Hunting is in a spot of bother

[palo1]

The VAWM document basically says if you don't agree that hunting foxes with hounds is the most humane way of "managing" them, then you are ignorant of the fact the art of countryside management can only be achieved by this method. If you disagree, it's because of your ignorance. Apparently foxes are not capable of feeling fear, and do not find being pursued by a pack of hounds a traumatic experience, which seems extraordinary, without being anthropomorphic - anyone who has ever watched a mammal, wild or domesticated, knows that they are capable of, and do experience fear. And hounds hunt selectively, so presumably occasionally deliberately select people's cats and dogs? It is an odd document to present in support of a view, it is flawed from the outset by it's immediate and very obvious bias, and it's contradictory statements.

But the document doesn't say that foxes are not capable of feeling fear at all...the document says that foxes don't experience human notions of fear. The two are different.

 

[Wishfilly]

Illegal hunting essentially presents no threat to civil society, sabbing - a form of animal rights extremism does.

Do you understand what rule of law is and how important it is to liberal democracy? People who are involved in making the law then condoning breaking it undermine the rule of law and thus undermines our democracy. That is far more of a threat than sabbing.

That's not about illegal hunting as such, but it is about a member of the House of Lords being involved in the seminar.

That is far more of a threat to our society than sabs.

 

[Tiddlypom]

The BBC have finally reported on the issue, though it is tucked away in the local Cumbria news section wrt the Lake District National Park Authority suspending trail hunting for now.

Lake District National Park suspends trail hunting amid investigation https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-55115897

A markedly different approach from the BBC compared to ITV, then ?.

 

[palo1]

Do you understand what rule of law is and how important it is to liberal democracy? People who are involved in making the law then condoning breaking it undermine the rule of law and thus undermines our democracy. That is far more of a threat than sabbing.

That's not about illegal hunting as such, but it is about a member of the House of Lords being involved in the seminar.

That is far more of a threat to our society than sabs.

This is a good point and I do understand about the rule of law. The fact that a member of the H of L was involved in the seminars is relevant but as yet the police and the investigation have not identified whether that person was condoning breaking the law or if a crime has been committed. As @ycbm has identified previously, there may be an issue around intent to commit a crime. If that is the case then yes that certainly should be addressed, and by all the relevant bodies. It still doesn't mean that everyone involved in hunting is breaking the law though...nor does it remove the threat of extremism which still needs to be dealt with. I can't agree that an individual committing a crime is necessarily more of a threat than organised groups intending to break the law but I guess that is open to debate!

 

[Wishfilly]

This is a good point and I do understand about the rule of law. The fact that a member of the H of L was involved in the seminars is relevant but as yet the police and the investigation have not identified whether that person was condoning breaking the law or if a crime has been committed. As @ycbm has identified previously, there may be an issue around intent to commit a crime. If that is the case then yes that certainly should be addressed, and by all the relevant bodies. It still doesn't mean that everyone involved in hunting is breaking the law though...nor does it remove the threat of extremism which still needs to be dealt with. I can't agree that an individual committing a crime is necessarily more of a threat than organised groups intending to break the law but I guess that is open to debate!

I know it is still under investigation, but in my opinion, his presence and not speaking up or leaving the seminar condoned it. That may not be enough from a legal point of view, but it is my opinion. I think regardless of whether a crime has actually been committed, some damage has been done.

Organised groups intending to break the law could equally apply to hunts, hunting illegally- as could individuals committing a crime apply to individual sabs. There is wrong on both sides.

However, I feel being a member of the house of lords, his position means he is more than just a private individual. The same would apply if an MP or lord was out sabbing and committed a crime (bearing in mind that sabotaging a hunt is not in itself a crime).

I do think that if hunts had stuck to the rules immediately post ban, sabbing would have lost a lot of momentum. I also think that if the police had initially been more willing to get involved, then sabs would have been less likely to take the law into their own hands. I'm not saying sabs are in the right, but I think the current situation has come about because people are very aware of hunts breaking the law, and they percieve them to get away with it because of their class.

 

[palo1]

I know it is still under investigation, but in my opinion, his presence and not speaking up or leaving the seminar condoned it. That may not be enough from a legal point of view, but it is my opinion. I think regardless of whether a crime has actually been committed, some damage has been done.

Organised groups intending to break the law could equally apply to hunts, hunting illegally- as could individuals committing a crime apply to individual sabs. There is wrong on both sides.

However, I feel being a member of the house of lords, his position means he is more than just a private individual. The same would apply if an MP or lord was out sabbing and committed a crime (bearing in mind that sabotaging a hunt is not in itself a crime).

I do think that if hunts had stuck to the rules immediately post ban, sabbing would have lost a lot of momentum. I also think that if the police had initially been more willing to get involved, then sabs would have been less likely to take the law into their own hands. I'm not saying sabs are in the right, but I think the current situation has come about because people are very aware of hunts breaking the law, and they percieve them to get away with it because of their class.

'...because of their class' ???? Which class is that then? What difference would that make? As you say, it is just your opinion which whether right or wrong, will have no bearing on the process at all. I hate hunting being brought into disrepute but I expect many sportsmen and women feel the same and have had to deal with similar issues without being assumed to being guilty of similar wrongdoing to those convicted. Sadly there is an astonishing amount of prejudice evident in some posts on this thread.

 

[ycbm]

I think this is a really unfair post @ycbm; nowhere has this poster said or suggested that they approve of illegal activities. The illegal activities which you are referring to are either past, proven convicted offences or assumed future wrong-doing. In this country the law exerts an 'innocent until proven guilty' process. You can go on saying and saying that people approve of illegal trail hunting but I haven't seen anyone, anyone on here say anything like that. You are making a leap from those that support hunting to be those that support illegal hunting/hunting offences. That just isn't fair or even accurate! Again, if I support my local pub does that automatically mean that I am supporting drunk drivers? If I provide support to asylum seekers does that mean I am supporting illegal people traffickers? It is a form of bullying by association that is pretty unpleasant actually.

Nobody up to that point was complaining about legal hunting, only about illegal hunting, so how can my comment have been unfair?

 

[ycbm]

In brief, paddy555 the benefits of hunting (legal trail hunting) for the countryside include:-

Environment

[*]Conservation related activities such as the preserve of traditional wooded areas without requests for grants or state funding. In the current climate crisis these areas are considered a priority.

Any contribution hunting makes to reducing climate change by preserving woodland is more than offset by the carbon footprint of keeping a pack of hounds, horses and followers vehicles.

[*]The 'effect' of controlled predator movement (via hounds movement) on other animals - such as happens as part of a trophic cascade and is recognised as pretty vital for ecosystems.

[*]The continued observation and understanding of landscape level and micro-landscape level by skilled and experienced observers, including observation of wildlife, water, pasture, moorland and other effects (such as growth of bracken, heather, reeds etc) on a wider and more regular level than environmental charities and organisations can afford themselves. Whilst this information may be 'informal' hunting supporters are often knowledgeable about wildlife and take considerable interest and can observe change well. There are precedents for conservation and environmental charities using exactly this kind of observation and information finding to add to valuable research. (EG the Great British Garden Bird count etc) There are existing ways in which this information can be disseminated to specialist bodies and agencies without cost.

That doesn't require fox hunting and areas of the country which have never had fox hunting seem to do ok.

[*]Maintenance of community activity (even if you don't participate or remotely agree with hunting) the hunting community within the countryside is real and engages with all age groups and professions/trades. It is one of the few rural activities that is, by it's nature and actuality, inclusive and not prejudiced against elements such as age, race, religion, culture or poverty. There is an existing structure for this which requires no state funding. In most rural areas in Britain community activity is only supported elsewhere by the Church, schools and small, increasingly reduced state funded projects.

That may be the case for your hunt but it's over egging the pudding by a long chalk in others, from my experience.

[*]Fund-raising and provision of events that span beyond hunting (eg fun rides, dog shows, point to points - most of which are supported and funded by local hunts), including vital rural services for Air Ambulance, Mountain Rescue and local hospices. These bring people together and engage with vital voluntary services and charities on an on-going and established basis.

Dog shows, fun rides and point to points don't depend on hunting and I'm sure they would continue to happen, because of the demand for them, without hunting, as dog shows and fun rides do in the numerous areas of the country which are not hunted, and in hunted areas but unrelated to any hunt.

I'm not aware of any hunt with which I have every hunted raising funds for anyone but themselves, except a bloodhounds pack for a very short time. I'm glad to hear it happens, though I would leave the Air Ambulance out of your list as I'd be pretty sure that hunting costs that service more than it receives as a whole across the country.

 

[Sandstone1]

Are you asking how 'pro-hunters' can justify an activity which is legal Sandstone1 or are you making a blanket assumption that all pro-hunting people and everyone that goes trail, drag or blood-hound hunting are engaged in illegal activities? That is neither certain nor actually possible.

I think you know that I mean illegal fox hunting as I have already said ive no problem with drag or trail hunting. Its hunting foxes we are talking about here.

 

[paddi22]

Totally agree with YCBM's breakdown.

1. There is no proof that hunts contribute to keeping wooded areas. Maybe on hunt people's own lands, but there is no proof of hunt's giving money to landowners to grow and maintain forestry on a wide scale basis.
2. There has to be some level of reality in accepting that in most hunts there are maybe one or two people with a true understanding of the natural landscape. In practical terms hunts are composed of 95% people who just want a good day out on their horses and a social experience. to pretend every hunt person is some 'in touch with nature' person is a complete lie. in fact, in a lot of areas the damaging of fencing, drainage systems, hedging etc is more detrimental than positive to the landscape. As others say, there is also the carbon footprint of vehicles. So far there has there been any actual evidence of the positive environmental effect of hunts apart from some weird argument that hunts are planting forestry?
3. Areas with no hunts manage their fox populations.
4. The argument that (It is one of the few rural activities that is, by it's nature and actuality, inclusive and not prejudiced against elements such as age, race, religion, culture or poverty.) is nearly funny. can you show me the people receiving food from food banks or living in deprives areas that are rocking up with their jeep lorry and hunt horse? can you show me demographic proof of a good percentage of minorities in your hunt pack?
5. the charity angle is so weak too. most hunts run an odd fundraiser for causes close to their heart. so do elderly people, kids and knitting groups over the land. The hunter trials our hunts run are a profit making exercise for the hunts.

I think there are a lot of points palo1 have given that I would love to see more evidence for.

 

[palo1]

Any contribution hunting makes to reducing climate change by preserving woodland is more than offset by the carbon footprint of keeping a pack of hounds, horses and followers vehicles.




That doesn't require fox hunting and areas of the country which have never had fox hunting seem to do ok.




That may be the case for your hunt but it's over egging the pudding by a long chalk in others, from my experience.



Dog shows, fun rides and point to points don't depend on hunting and I'm sure they would continue to happen, because of the demand for them, without hunting, as dog shows and fun rides do in the numerous areas of the country which are not hunted, and in hunted areas but unrelated to any hunt.

I'm not aware of any hunt with which I have every hunted raising funds for anyone but themselves, except a bloodhounds pack for a very short time. I'm glad to hear it happens, though I would leave the Air Ambulance out of your list as I'd be pretty sure that hunting costs that service more than it receives as a whole across the country.

My real lived experience does not match your opinions on any point ycbm. With regard to carbon footprint issues - the vast majority of hunt followers are local and get together to follow (ie sharing vehicles in non-Covid times). Are you suggesting perhaps that no-one should travel by vehicle to any group sporting/community event due to the carbon footprint perhaps? That is an interesting suggestion.

With regard to environmental benefits - I don't think you have evidence of the impact of no hunting activities.

This report from the RSPB details the impact of foxes on some of our rarest ground nesting birds : http://ww2.rspb.org.uk/our-work/con...impact-of-predation-on-ground-nesting-waders- Where this report identifies the benefits of a working trophic cascade: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169534716301379 whilst this particularly famous example details how that can happen in practice: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320711004046. This is of real and ongoing interest to conservation and wildlife charities and many of which informally will not dismiss the potential of legal trail hunting to provide some elements of this benefit. UK charities are definately interested in the use of predator disruption in relation to the health of plant, bird and insect survival.

I didn't say all rural events and community events depend on hunting but it is definately part of the picture and an established one. There would be nothing to replace this element of community engagement without hunting organisations which are well placed geographically and administratively to support local communities.

Hunts do raise money for charity and my local hunt have never had cause to call on the local air ambulance so you are simply wrong on that point in this instance.

I understand that nothing I can say or any evidence I can provide will change your opinion.

 

[paddi22]

palo1 you arguments are so tenuous. our local Ica raises money for charity by knitting tea cosies. they don't terrify an animal and break the law doing it. nearly every sector of society raises money for charity. hunting people aren't special snowflakes for doing it. our local ICA have never had need to call the air ambulance either, so maybe they should get more credit for that?

the point about the carbon footprint of vehicles was that you seemed to be arguing hunting had no environmental negative. it has and it's provable. and I don't know where you hunt, but our hunts always have lorries, boxes and cars. I have never seen a hunt where it's all local people hacking?

as someone who has a hunt cross their land, I see the damage done to land.

I don't say this as some anti-hunt person. I have nappy horses I will be hunting next year. But I really think hunt people need to be honest and upfront about the reality of it and stop pulling out arguments about foxes not feeling fear and the world benefiting because of hunting.. my hunt does nothing to support our local community, they do the odd fundraiser for themselves or to support a charity that's close to their hearts . OK there is provable income from farriers, feeds, suppliers etc for hunt horses, but it's a small percentage compared to general leisure horses and realistically if all hunting stopped tomorrow most of those people would still keep horses (because it's in their blood) so that income would still be there.

 

[paddy555]

In brief, paddy555 the benefits of hunting (legal trail hunting) for the countryside include:-

Environment

1. Conservation related activities such as the preserve of traditional wooded areas without requests for grants or state funding. In the current climate crisis these areas are considered a priority.
2. The 'effect' of controlled predator movement (via hounds movement) on other animals - such as happens as part of a trophic cascade and is recognised as pretty vital for ecosystems.
3. The continued observation and understanding of landscape level and micro-landscape level by skilled and experienced observers, including observation of wildlife, water, pasture, moorland and other effects (such as growth of bracken, heather, reeds etc) on a wider and more regular level than environmental charities and organisations can afford themselves. Whilst this information may be 'informal' hunting supporters are often knowledgeable about wildlife and take considerable interest and can observe change well. There are precedents for conservation and environmental charities using exactly this kind of observation and information finding to add to valuable research. (EG the Great British Garden Bird count etc) There are existing ways in which this information can be disseminated to specialist bodies and agencies without cost.

Community

1. Maintenance of community activity (even if you don't participate or remotely agree with hunting) the hunting community within the countryside is real and engages with all age groups and professions/trades. It is one of the few rural activities that is, by it's nature and actuality, inclusive and not prejudiced against elements such as age, race, religion, culture or poverty. There is an existing structure for this which requires no state funding. In most rural areas in Britain community activity is only supported elsewhere by the Church, schools and small, increasingly reduced state funded projects.
2. Fund-raising and provision of events that span beyond hunting (eg fun rides, dog shows, point to points - most of which are supported and funded by local hunts), including vital rural services for Air Ambulance, Mountain Rescue and local hospices. These bring people together and engage with vital voluntary services and charities on an on-going and established basis.

Employment

1. Employment - both of hunt staff and related trades; without hunting a great deal of winter equestrian activity would significantly slow down or become non-existant. Hunting provides direct employment for farriers, saddle fitters, tack shops, grooms, clothing etc. It may be a small contribution but it is none-the-less an established and successful one. Indirect employment is provided by the way that the contribution hunting can enable small businesses to remain viable during the winter months.

Culture

1. Hunting provides connection to a historical culture that embraces song, ritual, clothing, art and narrative. You may not like it one bit but culture is developed through connection with those elements and is considered a public good.

thanks for such a detailed reply.

I can't see many of them but taking for example environment 1, you would need to offset that by all the travelling and vehicle omissions from the hunters getting to the meet and the car followers. There is also the damage that a lot of shod horses do to soft ground. In all honesty I have never seen riders being particularly careful. More a case of charge. In our area there are a lot more visitors studying the environment, naturalists etc working on bogs, flora and fauna. I suspect they spend a lot more time studying it to produce change than hunt followers.


environment 3 then I just don't see that. Many of the walkers, riders, locals and anyone else in the countryside can observe equally well.

Community. To say it is one of the rural activities that is inclusive stretches the point. You either hunt and are a member of the club or you don't. In fact I think it is a very divisive activity. It does nothing for rural community in our area. The hunt, who are basically a club just as any other group of people are, have their ball, social evenings etc. It doesn't engage people, at least not in our area. The only adhesion it creates is people constantly moaning about them!
Equally there are plenty of fun shows etc and charity raising events that are nothing to do with the hunt. Life in that area goes on quite happily without them.

historical culture, well that can be good or bad as we are finding out with slavery etc. Do we like it or not, there are mixed opinions. Current day hunting makes no difference to it.

I cannot see anything that the hunt brings to the area, unless of course you are a follower. I don't want to ban legal hunting, riding your horse around the countryside is a great way to spend your day, but would like some changes.

 

[ycbm]

My real lived experience does not match your opinions on any point ycbm. With regard to carbon footprint issues - the vast majority of hunt followers are local and get together to follow (ie sharing vehicles in non-Covid times). Are you suggesting perhaps that no-one should travel by vehicle to any group sporting/community event due to the carbon footprint perhaps? That is an interesting suggestion.

YOU made the claim that hunting had a beneficial effect on climate change Palo. All I did was answer that.

Are you aware of the carbon footprint of keeping 20+ large fit hounds?

With regard to environmental benefits - I don't think you have evidence of the impact of no hunting activities.

The evidence is in the many areas which have no hunting, and is all around me. Fox hunting is not a prerequisite of a healthy countryside.

Why are you quoting stuff about reducing the impact of predation on ground nesting waders? At no time has anyone suggested that fox numbers should not be actively controlled. Just not with a pack of hounds and a bunch of riders.

Hunts do raise money for charity and my local hunt have never had cause to call on the local air ambulance so you are simply wrong on that point in this instance.

Some hunts raised money for charity. Not all.

Your hunt and none of the people exercising your hunters or hounds have ever called an Air Ambulance that you know of, and your hunt has made a donation to the Air Ambulance, so I am wrong in believing that hunting as a whole takes more from the Air Ambulance services than it provides in charitable donations?

Your logic escapes me. Do you have any idea how much it costs to put a helicopter in the air, never mind one with a fully qualified A&E doctor on board?

I understand that nothing I can say or any evidence I can provide will change your opinion.

Ditto.

I don't know why you can't just admit that you do it because it's legal and great fun, instead of trying to insist that the countryside somehow depends on it. I know it doesn't, I live surrounded by countryside that has been hunted once in 30 years, 29 years ago.

 

[palo1]

paddi22 - I have to agree that hunting people are not 'special snowflakes'!! I certainly haven't claimed that hunts or hunting people are the only ones able to contribute to charity but that contribution is part of the whole picture. I believe the carbon footprint of, for example eventing and dressage (which I have experience of) is far, far greater than that of hunting which is a small group of people usually travelling a short distance. The carbon footprint of equestrianism certainly is something that we should be considering. I am not sure what the ICA you are referring to is, sorry.

 

[ycbm]

But the document doesn't say that foxes are not capable of feeling fear at all...the document says that foxes don't experience human notions of fear. The two are different.

You used the document to support hunting fox with hounds.

The chemicals used to generate fear in a fox and a human are the same. The objective of the fear is the same, to make the animal take evasive action to move away from the fear. The human is capable of verbalising that fear. I see no reason why that would make fear less unpleasant for a fox than a human, in fact I have argued above that it prevents the fox from rationalising its fear and that might actually make it worse for the fox than the human.
.

 

[paddi22]

yeah you are right about the carbon footprint of equestrian being terrible!
I think it boils down to is whether the argument of fox hunting on the whole is a positive or negative environmental thing?

The 'whole picture' thing breaks down fairly quickly. If all hunting stopped tomorrow what would be the net loss to my community and local environment? If I'm honest, not a huge amount in my area.

From my tiny little area if hunting stopped tomorrow I would see
- no terrified animal flying across my land
- I wouldn't see hedging, ditches, nesting areas and fencing damaged
- I wouldn't see my horses going nuts when they hear them and damaging themselves
- there wouldn't be dog faeces across land and the worry animals will get sick because of it.

On the negative side
- great day out
- great education for horses
- great craic
- social life

If Im honest with myself the only unifying factor with the pro's is that I benefit. It's everyone else suffers from the negatives. there is a massive lack of honesty and realism in pro-hunt people.

 

[hollyandivy123]

My real lived experience does not match your opinions on any point ycbm. With regard to carbon footprint issues - the vast majority of hunt followers are local and get together to follow (ie sharing vehicles in non-Covid times). Are you suggesting perhaps that no-one should travel by vehicle to any group sporting/community event due to the carbon footprint perhaps? That is an interesting suggestion.

With regard to environmental benefits - I don't think you have evidence of the impact of no hunting activities.

how about we don't hunt for 10 years and see what happens.........then we can come back to this discussion with more information........

This report from the RSPB details the impact of foxes on some of our rarest ground nesting birds : http://ww2.rspb.org.uk/our-work/con...impact-of-predation-on-ground-nesting-waders-

surely running a hunt through these areas which have ground nesting birds etc would be detrimental........controlling the top predator yes on horse back you tend to loose the argument


Where this report identifies the benefits of a working trophic cascade: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169534716301379

whilst this particularly famous example details how that can happen in practice:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320711004046.
the yellow stone actually goes against your argument on using hunting as a control, if left to there own we would have a balance in the environment and maybe beavers in our rivers

unless you are trying to imply that humans are the top predators ........

This is of real and ongoing interest to conservation and wildlife charities and many of which informally will not dismiss the potential of legal trail hunting to provide some elements of this benefit. UK charities are definately interested in the use of predator disruption in relation to the health of plant, bird and insect survival.

I didn't say all rural events and community events depend on hunting but it is definately part of the picture and an established one. There would be nothing to replace this element of community engagement without hunting organisations which are well placed geographically and administratively to support local communities.

Hunts do raise money for charity and my local hunt have never had cause to call on the local air ambulance so you are simply wrong on that point in this instance.

I understand that nothing I can say or any evidence I can provide will change your opinion.

 

[ycbm]

I believe the carbon footprint of, for example eventing and dressage (which I have experience of) is far, far greater than that of hunting which is a small group of people usually travelling a short distance. The carbon footprint of equestrianism certainly is something that we should be considering. I am not sure what the ICA you are referring to is, sorry.

You really do need to educate yourself on the carbon footprint of running 20+ large and very active dogs for no other reason than to hunt with them, Palo.

 

[palo1]

YOU made the claim that hunting had a beneficial effect on climate change Palo. All I did was answer that.

Are you aware of the carbon footprint of keeping 20+ large fit hounds?

Yes I am. Is that also an argument for discouraging people to keep large numbers of dogs in other settings?

The evidence is in the many areas which have no hunting, and is all around me. Fox hunting is not a prerequisite of a healthy countryside.

The articles I attached to my last post detail why I suggested what I did.

Why are you quoting stuff about reducing the impact of predation on ground nesting waders? At no time has anyone suggested that fox numbers should not be actively controlled. Just not with a pack of hounds and a bunch of riders.

Because it is increasingly believed that control of predators such as foxes may be best done through the use of trophic cascades. In this country the fox's natural predator would be, in ecological terms, a pack of wolves. A pack of hounds is probably a more manageable and acceptable alternative !!(with legal trail hunting key aspects of that predator impact would still work).


Some hunts raised money for charity. Not all.

Your hunt and none of the people exercising your hunters or hounds have ever called an Air Ambulance that you know of, and your hunt has made a donation to the Air Ambulance, so I am wrong in believing that hunting as a whole takes more from the Air Ambulance services than it provides in charitable donations?

Your logic escapes me. Do you have any idea how much it costs to put a helicopter in the air, never mind one with a fully qualified A&E doctor on board?

Yes I completely understand the costs involved - the air ambulance also attends many other sorts of incidents where the injured party/parties make no contribution to charity.

Ditto.

I don't know why you can't just admit that you do it because it's legal and great fun, instead of trying to insist that the countryside somehow depends on it. I know it doesn't, I live surrounded by countryside that has been hunted once in 30 years, 29 years ago.

I do believe that hunting is good for the countryside which is not quite the same as believing that the countryside depends on it. My personal experience is that hunting enables a connection, understanding and investment in the countryside that is quite profound and which naturally encourages people and landscapes to preserve non-commercial aspects of the rural landscape. I consider that to be an exceptional and precious value. I also believe that in an increasingly urbanised society it is vital that we maintain a real connection with wild areas without that become a sentimental pastiche of the natural ecosystem. I think hunting has a genuine role in that. I also believe that if a traditional hunting 'tribe' with a unique and impactful rural culture was being destroyed in another part of the world there would be a liberal outcry. I think it IS important to preserve that culture here.

You say that you live somewhere that has only been hunted once in 30 years yet at the same time profess to understand hunting, hunting people and all the complexities that surround it. How can you live somewhere that has not been hunted for 29 years and still say you understand how it works for people in places where hunting still functions? You have visited other hunts which I guess is where you have had hunting experiences...

 

[palo1]

You really do need to educate yourself on the carbon footprint of running 20+ large and very active dogs for no other reason than to hunt with them, Palo.

 

[paddy555]

paddi22 - I have to agree that hunting people are not 'special snowflakes'!! I certainly haven't claimed that hunts or hunting people are the only ones able to contribute to charity but that contribution is part of the whole picture. I believe the carbon footprint of, for example eventing and dressage (which I have experience of) is far, far greater than that of hunting which is a small group of people usually travelling a short distance. The carbon footprint of equestrianism certainly is something that we should be considering. I am not sure what the ICA you are referring to is, sorry.

I cannot see any difference between hunting, eventing, show jumping or any other horsey activity. Only difference is that most of them just say yes, we like riding and we enjoy our activity and day out. We are creating a carbon foot print but basically so what. We do it cos we like it. We get our horses fit, provide employment for the farrier, saddler etc and we may put on a fun ride or do a sponsored ride for charity.


You are trying to justify hunting as some great service to the country side. It would be more honest to say, we are creating a carbon foot print, we go hunting cos we like it. We love having a bliddy good blast around the countryside on our horses. Full stop, end of message.

I cannot see one single benefit to the countryside or it's inhabitants in our area from hunting. I can see lots of downsides which are the same as any equestrian activity, damage to the turf, road obstruction, carbon foot print, disruption to locals etc.

Trail hunting is not doing anyone in the countryside any favours. Why not just accept that?

When that has been established then perhaps we could move on to what would make things better. For me that would be having hunt meets, dates and places posted well in advance (including cubbing) and making sure local communities know so they can keep their cats in or whatever.

keeping hounds off my fields, keeping the car followers under control ie giving them places where they could see lots of activity without blocking the roads. Also, in the areas where it applies sticking strictly to the law, not hunting fox and making sure they are seen to be taking action to clean it up. Hopefully then with sufficient independent hunt monitors in place the sabs numbers would start to reduce.

 

[paddi22]

I do believe that hunting is good for the countryside which is not quite the same as believing that the countryside depends on it. My personal experience is that hunting enables a connection, understanding and investment in the countryside that is quite profound and which naturally encourages people and landscapes to preserve non-commercial aspects of the rural landscape. I consider that to be an exceptional and precious value. I also believe that in an increasingly urbanised society it is vital that we maintain a real connection with wild areas without that become a sentimental pastiche of the natural ecosystem. I think hunting has a genuine role in that.

I'm just debating this because I think it's interesting and you obviously have a passionate argument on the hunting side. I would just ask why you would assume someone can only get a connection to nature with hunting. I am a hunter but if I couldn't hunt I would still get the same connection with hacking through forests, fun rides and hill walking with my dog? what can a hunt offer that a fun ride can't? we have fun rides here with hounds for part of it, and I experience the same joy with that.

 

[Nasicus]

This report from the RSPB details the impact of foxes on some of our rarest ground nesting birds : http://ww2.rspb.org.uk/our-work/con...impact-of-predation-on-ground-nesting-waders-

Just what ground nesting birds need, a pack of hounds followed by thundering hooves running through them!

 

[Tiddlypom]

Palo, how many cars do you get following your pack during a typical hunting day?

ETA Make that day a Saturday, so more people likely to be out.

 

[paddy555]

I do believe that hunting is good for the countryside which is not quite the same as believing that the countryside depends on it. My personal experience is that hunting enables a connection, understanding and investment in the countryside that is quite profound and which naturally encourages people and landscapes to preserve non-commercial aspects of the rural landscape. I consider that to be an exceptional and precious value. I also believe that in an increasingly urbanised society it is vital that we maintain a real connection with wild areas without that become a sentimental pastiche of the natural ecosystem. I think hunting has a genuine role in that. I also believe that if a traditional hunting 'tribe' with a unique and impactful rural culture was being destroyed in another part of the world there would be a liberal outcry. I think it IS important to preserve that culture here.

..

yes but we haven't had one tangible example as to why it is good for the countryside. I can get the urban society and connection to the countryside bit. We are in a tourist area, we see the urban people coming out all the time in their efforts to connect to the countryside. In great numbers, they do not need the hunt to do that. They manage it perfectly well on their own.

As for the hunting tribe and rural culture. In other parts of the world the hunting tribe genuinely hunts to live or they starve. Most hunt supporters here either ride home or go back to their nice warm lorry, drive home, tuck Dobbin up in his stable and then enjoy a nice glass of something in the comfort of a hot bath.

 

[palo1]

I'm just debating this because I think it's interesting and you obviously have a passionate argument on the hunting side. I would just ask why you would assume someone can only get a connection to nature with hunting. I am a hunter but if I couldn't hunt I would still get the same connection with hacking through forests, fun rides and hill walking with my dog? what can a hunt offer that a fun ride can't? we have fun rides here with hounds for part of it, and I experience the same joy with that.

I get hear what you are saying though it doesn't work like that for me.

 

[palo1]

I cannot see any difference between hunting, eventing, show jumping or any other horsey activity. Only difference is that most of them just say yes, we like riding and we enjoy our activity and day out. We are creating a carbon foot print but basically so what. We do it cos we like it. We get our horses fit, provide employment for the farrier, saddler etc and we may put on a fun ride or do a sponsored ride for charity.


You are trying to justify hunting as some great service to the country side. It would be more honest to say, we are creating a carbon foot print, we go hunting cos we like it. We love having a bliddy good blast around the countryside on our horses. Full stop, end of message.

I cannot see one single benefit to the countryside or it's inhabitants in our area from hunting. I can see lots of downsides which are the same as any equestrian activity, damage to the turf, road obstruction, carbon foot print, disruption to locals etc.

Trail hunting is not doing anyone in the countryside any favours. Why not just accept that?

When that has been established then perhaps we could move on to what would make things better. For me that would be having hunt meets, dates and places posted well in advance (including cubbing) and making sure local communities know so they can keep their cats in or whatever.

keeping hounds off my fields, keeping the car followers under control ie giving them places where they could see lots of activity without blocking the roads. Also, in the areas where it applies sticking strictly to the law, not hunting fox and making sure they are seen to be taking action to clean it up. Hopefully then with sufficient independent hunt monitors in place the sabs numbers would start to reduce.

I understand what you are saying here and agree that work could be done to improve hunting's relationship with the general public by all of the things that you suggest but I don't agree that it is not a benefit to the countryside. Glad to hear you have good time though I think trail hunting does do the countryside a favour actually but I have been through this quite a bit already so won't repeat myself (you will be glad to hear!)

 

[paddy555]

ETA Make that day a Saturday, so more people likely to be out.

preferably don't

 

[paddi22]

I understand what you are saying here and agree that work could be done to improve hunting's relationship with the general public by all of the things that you suggest but I don't agree that it is not a benefit to the countryside. Glad to hear you have good time though I think trail hunting does do the countryside a favour actually but I have been through this quite a bit already so won't repeat myself (you will be glad to hear!)

But as someone who hunts I can't justify it doing the countryside any good? do you have tangible evidence of that. I often block from my mind the damage done to ground birds and animal habitats, fencing, hedging, nesting habitats, damage to ditching, polluting water and the faeces in fields. I nearly had a panic attack watching one of my pregant mares run herself into a frenzy when hounds ran through her field unexpectedly. I had
one of my own horses jump out of it's box due to stress listening to them going past. I can only assume others have their things happen too? I have read back your posts and I am not understanding where it benefits the countryside?