, and made active attempts to recruit people who were previously put off by the misapprehension that it was elitist or a closed-shop.

2) Hunting has woken up to the PR business over the past couple of decades and many more people are now aware that the anti-hunt argument is flawed and that hunting is not the sadsim-fest that the anti-hunters always made it out to be. The tide of public opinion is moving away from the antis not towards them. Pro-hunting consistently gets more votes these days than it did 20 years ago, which suggests that your theory is flawed.

3) Quite a number of people have started hunting since the ban specifically to demontrate their opposition to the ban and to show solidarity with the hunts. A number of additional land-owners have also started allowing access for the same reasons. As one said to me just the other day, "I don't like being told by the Government what I can and can't allow in my own land".

4) There were a number of newspaper and magazine articles in the early years of the ban stating that hunting was being considered to be "cool" (if you will forgive the use of the term) by some precisely because it had now been banned.

 

[AengusOg]

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?

Foxes are killed at all times of the year by just about any means available to those who wish them dead.

In hunting country, when hunting was allowed, the foxes enjoyed a bit of protection at certain times.

 

[Herne]

I am not trying to avoid addressing anything. I am not trying to make out that shooting is better than hunting for the fox, but what I do do is rebut the assertion that it is worse, and I have Burns to back that up.

No, you do not.

What Burns said was, and I quote:

Our tentative conclusion is that lamping using rifles, if carried out properly and in appropriate circumstances has fewer adverse welfare implications than hunting...

(the emphasis is mine, not his)

That is not a ringing endorsement in anyone's book. What Burns basically said is that shooting might be better than hunting under certain circumstances. Whoopee doo. Hardly basis for punitive legislation.

The principle problem that I have with hunting with hounds is the prolonged chase which is used for entertainment by the followers. In the 21st Century that, to me, is unacceptable. Please respect my right to that opinion.

There can be prolonged suffering in the chase, there can be prolonged suffering in gunshot wounds.

You are advocating the position that one was apparantly so bad that is should have been abolished by Law and that the other is apparantly just fine and dandy as it is.

You are entitled to hold that opinion. I am entitled to question you over the reasoning of your comparison and state my opinion that your "opinion" is just wishful thinking if you are unable to validate it.

What basis do you have for disagreeing with me on this? You are not here when they shoot. You do not know the men involved or the equipment that they use or the level of skill that they have ... They did not need to. They have been known in the area for a long time for their skill in taking out fox and deer with a clean kill. Not hearsay, observation.

Observation by whom? The people actually giving the permission or someone else? If it is someone else, then it is hearsay.

I am sorry, but in trying to make out that all shooting is done by marksmen you really are on a hiding to nothing - because there is no assessment made.

Accept the fact that some of the people that shoot are not marksmen and address the questions that that raises.

I am quite surprised that the implications do not seem to worry you...

 

[VoR]

Not bad, 31 pages out of someone being 'miffed' that the hunt passed over land that the landowner permitted them to hunt over, deliberately or by accident hunting a fox or maybe just following a trail who knows and an OP who has now said they are happy with the outcome.

 

[cptrayes]

Because there was not the demand.

There was demand. There was demand from me when I lived in Bristol and there was no drag pack near enough for me to hunt with. I am pretty sure that I was not alone. The increase in numbers of people trail hunting demonstrates, there was demand.

However, I base my observations on being a Master of Foxhounds and talking to and getting to know every single one of the new subscribers and followers that we have.

Now, it has been suggested to me that the people who tell me that they hunt fox were pulling my leg.

Let me tell you what I would most certainly do if I lived in your area, wanted to hunt trail with you and knew you were keen for fox hunting to be reinstated and that you had the power to prevent me from hunting with you.

I would not tell you my true feelings.

Right, first of all, you are starting from a false premise. The increase in numbers did not begin with the ban. It started a number of years before the ban and has continued through the years of the ban.

I was not aware of that before and I am surprised that I have made the statement that I have about increased numbers a number of times before anyone has told me.

Why do the Countryside Alliance not make that clear when they headline the 10% increase as reason for repeal, do you know?

And I put it down to a number of factors:

1) Hunts have woken up to the PR business over the past decade or so, and made active attempts to recruit people who were previously put off by the misapprehension that it was elitist or a closed-shop.

2) Hunting has woken up to the PR business over the past couple of decades and many more people are now aware that the anti-hunt argument is flawed and that hunting is not the sadsim-fest that the anti-hunters always made it out to be. The tide of public opinion is moving away from the antis not towards them. Pro-hunting consistently gets more votes these days than it did 20 years ago, which suggests that your theory is flawed.

3) Quite a number of people have started hunting since the ban specifically to demontrate their opposition to the ban and to show solidarity with the hunts. A number of additional land-owners have also started allowing access for the same reasons. As one said to me just the other day, "I don't like being told by the Government what I can and can't allow in my own land".

4) There were a number of newspaper and magazine articles in the early years of the ban stating that hunting was being considered to be "cool" (if you will forgive the use of the term) by some precisely because it had now been banned.

Your explanation makes a lot of sense to me, thankyou.



ps I am of course an anti hunter and I never have and never would either describe it or consider it to be a sadism fest. People on this forum have been rightly criticised for suggesting all hunters act in certain ways, please do not fall into the same language. Most people who are against hunting would not use such language to describe it, principally because they know that it is not.

 

[cptrayes]

Foxes are killed at all times of the year by just about any means available to those who wish them dead.

In hunting country, when hunting was allowed, the foxes enjoyed a bit of protection at certain times.

I am sure you are right Aengus.

I'm just not sure that it balances out cubbing (oh by the way I love people telling me that I am using the wrong terminology when you have chosen to whitewash what goes on with cubbing by calling it "Autumn Hunting" )

Trapping cubs inside a covert by positioning riders around the outside slapping their whips with their sticks and then putting young hounds into the enclosed area to get them? Not very sporting really, is it?

 

[rockysmum]

Will you people please think before you post.

In defending hunting, which I have admitted to having no interest in, you are attacking something I do enjoy. No doubt the sabs will be reading this and going after shoots next.

Some of you are making shooting sound like a bunch of chavs let out with firearms.

The people I know who shoot have a far better accuracy rating than those quoted and would not leave an injured animal without trying to find it and finish it off.

I actually only shoot clays, but my partner (now deceased) and his friends were regularly invited to cull deer and other animals. They took pride in killing humanely, and had the correct weapons for the job, everything from deer rifles to humane killers.

 

[cptrayes]

No, you do not.

That is not a ringing endorsement in anyone's book. What Burns basically said is that shooting might be better than hunting under certain circumstances. Whoopee doo. Hardly basis for punitive legislation.

He did not say that hunting with hounds was better, which is what hunters always want people to believe.

Why do you think that hunting was banned on welfare issues? It was banned for votes. It was supported by the majority of the British population on the basis that in the 21st century it is no longer defensible for a group of people on horseback to obtain enjoyment from an activity which requires the death of an animal after a long chase, particularly when that enjoyment can be replicated in a large measure by hunting a trail.

I did not personally believe that it should have had parliamentary time. I thought the timescale for implementation was grossly unfair and should have been a couple of decades. But I did agree with the result.

You are advocating the position that one was apparantly so bad that is should have been abolished by Law and that the other is apparantly just fine and dandy as it is.

No I am not. I am saying that one was an evil which was taking place in any case, with the majority of foxes being killed by other means than hunts even in hunted areas and therefore has very little relevance to the discussion.

Observation by whom? The people actually giving the permission or someone else? If it is someone else, then it is hearsay.

How do farmers know what kind of a job you do? Around here, they know the marksmen in the same way. I will continue to call a man who can stalk for a morning and take out his three target deer with three bullets with a clean kill each time a marksman. He surely deserves that title for his skill, and the venison was delicious.

I am sorry, but in trying to make out that all shooting is done by marksmen you really are on a hiding to nothing - because there is no assessment made.

I have never made this assertion. More than that, I have already talked about illegal lamping as being uncontrollable in large unpopulated areas of countryside.

Accept the fact that some of the[ people that shoot are not marksmen and address the questions that that raises.

I have, right from the beginnning of this argument. They existed before the ban and they exist after it. It does not materially affect the argument. Most foxes were never killed by hunts even in areas covered by a fox hunt. In fact I remember at the time one of the arguments put forward for keeping hunting with hounds by some people was "but we hardly ever catch them"

 

[cptrayes]

"whips with their sticks" should of course read "boots with their whips"

 

[EAST KENT]

It was finding a still alive cub that some dope had shot ,and was being eaten alive from maggot that made me pro hunting .Sure,marksmen do kill accurately..sometimes..but we`ll never know how many get winged and rot away.It is`nt like Africa where your hunting guide is honour bound to track up and kill your mistakes is it?
Now,don`t know about the rest of you..but I seem to have lost the will to live on this thread. Get well soon SC

 

[Judgemental]

Goodness me my darlings, you are really kicking on, 300+ posts and nearly 20,000 views. Are we talking about a record on the hunting forum?

It just goes to show how many people are interested, 20,000 views, it would be good if a few of those labour MP's came and participated.

I was considering a controversial comment and perhaps disagreeing with JG or Herne just for fun, but on reflection I am going to wish them a Happy and very Prosperous New Year, that goes for everybody else too.

We have not seen Simsar for ages or Paddy?

 

[EAST KENT]

It`s no where near the one that goes something like "I hate cobs because........." that one is endless .Yes..where IS Simsar??

 

[Lizzie66]

No I am not. I am saying that one was an evil which was taking place in any case, with the majority of foxes being killed by other means than hunts even in hunted areas and therefore has very little relevance to the discussion.

Are you really saying that "enjoying" the killing of animals is what you are against ? If so then please do ensure that all your "marksmen" are suitably miserable. I'm sure that no one who gets that good at their job/pastime does it through enjoying it !

Your arguments get more inane the longer this thread goes on !

 

[NeilM]

Will you people please think before you post.

In defending hunting, which I have admitted to having no interest in, you are attacking something I do enjoy. No doubt the sabs will be reading this and going after shoots next.

Some of you are making shooting sound like a bunch of chavs let out with firearms.

The people I know who shoot have a far better accuracy rating than those quoted and would not leave an injured animal without trying to find it and finish it off.

I actually only shoot clays, but my partner (now deceased) and his friends were regularly invited to cull deer and other animals. They took pride in killing humanely, and had the correct weapons for the job, everything from deer rifles to humane killers.

Well said, I tried to make a similar point earlier.

Let's be clear about terms, someone with a rifle or shotgun is not a marksman, but a marksman does use a rifle (or shotgun). The Oxford English definition of a marksman is: Someone skilled in shooting.

There are those who have firearms, who regard foxes (and just about anything else) as vermin, and as such, they are not bothered if they get a clean kill or not. That is not a marksman and that kind of person will not be invited (as I have been) to cull deer, shoot foxes and clear other vermin from farm and woodland. Sad to say, in my experience over many years, the people most likely to 'wing' an animal and leave it to it's own fate are 'friends' of landowners.

Sorry, I'm taking this thread off track, but it is important not to tar all shooters with the same brush (and all hunts I guess).

 

[A1fie]

I hunt but I do not shoot however I do believe that both hunting and shooting have a vital role to play in the conservation of the countryside. I think both have historically worked along side each other and both, when done properly are the most humane way of managing the fox population.

I think that sometimes (pre ban) a hunt could flush out a problematic/old/sick fox quicker than a marksman could by laying in wait, however I have no problem accepting that a high percentage of shooters are very skilled and accurate.

 

[VoR]

The longer this goes on the more confused I get, so a couple genuine questions from a confused forum member;

Anti-hunt posters are justifying why more people are hunting by saying it is because we no longer hunt a quarry and these people would stop hunting if we did, however, LACS and all anti-hunting people also pronounce that we ARE hunting live foxes and therefore we need to be monitored, sabbed, otherwise interfered with? Doesn't that contradict the 'more people are hunting because live animals are not hunted' stance and therefore which is the true picture?

On the subject of shooting; Are posters saying that shoots do not get sabbed at present? If that is the case, why would a group who are against killing animals for sport (and yes I know some of what is shot is eaten) not do this? I know that sabs have targetted angling in some areas so, on what grounds do LACS/sabs select the field sports they choose to disrupt?

 

[rockysmum]

On the subject of shooting; Are posters saying that shoots do not get sabbed at present? If that is the case, why would a group who are against killing animals for sport (and yes I know some of what is shot is eaten) not do this? I know that sabs have targetted angling in some areas so, on what grounds do LACS/sabs select the field sports they choose to disrupt?

Thats a very good point, I have no idea as I have not shot anything live since my partner died. I assumed not, as we have quite a lot of pheasant shoots around us and I have never seen a sab, whereas I believe our local hunts attract them.

It will be interesting to hear about other parts of the country. I cant seem to remember seeing sabs at shoots in the press. Perhaps their courage fails them when it comes to firearms

I do remember being verbally attacked one night in the pub when we were discussing shooting skeet. A group of people decided to give us their opinions on our cruelty to animals

 

[VoR]

I cant seem to remember seeing sabs at shoots in the press. Perhaps their courage fails them when it comes to firearms

I do remember being verbally attacked one night in the pub when we were discussing shooting skeet. A group of people decided to give us their opinions on our cruelty to animals

Right so the answer is to do a 'John Wayne' and have a rifle on my saddle then 'yeeee-haah'!!

And I have to agree that it's cruel shooting those cuddly little Skeets you nasty person!

 

[AmyMay]

Really interesting post. Excellent points made by both Herne and Cptrays.

 

[cptrayes]

I do remember being verbally attacked one night in the pub when we were discussing shooting skeet. A group of people decided to give us their opinions on our cruelty to animals

Fantastic!

I'm against killing furry little bergamots to make Earl Grey tea too

 

[Miss L Toe]

What harm do those poor skeet do, and you can't even claim you are killing for the pot :biggrin:

 

[VoR]

Fantastic!

I'm against killing furry little bergamots to make Earl Grey tea too

Pah, Bergamot vermin deserve everything they get!

 

[Fiagai]

Thats a very good point, I have no idea as I have not shot anything live since my partner died. I assumed not, as we have quite a lot of pheasant shoots around us and I have never seen a sab, whereas I believe our local hunts attract them.
It will be interesting to hear about other parts of the country. I cant seem to remember seeing sabs at shoots in the press. Perhaps their courage fails them when it comes to firearms
I do remember being verbally attacked one night in the pub when we were discussing shooting skeet. A group of people decided to give us their opinions on our cruelty to animals

RM

Your point reminds me very much of the dichotomy of a recent Advert for Brookes (bicycle) Saddles entitled

- Unquestionable British Tradition (!) The advert shows a pair of rather trendily dressed individuals "saving a fox from hounds" by grabbing it and hiding behind some trees!!!, The real laugh is that the pair have arrived at their location (in the middle of a wood) by racing type road bikes sporting Brookes saddles. Now as a proud owner of a bike with a comfy Brookes saddle I think that cycling in the countryside is quite nice However Brookes saddles are made of tanned cow hide . Hardly concerned impartial vegans are they

The "Unquestionable British Tradition" title really is a bit odd!. Surely Fox Hunting is traditional and perhaps cycling also falls under the same definition but I think fox rescuing is a bit more "New Labour" tbh than Unquestionable British Tradition.

I do like the comments in the video about the guy "rescuing the fox from St Tiddlywinks Hedgehog Hospital" to take up a life as a film extra and the directors comments about asking a Master of Fox hounds to participate LOL...

Back to your point RM - it appears to be extremely trendy at the moment to be an Anti and even after the Hunting Act give credence to the media frenzy that anyone dressed up in the correct gear with hounds is actually hunting.

The advert is simply perpetuating this myth. Perhaps there will be a follow up showing the same couple rescuing pheasants in the middle of a shoot? I wonder how fast they could peddle.....

For anyone who wishes to view the advert LINK

Enjoy I am away to pick myself up from the floor...

 

[VoR]

RM

- Unquestionable British Tradition (!) The "Unquestionable British Tradition" title really is a bit odd!.

Surely Fox Hunting is traditional and perhaps cycling also falls under the same definition.

Hmmm, so the first bicycles were introduced in what, early 19th Century? The first fox hunt say, mid 16th Century? Sabbing more 20th Century? Are they saying Cycling and sabbing are a tradition and fox hunting not? I seem to be spending most of my time like this on this thread!!

 

[LaurenBay]

I think that as usual things are getting out of hand. The original (and justified) complaint by the OP has been addressed by the Hunt Master in the form of Vodka D ) and profuse apologies. The OP has been very mature, magnanimous, and gracious in accepting the apology and is now happy to forget it and move on.
Those who are spoiling for a fight - still - when it is not necessary need to take lead from the OP.
I'll drink to that (preferably vodka ) - let sleeping dogs lie now.

Need a like button! Although make mine a Malibu

OP glad you got the result you were looking for.

 

[Fiagai]

Hmmm, so the first bicycles were introduced in what, early 19th Century? The first fox hunt say, mid 16th Century? Sabbing more 20th Century? Are they saying Cycling and sabbing are a tradition and fox hunting not? I seem to be spending most of my time like this on this thread!!

Tbh I think what ever sells is the real message

But doing a proper piece of deconstructivism I noted the following

*There are no Hunt staff or followers evident anywhere

*Hounds are pretend ones ie ie show hounds

*The Fox is a film extra and is obviously scarred out of its wits by the whole cabbodle (and you cant blame the pretend hounds as they were filmed in a seperate scene)

The Anti's are film extras (arnt they always )

*The original idea was to use a shot frozen stuffed fox but the director decided that wouldn't be good policy!!

So I gather it was somehow better for marketing purposes to pretend that a "pet" fox was being hunted by pretend hounds and rescued by actors pretending to be New Labour Anti types (spot the trendy flat cap) than to use a real albeit dead fox that had been actually shot....

You are the not the only one that is confused VoR....

 

[Fiagai]

Ok my sincerest appologies to Brookes Bicycle Saddles...hrrrmmmppphhhahahrmppph

This is from their website and is titled..
www.brooksengland.com/[B]Our Heritage[/B]
BOULTBEE BROOKS AND HIS FAMILY’
Courtesy of Blackwell Court, Late House of the Brooks Family

LINK

I presume it will be replaced by a photograph of some sabs in balaclavas....


oh the irony of it ..sorry I really cant stop I am back on the floor again...hrrrmmmppphhhahahrmppph...

 

[NeilM]

On the subject of shooting; Are posters saying that shoots do not get sabbed at present? If that is the case, why would a group who are against killing animals for sport (and yes I know some of what is shot is eaten) not do this? I know that sabs have targetted angling in some areas so, on what grounds do LACS/sabs select the field sports they choose to disrupt?

This is a question that has long puzzled me. LACS and other sabs target hunts / meets, and make a huge amount of fuss about the cruelty aspect of hunting with hounds.

How much fuss do they make about badger baiting, or dog fighting, or cock fighting or ever bare knuckle fighting. All are barbaric, but I have never heard of a dog fight or badger dig being sabbed, why not? Well, mainly because those who participate in such pastimes would tear the sabs into teeny tiny pieces, or more likely their dogs would.

This is why I have always regarded the hunting ban as purely political and organisations who campaigned for the ban and for the continuation of the ban are simply left wingers having a go at the 'toffs'.