Hunt Ban & Free Vote

[Alec Swan]

Whilst The Ban itself, was a disgraceful piece of legislation, and has demonstrated just how corrupt and self promoting any government can be, there can be no question that for any political party to support a reversal would be suicidal and the simple fact is that it isn't going to happen.

Those who live a rural life were abandoned many years ago, and Hunting is only one high profile facet to be sacrificed, there are others; our village schools, our post offices, our rights to race greyhounds against a natural quarry, in fact all the fabric which makes (or made) up the rural idle has been emasculated.

The defence of those who hunted back in 2004 was all too little and too late. By the time of The March, the mindset was in place and for anyone to think that any political group will be prepared to be now branded as murderers, and stand against a vociferous, unbalanced and distorted minority, is living in a dream.

I congratulate those who campaigned to bring an end to hunting, for they changed irrevocably, an important and highly influential aspect of country life. They managed to congratulate themselves, though the reality is that the bulk of those who are responsible have no understanding of wildlife management, they seem quite unable to accept that the wildlife which they would purport to protect, only arrived in that happy state thanks to centuries of previous management, and that their current engineered state of affairs, is proving far more damaging than the previous arrangement.

The saddest aspect of all this of course, is that the ignorance displayed by those who would sanitise our world, is such that they remain as blind and ignorant of their failings as are those politicians who also display a careless and shameful lack of thought.

Alec.

 

[Simsar]

Like^^^^^^^^

 

[ConnieLove]

Alec, I think you pretty much covered it for me

 

[Judgemental]

Like^^^^^^^^

Oh Simsar my year is now complete. Where have you been hiding, such a rare appearance.

 

[Simsar]

JM it is Simon, I still breafly check in here and breeding forum, but very rarely post, Sarah never comes on here anymore, she can't be bothered with the politics! Hope you all had a good Christmas and happy hunting.

 

[JanetGeorge]

Whilst The Ban itself, was a disgraceful piece of legislation, and has demonstrated just how corrupt and self promoting any government can be, there can be no question that for any political party to support a reversal would be suicidal and the simple fact is that it isn't going to happen.

One could suggest that Cameron's PRE-election pledge to over-turn the hunting ban lost him some votes - but it was hardly suicidal. The FACT is that while 75% of the population - if asked - will be anti-hunting, at least 90% of those people actually couldn't give a toss! They wouldn't attend an anti-hunting demo, they wouldn't cross the road to sign an anti-hunt petition, and they wouldn't spend £2 on an anti-hunt car sticker. They sure as hell wouldn't change their vote over it! So if Cameron (or his successor) can get back in with a working majority, the ban WILL be repealed.

The defence of those who hunted back in 2004 was all too little and too late. By the time of The March, the mindset was in place and for anyone to think that any political group will be prepared to be now branded as murderers, and stand against a vociferous, unbalanced and distorted minority, is living in a dream.

You have a short memory Alec. The 'too little, too late' started in the '60s and '70s when the LACS et al were getting into schools and brain-washing children (and their teachers!) We listened to that well known MFH who advocated: 'keep our heads down and our powder dry!" Those children are now poiliticians, and teachers, and voters! It was 1992 - after the Quorn 'incident' that the battle started in earnest with the Campaign for Hunting funded network of PR officers! Then when Labour got in in 1997 - committed to a ban - the antis were sure they'd get it within 12 months! The 'Countryside Rally' in July, 1997 (which co-incided with the appearance of the Foster Bill) and the first BIG March in 1998 (timed to give our supporters in both Houses some encouragement) frightened the wits out of Blair. They bought us another 6 years and the ONLY reason Blair allowed the use of the Parliament Act to push through the ban was that he needed to 'buy' support from his own backbenchers for a rather more important issue.

The Conservatives will happily stand against the loony left and their fringes, once they have the numbers to allow the ban to be overturned. If they can get the West Lothian question sorted in the meantime, that MIGHT be enough! In the meantime we have to continue educating the public at large about hunting - not necessarily to turn them into hunters, but to make them appreciate what hunting is about - and what the next targets on the anti-agenda will be!

 

[Hunters]

And Janetgeorge, your last paragraph would appear to be agreeing with my sentiments, which in turn brings us full circle...

And so I will 'bang on again' about 'wooing' MP's, educating them & the public.

When entertaining 'non country people' I often ask if they know where dead cows go? Of course this sends the table into silence for a few moments until the 'deadstock' explanation regarding hunts is explained. You'd be amazed how many guests leave my table 'pro' hunting as few have any idea that hunts 'pick up' deadstock etc

There used to be a lot of PR in our hunt and it worked a treat, not only educating the uninformed but bringing new fresh faces to the field. Maybe that's why we were able to gain three seats for the conservatives??

 

[JanetGeorge]

You're right Hunters! We WON'T change the minds of committed anti-hunt MPs - believe me (unless their daughters ride and we can get them out hunting, maybe!) I remember taking one out cubbing with the Quorn - pre-ban! He SAW a clean kill by ONE hound, and a dead fox without so much as a drop of blood on it! The pack had split and it was one of a few 'strays' who caught the fox. The whipper-in retrieved the unmarked body before the rest of the hounds caught up - and Labour MP saw it VERY clearly! But 3 days later, he was on the radio ranting about foxes being torn apart alive!

But we can do a lot to neutralise the general public's antipathy towards hunting - much of it through common sense and good manners. Too many hunts - sadly - still hold up traffic and show disdain for other road users and landowners, block gateways etc. That's enough to annoy even people who aren't anti-hunting!

And I see a sab was given a thumping at a southern hunt on Boxing Day! That's just plain stupid - and plays right into their hands! EVERYONE who goes hunting should see themselves as part-time PR officers for hunting!

 

[Hunters]

JanetGeorge I cannot disagree with one item of your above comment.

I can only add that you are correct in that many hunt riders to appear arrogant & indeed sometimes are in their ignorant actions.

PR, goes a long way.....

 

[Hunters]

(sorry 'do' appear arrogant ...

 

[Hunters]

The question still remains: What is to be done?

Is there more that can be done?

Are the 'so called' leaders MFHA/Countryside Alliance giving enough directive? Or is the now politically minded RSPCA going to continue to kick hunting until the law gets tightened and we all go home?

 

[happyhunter123]

The Tories have little or no chance of getting a majority in the next election-they can only have lost votes since the last one. Labour will probably get in, though not with a huge majority. We'd probably be waiting until 2020 or 2025 until there was a Tory government again.
Therefore, if the law was going to be changed it would be have to be within this parliament.

At the moment, the votes really aren't there. According to the LACS, in 2010:
• 324 MPs intended to vote against a repeal of the Hunting Act
• 263 MPs intended to vote for a repeal of the Hunting Act
• 14 MPs intended to abstain on a vote to repeal of the Hunting Act
• 22 MPs were undecided or didn't answer on how to vote regarding a repeal of the Hunting Act

This will have changed very slightly since then. The 'No' votes would win by 61.

The McKay Commission, which is looking at the West Lothian Question will report in May 2013, I believe. If Scottish/Northern Irish MPs were not allowed to vote, this is how the votes would look:
• 271 MPs intending to vote against a repeal of the Hunting Act
• 259 MPs intending to vote for a repeal of the Hunting Act
• 5 MPs intending to abstain on a vote to repeal of the Hunting Act
• 21 MPs undecided/did not answer on how to vote regarding a repeal of the Hunting Act

Again, this is based on the 2010 figures. Now, the 'No' vote would win by 12. However, looking at the names of the MPs on the 'undecided/did not answer' I can be pretty certain that some of them would be voting for repeal, based on how they have voted previously. So it really would be split down the middle.

Why this 'not enough votes' story has only just become news, I do not know. It has been known that there were not enough votes since 2010.
The CA has not been keen to admit this. Instead, they have been coming out with vague statements telling us that 'repeal will come'-but how will it come? We've had two and a half years of this!
And as far as I can see, a great many hunting people have given up on the idea of repeal, and given up on the political fight. This must change.

 

[Hunters]

Happyhunter 123, 12 MP's is not a lot.....?

I have therefore every faith all is in hand ?

 

[happyhunter123]

Happyhunter 123, 12 MP's is not a lot.....?

I have therefore every faith all is in hand ?

No, it isn't a lot, and I'm pretty sure that the difference is less than that when you consider those MPs who didn't bother replying to the League. But it isn't a clear majority, and therefore isn't a certain win. It would just depend on who turns up to vote.

 

[Countryman]

I have no confidence in the LACS statistics. I believe Tim Bonner gave a good summary of our position in parliament and I will try to find it, but I really doubt the validity of the LACS claims.

 

[happyhunter123]

I have no confidence in the LACS statistics. I believe Tim Bonner gave a good summary of our position in parliament and I will try to find it, but I really doubt the validity of the LACS claims.

Well, yes. It is the LACS after all (very sparing with the truth), but I was unable to find any other statistics-the CA should have some of their own. Why don't they???

 

[Countryman]

Here Tim Bonner (CA head of campaigns I think) refutes the LACS figures proving at the moment it would be very very tight but if the West Lothian Question was answered, there would be a clear majority in favour of repeal. The two blog posts follow on from each other.

http://huntingoffice.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/a-majority-against-repeal/


http://huntingoffice.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/lacs-retreats-on-mp-claims/

Admittedly they are from February but I think they still stand.

 

[oakash]

Foolishness.

If you vote UKIP, you will get Labour.

Your mistake, Herne. Vote for what you believe is RIGHT, not what you think will benefit you. Ultimately, we, the voters, will get what we deserve by taking an ethical stance.

 

[Hunters]

Roll on the answer to the West Lothian Question.... I do hope that if it's in our favour, that someone is using their intelligence to help matters along....,

 

[happyhunter123]

I just wish that we were hearing a bit more of a plan from the CA. Constantly telling us that we 'are going to get repeal', but not telling us how isn't very reassuring. No wonder so many hunting people have given up hope!

 

[Alec Swan]

....... Ultimately, we, the voters, will get what we deserve by taking an ethical stance.

Tell me something, has any voter ever acted in an ethical manner?

Alec.

 

[Hunters]

Hunting news now out of the press, I suppose everyone will go back to sleep for a while. Still think the good old Mfha could do more, but maybe they are behind the scenes or something?

 

[YorksG]

Has anyone asked 'the majority' of the public, who profess themselves to be anti-hunting, where they stand on fishing? Surely if the hunting ban is on ethical grounds, along with a distaste for people enjoying the hunt, then fishing is actually a more legitimate target?

 

[JanetGeorge]

Has anyone asked 'the majority' of the public, who profess themselves to be anti-hunting, where they stand on fishing? Surely if the hunting ban is on ethical grounds, along with a distaste for people enjoying the hunt, then fishing is actually a more legitimate target?

Depending on who you ask the answer might be: 1) Fish don't feel pain (they do), 2) But we don't kill them, we catch and release (with damage to the mouth from the hook and to the scales from careless handling in MANY cases!) or 3) But we catch them to EAT, not for fun!!

 

[YorksG]

Depending on who you ask the answer might be: 1) Fish don't feel pain (they do), 2) But we don't kill them, we catch and release (with damage to the mouth from the hook and to the scales from careless handling in MANY cases!) or 3) But we catch them to EAT, not for fun!!

Surely 2) and 3) are mutually exclusive? I know realistically that this argument will never have legs, as the 'working man' rather than the 'toffs' fish. I do wonder how much awareness the public have of foot hunts and their followers, along with the considerably less well heeled mounted followers of some of the northern hunts? I wonder if they are even aware of tennant farmers?

 

[Hunters]

By bringing fishing into the debate, the whole aspect changes. Whilst having seen antis with 'Abolish Angling' logos on their T-shirts, one doesn't tend to find much public support for banning fishing.

Hunting, is of course seen as a 'toffs' sport. It's representatives are often also seen as 'toffs.'

It doesn't help when representatives of hunting have double barrelled names either (no matter how good they are) - the public simply don't relate to them

 

[Countryman]

The argument "but we don't kill them" in fishing is rubbish-you've still inflicted pain on the creature for no reason other than to gain pleasure from it...I cannot see how someone can fish yet be anti hunting.

 

[Hunters]

Martin Salter (ex-mp) serious anti-hunter, yet prolific fisherman.

Double standards ???

 

[happyhunter123]

Aha, this is more like what I wanted to hear from the CA !


http://www.countryside-alliance.org...ew-year-were-working-hard-for-hunting-in-2013

As for the hunting/fishing thing-in my view, out of hunting, shooting and fishing, hunting is by far the most easily justifiable!

 

[Hunters]

Oh at last the Countryside Alliance admits more work is to be done on MP's - hurrah hurrah !!!

Do they read these posts lol :-D