Hunt Ban & Free Vote

[Hunters]

According to yesterday's article on The Telegraph, Owen Patterson states that there is no point in a vote on the ban on hunting as there are not enough members of parliament to support or vote for a change in the law.

My point is, given that many of us have already walked the streets for MPs in order to help at election time, why then have the MFHA not organised hunts to get on more friendly terms with coalition MPs so that these MPs not only understood and were educated with regards to hunting, they would then be happy to vote for an overturn on the ban?

Come on MFHA - sharpen up, hope that a labour government isn't on it's way, as if it is, you've just missed an opportunity to change hunting forever ......

 

[Doormouse]

The MFHA are not the sharpest organisiation sadly. They don't seem to do anything as far as I can see.

 

[Hunters]

There is a real risk that Labour could get into power at the next election, and, if so, they would almost certainly tighten up loop holes.

The Mfha (same guys presiding since the ban) are missing an opportunity to sort this mess out...

Maybe the Countryside Alliance should lean on the Mfha & encourage them to do something ?

 

[Judgemental]

There is a real risk that Labour could get into power at the next election, and, if so, they would almost certainly tighten up loop holes.

The Mfha (same guys presiding since the ban) are missing an opportunity to sort this mess out...

Maybe the Countryside Alliance should lean on the Mfha & encourage them to do something ?

Hunters you are so right, yes the Labour Party could easily tighten the legislation and simply by using The Statutory Instrument that they built into the act.

By the same token the present government could also use The Statutory Instrument to loosen the legislation.

For those of you who do not know how a Statutory Instrument works, in it's simplest form, it allows the Secretary of State or Under Secretary of State, to make amendments at the stroke of his or her pen. Yes the amendments have to go before both Houses of Parliament.

Nevertheless there is an inbuilt mechanism for making changes, not wholesale changes but changes which might just keep the rank and file of hunting supporters happy and throw a bone or two of hope in their direction.

However try and tell the movers, shakers and grandees of hunting that such an approach is worthwhile, one might as well shout into the wind whilst banging one's head against a brick wall.

As thick as two short planks with a six foot gap in the middle springs to mind.

 

[combat_claire]

Jeez! I wonder just where you guys have been living for the past 10 years.

Vote Okay is the body that has been mobilising hunting people to a, act as ambassadors and see that MPs are fully informed on the hunting issue and b, that help is given in target seats.

At every turn the Vote Okay teams have faced resistance and unwillingness from hunting folk to get stuck in with stuffing, leafleting, canvassing and helping on polling day. The bottom line is that if everyone had done their fair share in 2010 then we could have secured a conservative majority. Instead too many people sat on their asses and dismissed the possibility of change through the ballot box.

Frankly there is no point shouting 2yrs down the line that the MFHA are useless and have done nothing when the schemes had minimal support from the bulk of hunting folk.

For the record I used my annual leave in 2010 to spend time campaigning in Bedford and we turned that blue. The sad thing is we saw the same faces day in, day out the vast number of subscribers never showed up. I would much rather have been stag hunting than getting my fingers trapped in letterboxes so it was even more galling to snatch a quick peek at Facebook to see that X has had a fab day with the exmoor and off with DSSH tomorrow.

If everyone had pulled their weight we might have had repeal by now. Instead we face another season of worrying about spurious prosecutions and saboteur activity.

 

[Hunters]

Judgemental, firstly thank you for making me smile & secondly for offering a glimmer of hope. The Act as it stands, I think both sides would agree is not the best for either side.

Should you be right with your post regarding changes (I'm no expert) why do you think this has not happened already?

I ask this as not so very long ago I met with William Hague & he assured me that all was being done for hunting people?

 

[Hunters]

Combat Claire I am well aware who Vote Ok are, just not aware that anyone was doing anything. And, furthermore, the actions of the MPs (or lack of action) seems to confirm my theory (sadly.)

 

[ROG]

I am a simple member of the public and not a horserider

I fail to see why a pack of dogs need to go after one fox

I can see the excitement of using horses to chase a target across country - I bet that is great fun so may that continue if it is not inconveniencing anyone

So for this simple member of the public, please explain why a few people across the UK (few in comparison to all in UK) should have something which it seems most of us do not want?

 

[Hunters]

I think there are plenty of other forums for a hunting debate....

I'm merely asking the question, 'Why are we waiting?'

 

[Judgemental]

Judgemental, firstly thank you for making me smile & secondly for offering a glimmer of hope. The Act as it stands, I think both sides would agree is not the best for either side.

Should you be right with your post regarding changes (I'm no expert) why do you think this has not happened already?

I ask this as not so very long ago I met with William Hague & he assured me that all was being done for hunting people?

Primarily apathy and the fact that the Conservative party take the grass roots rural vote for granted.

 

[Maesfen]

If it wasn't so sad I'd almost find it amusing that they can't spare time for the repeal but they have spared time for a gay marriages bill, says it all really, they've kicked their rural voters in the teeth; deeply disappointed, was hoping we had the new broom to sweep clean, turns out to be as twisted as the others now they're in.

 

[combat_claire]

Maesfen. At the present time the composition of the commons is such that any free vote that is introduced would be lost. End of. Cameron would say he had fulfilled his promise and repeal would be kicked into the long grass.

We need to resolve the west lothian question as a matter of urgency and then fight every by-election and general election harder than we ever had to ensure that we have a pro-hunt majority.

Which brings us neatly back round to people pulling their weight in election activity!

 

[Suelin]

I am a simple member of the public and not a horserider

I fail to see why a pack of dogs need to go after one fox

I can see the excitement of using horses to chase a target across country - I bet that is great fun so may that continue if it is not inconveniencing anyone

So for this simple member of the public, please explain why a few people across the UK (few in comparison to all in UK) should have something which it seems most of us do not want?

Not all of us want football but we have it. Not all of us want any number of things but we have them. Isn't that what freedom is all about? Folk that don't like hunting don't have to go anymore than folk that don't like football (other sports are available) can choose not to go. Simples.

 

[combat_claire]

Rog,

The hunting issue is certainly an emotive one. I guess a good starting point is to look at the various methods you could use to control foxes (some foxes in the countryside are great as they keep slugs and rabbits down, too many are a nuisance and begin to predate stock). You could poison them, snare them, shoot them or hunt them.

Poisoning and gassing lead to a lingering and painful death. If snared a fox could be trapped for hours until the keeper next checks them. If shot there is no guarantee of a clean kill. A wounded fox will slink off to die many days later from blood loss or gangrene. I have seen foxes that were starving to death because a botched shot had broken its jaw. None of these methods are selective to pick out the old or the weak.

Then we have hunting. There are only ever two outcomes of a hunt: it is either killed or it gets clean away. The sick and the weak are the ones who are killed ensuring a strong, healthy fox population at sustainable levels. The kills I saw pre-ban are over in seconds. There is no gruesome tug of war so popular with the anti campaigns. However the carcass will be broken up by the pack postmortem.

Unfortunately it costs money to keep a pack of hounds and so the pest control is free the tab is picked up by those who subscribe to ride with the pack.

The hunt also offers many other benefits that are not offered by the other control methods. We pick up fallen stock for farmers, who would otherwise have to pay large sums to dispose of it.

We bring huge economic benefits in the form of equipment, hirelings, livery, accommodation etc

We allow a second career for ex-racehorses and training on hunting field makes us very competitive in equine sports.

Research by the University of Kent showed that those involved with countrysports planted more trees, hedges and coverts than anyone else. With corresponding benefits for wildlife.

 

[ROG]

I do see some valid points raised but in my view, and probably those of the majority of the public, I see a load of dogs after one fox which I find delporable as it smacks of bullying

OK, thats a human putting human traits onto animals but that is the way most think IMO

 

[Maesfen]

Maesfen. At the present time the composition of the commons is such that any free vote that is introduced would be lost. End of.

I said this to OH last night funnily enough when we saw the news; it stands to sense to not have a vote unless there is a very good chance that you'll win.

Which brings us neatly back round to people pulling their weight in election activity!

It's not a case of us not pulling our weight, that's a given but it's who the voters choose to give their vote to which is the problem as we all know many of those that changed their vote completely at the last moments.

 

[Lolo]

If it wasn't so sad I'd almost find it amusing that they can't spare time for the repeal but they have spared time for a gay marriages bill, says it all really, they've kicked their rural voters in the teeth; deeply disappointed, was hoping we had the new broom to sweep clean, turns out to be as twisted as the others now they're in.

There's a big difference between gay marriage (basic human right to have equality regardless of what you look like and who you love IMO) and being allowed to chase a fox with a pack of hounds. Making arguments like that weakens the strength of anything else you may say and is massively offensive. If nothing else, you CHOOSE to go hunting.

 

[Hunters]

Oh god I give up. Do people not read the original posts?

It's not about who people give the vote to. It's about educating the MPs and the fact that there has been no leadership or directive given.

Not rocket science.

 

[Countryman]

The Hunting Act only affects England & Wales. Scotland has its own parliament to make laws about hunting. English and Welsh MP's cannot influence that. Therefore, many see it as unfair that Scottish MP's in Westminster can vote on bills that will only affect England & Wales. If this so called "West Lothian Question" could be resolved in some way so that only English and Welsh MP's voted on solely Anglo-Welsh laws, there would be a very significant majority in favour of repeal!

Let's see how the Scottish Indepemdence referendum goes. If they choose to stay in the UK, it's likely some compromise will be made to sort out the West Lothian Question.

 

[combat_claire]

And as I said in my original post, part of Vote Okay's role is to have ambassadors who liaise with their MPs to do exactly what you complain is not being done.

 

[combat_claire]

Rog,

This is what our ex-master wrote in the run up to the hunting ban: I've copied and pasted because he said it much better than I could. His other faqs can still be found at www.fitzwilliamhunt.com.

Many people think that the fox has no chance because it is only one little animal against lots of humans and dogs.

Consider these points :

The Fox is faster than the hounds
The fox is in its own territory. It knows it like the back of its hand.
The hounds are lost. They do not know where they are.
The fox can run through or under many obstacles that the hounds will have to bypass
The fox is much lighter than the hounds, and can run across soft ground much more easily than them.
The fox can keep running at its own pace, whereas the hounds have to follow the "scent" (smell). Each time they lose the scent and have to "cast around" for it, the fox gains time.
The fox, who sometimes hunts by scent himself, knows how to disguise his scent by running through water, manure, sheep, across tarmac or similar confusing smells.
The fox also knows that he can confuse and evade his pursuers by leading them to where another fox is lying (yes, they do do this), and letting the hounds hunt the "fresh" fox.
*

So you can see that the fox, contrary to what you thought, actually has the advantage over the hunters.

In practice hounds probably kill less than one in three foxes that they chase.

Huh! You might say that but how would you like to be chased across a field by a pack of dogs?

So why do we use so many dogs at a time?

This is simply a matter of ensuring that when the fox does get killed, it gets killed as quickly as possible.

Look at it this way : If you were going to be killed and eaten by dogs, would you prefer to be killed by one or by thirty.

Thirty dogs would be messier to look at , yes, it would appear to be more violent, yes, but it would also be much, much quicker. And lets face it, speed is what is important.

One dog = slow

Thirty dogs = fast.

Work it out for yourself…

(incidentally, this is yet another indicator that we are not in this for sadism – if we we were , we would want it to be slow…)

 

[Alec Swan]

I do see some valid points raised but in my view, and probably those of the majority of the public, I see a load of dogs after one fox which I find delporable as it smacks of bullying

.......

ROG, I applaud your post, for both its simplicity, and its vision, and this is where we have a problem. It's a case of perception, and without the simple act of experiencing the chase, the whole becomes a conundrum to the bystander, and the voter. The bystander and the voter being one and the same, generally.

The only realistic answer is that those ruralified bods who care so passionately about their world, find a way of explaining to the all so often less than entitled and the voter (they being one and the same), that they have the best interests of wildlife at heart.

The first person to respond to the above passage, by asking how anyone can have the best interests of wildlife at heart, by killing it, isn't even at the bottom of the ladder of understanding.

ROG, the fairest contest for the hare, is a pair of greyhounds, the fairest contest for the fox, is a pack of hounds. It's been thus for hundreds of years, and because of this lucid and honesty balance, we now have (or had), our world. It worked, trust me on this, but with the introduction of politics, prejudice and class-fueled hatred, we now have a shambolic system which benefits no one. The curious thing is, that it's wildlife which suffers, and again, those who disagree, are those with little understanding.

What to do? Dunno.

Alec.

 

[Herne]

Hunters, the reason why the ban has not been repealed is that not enough pro-repeal MPs were elected at the last election to win the vote. Simple as that.

The hunting world does have a system of lobbying MPs to try to persuade them to become in favour of repeal, but the simple problem is that not enough normal hunting people bother to take the effort to make their feelings known to their MPs - and as a result the noise that the antis make is not countered.

Judgemental is correct that a Statutory Instrument can be used to vary the conditions of exempt hunting under the Act, but the problems are that what one SI can do, another can just as easily undo and the scope of those changes are relatively limited.

Repeal remains the optimum target - and to achieve that, hunting people need to get off their backsides and get back on the campaign trail...

 

[oakash]

Herne, The problem is that we don't all think we can put up with a Cameron government for the sake of hunting. I voted C, last time and took part in VoteOK, but this time I shall be voting UKIP - you KNOW it makes sense! Sorry about their polocies of a local vote on Hunting, but if enough of us join, I dare say we could bring them round to seeing the truth -that hunting with hounds is the very best and most humane way of controlling a fox population without the horrible gunshot wounds which are currently so common.

ROG's level of ignorance (sorry ROG) is all too common, and it is that which we have to address in the bulk of the (disinterested) populace.

 

[Alec Swan]

Hunters, the reason why the ban has not been repealed is that not enough pro-repeal MPs were elected at the last election to win the vote.

...

Nonsense. The reason why we have members of parliament who are so fearful of doing what's right, is because they're spineless. It's all to do with vote catching and gathering, and in that, I'll admit, you have the upper hand.

Alec.

 

[Alec Swan]

.......

ROG's level of ignorance (sorry ROG) is all too common, and it is that which we have to address in the bulk of the (disinterested) populace.

"Ignorance"? Not so. Misunderstanding and perhaps misinformed, but ROG isn't "Ignorant".

Alec.

 

[Herne]

Nonsense. The reason why we have members of parliament who are so fearful of doing what's right, is because they're spineless. It's all to do with vote catching and gathering, and in that, I'll admit, you have the upper hand.

Eh?

 

[Herne]

Herne, The problem is that we don't all think we can put up with a Cameron government for the sake of hunting. I voted C, last time and took part in VoteOK, but this time I shall be voting UKIP - you KNOW it makes sense! Sorry about their polocies of a local vote on Hunting, but if enough of us join, I dare say we could bring them round to seeing the truth -that hunting with hounds is the very best and most humane way of controlling a fox population without the horrible gunshot wounds which are currently so common.

Foolishness.

If you vote UKIP, you will get Labour.

 

[1t34]

You were robbed.............although I struggle to understand how those who thought a Tory majority would or will get a repeal. It won't, whilst the majority of the population wither are really not bothered (their waning incomes, job insecurity and reductions in services like the NHS are probably foremost in their minds) or are against hunting. The main protagonists have not to date manged to persuade the public that a) Hunting matters - most people really aren't interested in a minority activity, however helpful it may have been to preserving good wildlife stock b) still believe it is the preserve of the privileged and wealthy. All the main people put up to defend hunting reinforce this perception. The Act will never be repealed at a national level Tory majority or not. Politicians in the main want to get re-elected, something like hunting is marginal.

Much better for things to be tackled in a small, local way which engages the public not in a 'rights' or preservation of tradition debate, but a test of conservation. If hunting preserves wildlife and reduces farmers losses then better to offer some sort of pilot or trial that proves this in a small area, the badger cull has to some extent offered a reasonable model for this. This then offers the opportunity to a) offer a bit more of a rational (less exclusive and privileged) argument for the majority of people and b) if fronted correctly offers a much less heated and adversarial position for those organisations who are opposed. I have suggested before that local referendums could also be a solution, if the majority of the community were in support.

Sorry but those who are in support of Tory government for repeal are uniformed about how government works and seriously out of touch with the population as a whole.

 

[Judgemental]

KV Chaps and Chapesses, no names no pack drill but there are certain posters who appear on a thread such as this, only when we, the rank and file 'cannon fodder' have rattled the High Command!

With absurd entreaties that we must be more reasonable and wait for the right moment.

In case the High Command cannot count, (or measure the thickness of two short planks with a six foot gap in the middle) the ban came into place in 2004 that was eight (8) years ago!

How long do we have to wait?