Hunting is in a spot of bother

[Gallop_Away]

I don't buy the 'can't afford it' argument. Hunt members would only need to continue to pay all or part of what they are already paying, albeit with no sport to show for it.

Not all hunts are wealthy, for sure, but a lot of them are.

It's not just subscriptions but also the other activities that also fund the hounds keep that would stop if the hunt was disbanded.
Not to mention someone to look after them which is very much a full time commitment.
I'm sorry but it really isn't as simple as you are trying to portray.

 

[Miss_Millie]

Has anyone watched 'The Doghouse' on Channel 4? They had two foxhounds in for re-homing. One sadly had to be PTS as he was old and arthritic, but the other one was re-homed. Before they came into the rescue, they were living with an elderly couple in a house. I think this sort of proves that foxhounds can adapt to a domestic environment, contrary to what some people may say. They both seemed to be sweet and loving dogs.

 

[Gallop_Away]

Has anyone watched 'The Doghouse' on Channel 4? They had two foxhounds in for re-homing. One sadly had to be PTS as he was old and arthritic, but the other one was re-homed. Before they came into the rescue, they were living with an elderly couple in a house. I think this sort of proves that foxhounds can adapt to a domestic environment, contrary to what some people may say. They both seemed to be sweet and loving dogs.

Some can take very well to domestic life. Our hunt master has his favourite stud dog, now retired, living with him at home. He frequently kicks our hunt master off his own sofa.

Unfortunately though there are some who just can not be rehomed for various reasons, or sometimes there simply aren't any suitable homes available for all of them.

 

[GSD Woman]

But that's the point.

The hounds would not need to be culled as long as those who currently contribute to their upkeep were prepared to fund their retirement if hunting was ever fully banned. It would only need to be for a few years

But is it realistic to expect working people to spend their hard earned money to provide for unemployed hounds when there is only so much to go around? These are working, kennel kept dogs that may or many not make good house pets.

I personally would have a hard time spending my hobby money on something that no longer provides a hobby. Especially if that commitment could go on for a decade.

 

[stangs]

I personally would have a hard time spending my hobby money on something that no longer provides a hobby. Especially if that commitment could go on for a decade.

If your hobby brings an animal into this world, you have a duty of care towards them.

 

[Tiddlypom]

I am simply pointing out that there would be no absolute need to cull all foxhounds in existing packs if all hunting was banned.

It would be much simpler and cheaper to cull them, of course. Just don't pretend that the hunts had no choice but to cull them. They do have choices, all of which cost more in time, money, effort and commitment than culling.

I am not particularly in favour in trying to rehome any hounds as house pets. I know of a few hunting peeps who have tried to take in a favourite hound when it was honourably retired, but none of the hounds settled into their new life. Maybe it might work with a much younger hound.

 

[ycbm]

But is it realistic to expect working people to spend their hard earned money to provide for unemployed hounds when there is only so much to go around?

No, but it is unreasonable to claim that the loss of your sport means you are forced to kill hounds and that the death of the hounds will therefore be the fault of those who demanded the ban.

It's also unreasonable to post insisting that hounds are revered, honoured, cherished, loved and/or similar words and then say they will be killed as soon as hunting stops.
.

 

[Gallop_Away]

No, but it is unreasonable to claim that the loss of your sport means you are forced to kill hounds and that the death of the hounds will therefore be the fault of those who demanded the ban.

It's also unreasonable to post insisting that hounds are revered, honoured, cherished, loved and/or similar words and then say they will be killed as soon as hunting stops.
.

Perhaps in yours and Tiddlypoms opinion. You call it unreasonable. I call it realistic.
You clearly have a very black and white view. To say hunts would have a "choice" is a bit naive. There is no choice when they can not all be rehomed and the funding and resources to look after them is no longer available.

 

[ycbm]

Perhaps in yours and Tiddlypoms opinion. You call it unreasonable. I call it realistic.
You clearly have a very black and white view. To say hunts would have a "choice" is a bit naive. There is no choice when they can not all be rehomed and the funding and resources to look after them is no longer available.

But of course there is a choice. Nobody would be forcing anyone to kill hounds.

I'm not saying you should take that choice, I'd find it completely unrealistic, myself.

But you can't have your cake and eat it too. It will not be the fault of people who call for a total ban (which I don't want) if hunts chose to shoot their healthy hounds rather than pay for them to live out their natural lives. It's simply an economic decision by people who only value those animals if they can follow them on horseback or on foot.
.

 

[[153312]]

Genuine question(s), because I know nothing about hunting: how do hunts fund the hounds upkeep normally? Would/could they technically just let the animals that homes can't be found for live in their current kennels, if they could find some way of exercising them?
then when the current generation of non home-able hounds dies of old age, no more hounds that can't live in homes, if they could finance it somehow.

Even on paper it seems an overly idealistic solution but I'd be the first to admit I'm about as ignorant as a person can be on hunting.

 

[Gallop_Away]

But of course there is a choice. Nobody would be forcing anyone to kill hounds.

I'm not saying you should take that choice, I'd find it completely unrealistic, myself.

But you can't have your cake and eat it too. It will not be the fault of people who call for a total ban (which I don't want) if hunts chose to shoot their healthy hounds rather than pay for them to live out their natural lives. It's simply an economic decision by people who only value those animals if they can follow them on horseback or on foot.
.

I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree yet again ycbm. I do not think it is a "choice" when you are all but forcing someone's hand. Again where is the money and funding going to come from to care for these hounds or to pay a wage to the person caring for them?
Yes hunt members may contribute but that in itself may not be enough. Not all hunts are rolling in money I'm afraid.
I'm not saying it is the fault of those calling for a complete ban, but I think it is hypocritical so say you care for animals but show no concern for the future of hounds that will inevitable end up being culled if hunting was to be banned.

 

[Gallop_Away]

Genuine question(s), because I know nothing about hunting: how do hunts fund the hounds upkeep normally? Would/could they technically just let the animals that homes can't be found for live in their current kennels, if they could find some way of exercising them?
then when the current generation of non home-able hounds dies of old age, no more hounds that can't live in homes, if they could finance it somehow.

Even on paper it seems an overly idealistic solution but I'd be the first to admit I'm about as ignorant as a person can be on hunting.

Field caps and hunt memberships are usually a big part of funding. Hunts may also hold other events outside the hunting season such as fun rides, shows, p2p etc. Also there's the fallen stock services.
It is not just a case of finding somewhere to house them. Its feeding, vet treatment, general care etc. Then there is also finding someone to care for them which is very much a full time commitment.

 

[ycbm]

. Again where is the money and funding going to come from to care for these hounds or to pay a wage to the person caring for them?

The same place as it does now.

And if those people won't continue to supply that money, (and I would not, except for fun rides and social events) then it is proof that the hounds are valued overwhelmingly, arguably solely, for their ability to be followed while they are tracking a trail.
.

 

[Gallop_Away]

The same place as it does now.

And if those people won't continue to supply that money, (and I would not, except for fun rides and social events) then it is proof that the hounds are valued overwhelmingly, arguably solely, for their ability to be followed while they are tracking a trail.
.

As I said, sadly that may not be enough. I'm sure many would contribute gladly, but when every other source of income has been removed many hunts would still struggle, and not because they simply don't care enough.
I think to suggest otherwise is at best naive and at worst narrow minded. It is not as black and white as you are painting it to be.

 

[ycbm]

And as I've already said sadly that may not be enough. I'm sure many would contribute gladly, but when every other source of income has been removed many hunts would still struggle, and not because they simply don't care enough.
I think to suggest otherwise is at best naive and at worst narrow minded. It is not as black and white as you are painting it to be.

You seem to be either in denial, or you have cognitive dissonance.

There is no reason why each subscriber could not commit to funding part of one hounds until it reaches a natural end to its life.

I'm not being narrow minded, I am freely accepting that is a purely financial decision and one that I would not personally agree to.

But I wouldn't then blame anyone else that "my" hound had to be killed.
.

 

[Gallop_Away]

You seem to be either in denial, or you have cognitive dissonance.

There is no reason why each subscriber could not commit to funding part of one hounds until it reaches a natural end to its life.

I'm not being narrow minded, I am freely accepting that is a purely financial decision and one that I would not personally agree to.

But I wouldn't then blame anyone else that "my" hound had to be killed.
.

I don't think I'm the one in denial here. I think it is far from as simple as you make it out to be, but as I say we are clearly not going to agree on this point.

In any case I hope this is all hypothetical as I hope I will personally not see the day when the sound of hounds dissappears from our countryside for good.

 

[lannerch]

You seem to be either in denial, or you have cognitive dissonance.

There is no reason why each subscriber could not commit to funding part of one hounds until it reaches a natural end to its life.

I'm not being narrow minded, I am freely accepting that is a purely financial decision and one that I would not personally agree to.

But I wouldn't then blame anyone else that "my" hound had to be killed.
.

I think ybm you are the one in denial if you really think that the subscribers would continue to pay. The subscribers I know are not the wealthy elite they work hard to fund their hobbies .
If all hunting is banned hounds would end up being mass put down that would be directly because of the hunting ban there is no getting away from the fact.

 

[ycbm]

I think ybm you are the one in denial if you really think that the subscribers would continue to pay.

I don't know how you can write this when I have written twice myself that I would not pay if it was me.
.

 

[paddy555]

I think ybm you are the one in denial if you really think that the subscribers would continue to pay. The subscribers I know are not the wealthy elite they work hard to fund their hobbies .
If all hunting is banned hounds would end up being mass put down that would be directly because of the hunting ban there is no getting away from the fact.

yes I entirely agree they would be put down en mass. However they wouldn't have to be. There would be an option that they could be funded by subscribers if they so wished. I guess if people were animal lovers like gallop away who couldn't bear to see a mass cull then they would fund them in recognition of the pleasure they had given. Otherwise if the hunt supporters didn't care that much they would be shot. Entirely up to the hunt supporters really. Shoot them or fund them, the choice is theirs.
I suspect in reality they wouldn't want to fund them as they would be of no further use so it would be a bullet.

Like many of the comments from hunt supporters on here this issue is push it back onto those who want a ban and blame them for it. No. They are the hunts and their supporters hounds. Fund them or kill them. The choice is in the hands of hunt supporters. If they don't want to put their hands in their pockets to support them because they are of no further use then fine. Don't blame others for that decision.

No one thinks the hunt supporters would pay but it is no good moaning if they are culled because supporters don't want to fund them. They have the money now to pay for their hunting hobby. That money will still be there. Just a choice, spend it on your beloved hounds or spend it on your new hobby.

 

[Gallop_Away]

But paddy not all the funding comes from hunt subscribers. Many people who attend the other events, fun rides p2p etc or use fallen stock services don't always hunt themselves.
These events and services account for a large portion of hunt funding, but would obviously not be able to continue if hunts were disbanded.
My point is not that hunt subscribers wouldn't pay, but that in some cases even if they did still pay the membership, it may still not be enough, and not everyone who hunts is in a financial position to make up the shortfall.
I think the reality is many hunts would still struggle and this would unavoidably mean they would need to have hounds destroyed. Not because its cheaper, or that they don't care about their hounds, but because they were left with no other option following a ban.

 

[lannerch]

I don't know how you can write this when I have written twice myself that I would not pay if it was me.
.

Yes I know you said you would not pay, but you still argued the point that hunt supporters should send the hounds to a hound retirement and that gallop was delusional in saying realistically due to financial reasons that would never happen.
If hunting was banned the direct cause of the hounds death would be the ban nothing else.

Surely the best option for real animal lovers , is ensure the current hunts hunt legally. No death to fox or hound. As very much an animal lover myself that is the option that has my support.

 

[ycbm]

you still argued the point that hunt supporters should send the hounds to a hound retirement

No I didn't.

I said that if they don't, then they should accept that means that the only value they see in the hounds is if they can be followed by the hunt supporters.
.

 

[moosea]

But paddy not all the funding comes from hunt subscribers. Many people who attend the other events, fun rides p2p etc or use fallen stock services don't always hunt themselves.
These events and services account for a large portion of hunt funding, but would obviously not be able to continue if hunts were disbanded.

There would not be any need to disband hunts from running P2P or fun rides. In fact they could run more of them because of all the extra time freed up from trail hunting.
Fallen stock could continue. The hunts would not need as many employees so would be able to save money there.

My point is not that hunt subscribers wouldn't pay, but that in some cases even if they did still pay the membership, it may still not be enough, and not everyone who hunts is in a financial position to make up the shortfall.

how would it not be enough when hunting is banned but it is now?

I think the reality is many hunts would still struggle and this would unavoidably mean they would need to have hounds destroyed. Not because its cheaper, or that they don't care about their hounds, but because they were left with no other option following a ban.

The hunt supporters who love, cherish and revere these hounds would surely pay a reduced 'cap' to save these hounds?
And the income raised from holding more events and fallen stock would go towards the hounds upkeep.
Hunts could perhaps diversify, like farmers have had to, maybe looking towards becoming more of a riding club type of thing?
There are options - but they cost money and time and I'm sure all those who love these hounds would be prepared to contribute, unless they only love them when they are used for hunting?

 

[GSD Woman]

And if those people won't continue to supply that money, (and I would not, except for fun rides and social events) then it is proof that the hounds are valued overwhelmingly, arguably solely, for their ability to be followed while they are tracking a trail.

Humanly culling is much nicer than what most of deer, bear and rabbit hunters do around here. They dump the hounds that run riot or just won't hunt by the side of the road.

 

[Fred66]

There would not be any need to disband hunts from running P2P or fun rides. In fact they could run more of them because of all the extra time freed up from trail hunting.
Fallen stock could continue. The hunts would not need as many employees so would be able to save money there.

Many hunts only have 1-2 paid employees so to maintain these services there would be no savings.

The hunt supporters who love, cherish and revere these hounds would surely pay a reduced 'cap' to save these hounds?
And the income raised from holding more events and fallen stock would go towards the hounds upkeep.
Hunts could perhaps diversify, like farmers have had to, maybe looking towards becoming more of a riding club type of thing?
There are options - but they cost money and time and I'm sure all those who love these hounds would be prepared to contribute, unless they only love them when they are used for hunting?

The issue wouldn’t be around whether the hunts would be willing to continue fund the kennels it would be around the law.
To ban all forms of trail hunting would require the law to be amended to make it a crime to exercise more than a few dogs at a time, otherwise the hunts could just exercise their hounds as a pack. This change would make it impossible to keep the hounds together and provide sufficient exercise as if you were restricted to taking them out 4 at a time and you need to exercise them for a couple of hours a day and you have a pack of 60 then you would be needing 30 hrs of exercise time a day !

 

[Sandstone1]

Yes I know you said you would not pay, but you still argued the point that hunt supporters should send the hounds to a hound retirement and that gallop was delusional in saying realistically due to financial reasons that would never happen.
If hunting was banned the direct cause of the hounds death would be the ban nothing else.

Surely the best option for real animal lovers , is ensure the current hunts hunt legally. No death to fox or hound. As very much an animal lover myself that is the option that has my support.

Yes you would think so wouldnt you? And yet years after the ban hunts are still hunting illegally. Still using fox sent to supposedly "lay trails" Still killing foxes and other wildlife very regularly. So who is to blame here?

 

[Gallop_Away]

There would not be any need to disband hunts from running P2P or fun rides. In fact they could run more of them because of all the extra time freed up from trail hunting.
Fallen stock could continue. The hunts would not need as many employees so would be able to save money there.





how would it not be enough when hunting is banned but it is now?



The hunt supporters who love, cherish and revere these hounds would surely pay a reduced 'cap' to save these hounds?
And the income raised from holding more events and fallen stock would go towards the hounds upkeep.
Hunts could perhaps diversify, like farmers have had to, maybe looking towards becoming more of a riding club type of thing?
There are options - but they cost money and time and I'm sure all those who love these hounds would be prepared to contribute, unless they only love them when they are used for hunting?

I would think if hunting was banned then hunts would be disbanded. Therefore they would no longer be able to run these events under the name of the hunt.
As I've explained, it isn't just hunt subscribers that fund hounds currently, but also these other events and fallen stock services.
If the hunts could find other ways to survive then I'm sure they could potentially, with support from their subscribers, afford to keep their current hounds into retirement, but I think this is unlikely.

Ultimately as long as illegal hunts keep doing what they are doing they are fuelling the fire for those who wish to see hunting banned ?

 

[ycbm]

To ban all forms of trail hunting would require the law to be amended to make it a crime to exercise more than a few dogs at a time

Why?
.

 

[Clodagh]

Why?
.

Because legally if I was walking my five on Dartmoor and they chased a squirrel I would be as guilty of illegal hunting as a pack of hounds after a fox. It may be unlikely I would be prosecuted and I know you have more knowledge of the law than I do.

 

[ycbm]

Because legally if I was walking my five on Dartmoor and they chased a squirrel I would be as guilty of illegal hunting as a pack of hounds after a fox. It may be unlikely I would be prosecuted and I know you have more knowledge of the law than I do.

Isn't that about the dogs being out of control though, Clodagh, not about the number being exercised at one time? And that's illegal now, hounds or not, I think?

ETA it might be that hounds packs would need to be cut some Slack for, say, five years until the numbers dropped right off, but I don't see why Fred thinks it would need banning.
.