Hunt Philosophy

[Dogfox04]

I don't hide the fact that I am against fox hunting but am prepared to listen to the opinions of those who are in favour of it. Something that has intrigued me for a long time is why hunts that claim (in person and on websites) to be hunting within the law have such an issue with monitors/sabs being present. I would have thought that it would be in the hunt's interest to invite them to witness what they are doing so that it can be seen that no animals are being hunted and all can go home happy! I can only conclude that either the hunt relishes the extra challenge of outwitting the monitors, or they are hunting illegally and don't want it known. Perhaps some of the hunting fraternity out there can enlighten me.

 

[happyhunter123]

I think it's more a dislike and mistrust of the people to be honest. Many of the monitors are ex. sabs or employees of anti organisations, and so are hated by the hunting people! There is a feeling of 'you've got your ban, now leave us alone and find something else to do'. Some people worry that antis may edit footage to show illegal hunting. I have to say, I don't trust any of them an inch. They hate us and would do anything to get us into court. I have no problem in the existence of hunt monitors, I would happily welcome them if they were neutral on hunting, and were just here to see if we were keeping to the law. As most hunts are, I don't think that's an issue. The trouble is they are far from neutral.

 

[happyhunter123]

I don't hide the fact that I am against fox hunting but am prepared to listen to the opinions of those who are in favour of it.

And it's nice to hear that you are prepared to listen to our views. Most antis never do.

 

[combat_claire]

I think it's more a dislike and mistrust of the people to be honest. Many of the monitors are ex. sabs or employees of anti organisations, and so are hated by the hunting people! There is a feeling of 'you've got your ban, now leave us alone and find something else to do'. Some people worry that antis may edit footage to show illegal hunting. I have to say, I don't trust any of them an inch. They hate us and would do anything to get us into court. I have no problem in the existence of hunt monitors, I would happily welcome them if they were neutral on hunting, and were just here to see if we were keeping to the law. As most hunts are, I don't think that's an issue. The trouble is they are far from neutral.

This ^^^

 

[Dogfox04]

If the mistrust and dislike on from both sides is ever going to be reduced it will be through civilised dicussion. I know many people who would be only too pleased to be sure there was no need to check what there local hunt is up to(although all laws need to be policed in some way). It would be to the hunt's benefit to make it more apparent that they were trail hunting, let it be seen, and set a good example. Having said that I accept there are some people on both sides who take things too far in defence of their opinions or 'rights'.

 

[Maesfen]

I think it's more a dislike and mistrust of the people to be honest. Many of the monitors are ex. sabs or employees of anti organisations, and so are hated by the hunting people! There is a feeling of 'you've got your ban, now leave us alone and find something else to do'. Some people worry that antis may edit footage to show illegal hunting. I have to say, I don't trust any of them an inch. They hate us and would do anything to get us into court. I have no problem in the existence of hunt monitors, I would happily welcome them if they were neutral on hunting, and were just here to see if we were keeping to the law. As most hunts are, I don't think that's an issue. The trouble is they are far from neutral.

Very well put.

 

[happyhunter123]

Have a look at this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVdapuD_noo

This is, unbelievably 2012. You would of thought that such behaivour had died out after the ban. Is there any need for the 20 or so balaclavaed individuals to be out 'monitoring' this hunt? No. If they had simply been there to film whether or not the hunt was keeping to the law, all the most they would have required is one or two people with video cameras sitting under a hedge. See why we have a dislike of such people?

Now, not all monitors are like this. But whether they are sabs or just sixty year old women volunteering for the League, they all, I get the impression have one purpose. To catch hunts out in anyway possible, and therefore embarrass us as much as possible. I feel most monitors probably hope to go out and catch the hunt breaking the law. The LACS, at least, wishes to gain the most prosecutions it can to prove what a successful law the Hunting Act is, which means that repeal would be less likely.
It may sound ludicrous that monitors would wish to see a pack breaking the law, but ultimately they are only there to catch them out! And of course, they love reporting any other, often more minor misdemeanors (such as unsafe quad bike riding, uninsured vehicles etc) in an effort to embarrass us. That's why we don't like seeing them, not because we have anything to hide.

 

[happyhunter123]

You would of thought that such behaivour had died out after the ban

Sorry, poor grammar . 'Would have thought' I meant!

 

[Happy Hunter]

Personally I have always found the meeting of the Hunt to monitors/sabs/anti's always rather 'uncomfortable'.
I will be the 1st to hold my hand up - I trot off in the other direction.

When I was only a small girl of about 10 years old. I had a brand new pony, I was out on the lead rein for the 1st 30mins just to test the pony (and mothers nerves) - a rather agressive sab threw red paint over me, pony, saddle and a bit on mum - and both mum and I saw him later trying to run a stanley knife along peoples saddles/boots/girths.
An uterly terrifying experience - and I will admit possibly a one off,,, the bad cherry amongst the pack you might say - However it has shaped my opinion!

When stung as a child by a bee, it can develop a phobia, dispite most bee's being harmless the rest of the time.

 

[A1fie]

Hi Dogfox Why do you think it is acceptable to follow someone around all day in expectation of seeing them break the law?

Would you think it ok if I sat outside your house, waited for you to come out and then walked next to you all day with a camera on you, waiting for you to break the law?

If you told me that you were not going to break the law and went into detail to explain what your plans were for the day, would you think it was acceptable for me to think you were lying, and follow you anyway because I was sure you were going to do something illegal?

If you were out with your children or your younger siblings, would you mind if I followed you with a camera and wore a balaclava to protect my identity?

You have a right to your views and opinions but I am surprised that you think that unless your presence is welcomed, hunters have something to hide.

 

[Herne]

There are lots of malicious accusations.

For every case that goes to court there have been dozens of reports made to police that were unsubstantiated.

Why? Partly malice. There are years of history of bad blood between antis and pros and there is no love lost now, We do, after all, only hunt within the Law under sufferance, we would all still rather be hunting live quarry, and nearly all hunts are still killing foxes by other means not controlled under the ban to carry on the fox control that farmers and landowners still require - so antis have every bit as mush reason to hate us as they always had.

But the other reason for brining false accusations is more prosaic. They need the publicity for fund raising purposes. If there were no claims of illegal hunting, there would be no "need" for monitors and therefore their donations would dry up.

If they bring a false charge against a hunt, they get a headline. If it goes to court, on the date of the first hearing they get a headline. The first hearing is always just to set a date for the actual trial, so come the date of the trial, they get another headline. They then ask for a postponement to gather more evidence and on the date of the postponement they get yet another headline. Then they withdraw their non-case on the grounds of "a technicality", which, if reported at all, is in a one inch box on page 26.

So they get four slices of prime front-page advertising for the cost of a few hours of solicitor's fees, and loads of little old ladies say to themselves "Ooo, what a lot of illegal hunting there is" and give the antis a huge wodge of money.