Governement proposal to change Hunting Act 2004

[Judgemental]

I was interested to see the proposals in the Daily Telegraph, that the government is proposing to change the Hunting Act 2004 by allowing more hounds to be used for flushing foxes and deer.

A matter that has to go before both houses of Parliament.

It is stated it is not primary legislation, so I assume my beloved Statutory Instrument will receive an airing.

The League say its 'Repeal' by the back door, so I don't think it stands much of a chance.

Still I suppose it gives Dave a crack of the electioneering whip.

 

[marianne1981]

I cant believe they even have this on their radar! They know they could never get repeal in this day and age, ever, so they are trying to sneak it through!

 

[Sherston]

Yes very interesting, and good news for hunting, farmers, foxes and the countryside. We can now sit back and enjoy watching the vocal bigoted minority react, a few outspoken individual who will then claim to be a majority...... who is going to be the first one, I wonder????

Not exactly sneaky is it though? Looks quite clear to me.

 

[Judgemental]

Yes very interesting, and good news for hunting, farmers, foxes and the countryside. We can now sit back and enjoy watching the vocal bigoted minority react, a few outspoken individual who will then claim to be a majority...... who is going to be the first one, I wonder????

Not exactly sneaky is it though? Looks quite clear to me.

This is a very interesting proposal and development.

Having weighed up the pros and cons, it is probably healthy to have the matter of the Hunting Act 2004 back on the floor of the H of C.

Clearly the League will oppose anything that is proposed and there are those who 'hunt' who say, "leave things as they are".

It will probably be April 2014 before this matter comes before the Commons. i.e. around the 10th Anniversary of the act.

A healthy debate is long overdue and one I suspect the LibDems will welcome bearing in mind all the issues concerning deer on their home turf in the West Country

 

[Countryman]

While it is definitely a step in the right direction, we must be cautious and not overly praise this new measure so much that repeal becomes more difficult.

After all, this amendment will not benefit most mounted packs, except perhaps in making prosecutions slightly more hard for the antis to prove. Perhaps I am cynical, but I think that we must be careful to ensure this is not seen by politicians or the media as a fair substitute for complete repeal of the media. This would be very damaging and effectively rule out repeal, as it would be seen as the Hunting community dragging up the issue of hunting and pushing their luck.

 

[Pale Rider]

Step in the wrong direction for me. An attempt to change things through the back door.
Not a vote winner in the real world.

 

[Judgemental]

Both the number of replies and the apathy expressed is indicative of the lack of interest.

Nobody is actually hunting. Following a smelly rag is not hunting. It is a riding sport but not hunting.

It is now virtually ten years since the act was passed and it will be wholly impossible to achieve the slightest change in the legislation.

Frankly having studied Ed Milliband, the Coalition would be unwise to lock horns with him on this subject. He is far too clever to be tripped up over a major sacred Labour cow.

 

[MerrySherryRider]

With majority public opposition to fox and stag hunting, I doubt it'll happen.

 

[Sherston]

So you have conducted a survey on the entire 60 million people in the country, well done, how did you do it??

Ah so policy always goes to a vote on the opinion of majority of the public, that would be very interesting? Well I'd like to see how monetary policy is influenced what about investment in nuclear power or renewables or budget setting? Oh so it doesn't quite work like that because the "public" are not sufficiently educated in all areas so actually what does public opinion matter? As per my previous post "a few outspoken individuals who will then claim to be a majority" actually the majority know nothing about fox hunting and a perfectly happy to say it.

 

[marianne1981]

Legalising packs of dogs to chase and kill any animal seems a bit primitive these days, when you look at it from a different perspective? Pro hunters are always saying to try seeing it from their angle, howabout you all try and see it from a different perspective too, in this day and age, how can you defend something so unpleasant? And no, I dont believe in snares before you all run and say that. When hunting started it was not really about pest control, it was all about the sport, and there are plenty of cars these days to "control" numbers. If there is a problem fox in a particular area, shoot it!! A good shot will bring it down. You cannot defend "hunting" an animal to it's death. We are meant to be a civilised country and that does not wash. If you think repeal will ever happen, you are fighting a battle that has already been lost. I dont believe anyone would ok the changes and if in the unlikely event they did, I am pretty sure that Labour would get in next time and it would be overturned. You are lucky really that fox hunting lasted as long as it did, so why not accept that it is time to move on now!!

 

[Countryman]

Here we go again... The fact is, the antis are all absolutely terrified that this will go ahead as a welfare measure, and, while just a minor change in the law to most of us, to them it is a petrifying concept. They are convinced that if this goes ahead, little or no prosecutions will ever succeed, and Repeal will become politically acceptable. They also worry that once repeal is achieved, it will be done in such a way that depoliticises it and it becomes politically unpalatable to meddle with hunting again, thereby keeping a re-ban off the agenda.

 

[Lizzie66]

Pro hunters are always saying to try seeing it from their angle, howabout you all try and see it from a different perspective too

You are obviously anti hunting and are on the pro hunting part of a website that is steeped in the history of hunting and seem to feel the need to push your emotive but factually unsupported point of view.

I think you have this back to front !

Pro hunters generally can see other peoples points of view we just don't necessarily agree with them. Equally we generally don't feel the need to sign into anti websites and force our opinion on them. The odd one that does do this soon gets banned as the antis don't appear to like to listen to reasoned factually based opinions. After all "why let the truth get in the way of a good story".

 

[marianne1981]

I enjoy a good debate on hunting but I would never resort to directly insulting people on here, so why should I get banned just because I do not share your views? I love horses and riding and the other sections of this forum are good. I am pretty sure that the majority (though not all) pro hunters have grown up hunting, so of course you will support it, I have tried to see hunting from your perspective and whilst some of the arguments make sense, overall it cannot be defended in this day and age and maybe the truth hurts. How many of you would find it humane to put your horse down by having a pack of hounds chase and kill it?

 

[Lizzie66]

I enjoy a good debate on hunting but I would never resort to directly insulting people on here, so why should I get banned just because I do not share your views?

I don't think you should be banned.

All I was pointing out was that your comment saying that pro-hunters should see it from another perspective is at best pot and kettle, as anti-hunt websites point blank refuse to let anyone voice an opinion that differs from theirs.

Whereas here in the hunting section of a forum run by a pro-hunt magazine anti hunt opinions are regularly posted.

 

[RunToEarth]

Pro hunters are always saying to try seeing it from their angle, howabout you all try and see it from a different perspective too, in this day and age, how can you defend something so unpleasant?

Hunting may be viewed as unpleasant, but I much prefer it to the alternatives which are frequently used to control foxes. Hunting people, as a rule, hold a great deal of respect for their quarry. Our sport had a very clear open season, and a closed season - an understanding of the animal we were hunting and a control of its population - even from a purely sporting point of view it would have made no sense to make any real impact on the population of foxes.

The population has to be managed, a fox has no predators asides from us and to not manage them would impact on the wildlife, alongside a whole range of businesses and pursuits. And does the alternative hold any regard for our seasons? On the contrary there appear to be more snares laid in the breeding season than ever - of all my years hunting nothing I have seen has been quite so unpleasant as the sight of a sucked vixen in a snare - vile. Has there been regard for sustaining a population of foxes? No - from most keepers' point of view eradication would make the job a lot easier.

It is all good and well stating that a good shot will kill a fox, but we all know that there are a hell of a lot of people who shoot who are not terribly good shots. Add to that there are also a lot of people who would happily have a go at a fox with a shot gun, as opposed to a rifle, the margin for error grows even larger.

Hunting for sport doesn't seem that appealing to most - but considering that the vast majority of landowners in this country understand the need to control the fox population, the alternative seems worse, IMO.

 

[Judgemental]

Forget the debate as to the effectiveness of hunting. Have a look at the appalling lack of social cohesion.

I attended a meet today in Central Southern England, not in my country, nevertheless a hunt that I know well for a variety of reasons.

I then picked up the Western Daily Press of today's date and the headlines are well covered in the following link: http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/...ders-failing/story-20024970-detail/story.html

Frankly those who hunt do not deserve a repeal, for the simple reason they are still too arrogant to understand what they are doing is not well received.

To the extent they cannot be bothered to talk to folk who show up at meets and show a polite interest.

Not one master (of which there are six) could be bothered to talk to any of the foot followers, some of whom had never attended a meet of that particular hunt. Indeed I was taking a particular interest in who the masters were talking to at the meet and it was their own little group of cronies.

The mounted ladies were just as bad, why is it, when women get on their horses, they are so arrogant, it is beyond belief.

The Chairman of the Hunt Club did not bother to speak to anybody! Their position is paramount to the social cohesion.

As for any interest in the hounds, that was wholly non-existent.

No, the chances of any sort of change in the legislation is not merited and will only be of merit, when those who follow hounds understand that they have to 'come off their high horses' and see themselves as the world sees them!