The first hunting bill was presented to and rejected by the unelected second chamber in July 2003. People were still signing the declaration then. That's why the CA produced a page on their site entitled "Your questions on the Hunting Declaration answered. Tuesday, 28 October 2003".
But the timing doesn't matter anyway. If you look at the actual declaration you signed, you pledged:
"Consequently, we the undersigned declare our intention to disobey, peacefully, ANY LAW PURPORTING TO BAN HUNTING; any such law would be manifestly unjust." [my caps]
You didn't pledge openly to defy the law, UNLESS WE COULD FIND ONE OR TWO LOOPHOLES. You promised, quite explicitly, to disobey any law purporting to ban hunting. You broke this promise.
The other sad point is that hunts are defying the ban even without using loopholes. Cubbing is still going on, so is olde-worlde hunting with hounds. You've not just broken your pledge in the hunting declaration, you've reduced yourselves to acting like common criminals: you've prepared for yourselves an unsavoury diet of dishonesty and cowardice.
Why do you insist on complaining? LACS and its supporters got the ban that they had spent 80 years campaigning for.
In one breath you criticise the hunting community for not abiding by their declaration to continue hunting. In the next, you criticise them for hunting and therefore acting like 'common criminals'. What is it to be?
''dishonesty and cowardice''
Something to which you and the little people are well acquainted
I get the horrible feeling we're going to get to the same conclusion that we did with RS and Karl, that actually chasing, flushing, scent trailing, stalking wild mammals with packs of dogs IS actually still legal.
Lets just remind everyone of a bit of arithmetic that the antis seem to forget. Even if all the hereditry peers and all the tory peers had not voted at all on the hunting bill, there was still enough opposition from crossbenchers, Liberal and Labour peers for it to have been comfortably defeated in the lords.
I didn't know what it would ban - or more to the point allow. And i didn't sign the declaration either.
I would enjoy letting hounds rip foxes apart if they didn't feel anything, but we aren't in the middle ages to cause unnecessary suffer, now we can kill humanely, that's why I prefer "normal" hunting instead.
Also Fox Hunting is a waste of land.
Another thing that really bothers me is cubbing, I know they face many dangers in the wild and they will probably die, but that doesn't mean we have to force them to die, what if they survived if we didn't kill them???
In conclusion, it's unnecessary and the land they occupate to fox hunt can be used for better purposes, and even though foxes die in cruel ways in the wild, it doesn't mean we have to do the same when we can kill them wthically.