Hunting is in a spot of bother

[Millionwords]

Not my group, we were lucky only two of ours were done.

https://fb.watch/gXrcdBTdBz/

Supporters also seem magically ignore the blatant intended criminal damage that occurs so often, illegal use of quad bikes on the road (on wrong numberplates, without insurance or MOT) usually by terriermen.

 

[SilverLinings]

Anyone that thinks that is how terrier men work is living in cloud cuckoo land.... They block sets including badger sets and dig out foxes so they can be chased.

If they're "distracted" after nearly 20 years of training...how can anyone expect them to be doing anything other than chasing fox.
Particularly when the scent of the trail is still (according to hunts) fox urine. I don't think they just mosey past a sett get distracted and mark to ground by chance very often

I agree with both of you that it sounds highly dubious and in some cases has actually been proven to be the case that they are acting illegally, but I don't think sweeping statements about 'all hunts' (just like the sweeping statements about 'all sabs') should be made unless provable.

FWIW I don't agree with illegal fox hunting, I don't want it made legal again, and I know of two hunts in particular who are definitely not using their terrier men in a legal way, which was why I wanted to know how hunts could justify the presence of terrier men if they were claiming to be trail hunting.

 

[SilverLinings]

Supporters also seem magically ignore the blatant intended criminal damage that occurs so often, illegal use of quad bikes on the road (on wrong numberplates, without insurance or MOT) usually by terriermen.

Round here they also drive like complete d!cks as apparently everyone should give way to the hunt including pedestrians and animals. I was nearly mown down (when walking) by a hunt quad bike last winter to the extent that I ended up on my face in a muddy ditch. The passenger on the back saw and they kept on driving, it was a dog walker who found me 5 mins later who helped me up. I was walking with crutches at the time this happened but apparently still fair game (or an acceptable casualty of the hunt's activities).

 

[Sandstone1]

Supporters also seem magically ignore the blatant intended criminal damage that occurs so often, illegal use of quad bikes on the road (on wrong numberplates, without insurance or MOT) usually by terriermen.

Yes, Un road legal quads, no number plates, no mot or insurance. Often overloaded with 3 or 4 large men on. often with masks on too. Its not just sabs who wear masks. Wonder what happens if they have a accident on the road? They would not have a leg to stand on.

 

[Millionwords]

Yes, Un road legal quads, no number plates, no mot or insurance. Often overloaded with 3 or 4 large men on. often with masks on too. Its not just sabs who wear masks. Wonder what happens if they have a accident on the road? They would not have a leg to stand on.

Oh but their faces get cold even when stationary slashing folks tyres?

 

[Clodagh]

But the terrier men follow the hunt because why would a trail enable them to better come across a fox in an earth rather a sett? ?

There is no justification for terrier men being there that doesn't implicate the hunt in illegal activity....they are after all, the hunts "soft underbelly" as they said themselves.

I really disagree with you there. Not saying hunts are following the law, or the terrierman, but ATEOFD it is legal to dig and shoot a fox, if not in a set, and however you locate the fox is irrelevant, as long as it isn’t chased there.

 

[Clodagh]

See attachments terrier men are not doing this

Certain forms of hunting, very closely defined in Schedule 1, are exempt namely:

• Stalking and flushing out a wild mammal for certain purposes, with a view to its being shot forthwith, and not using more than two dogs;
• Use of not more than one dog at a time below ground in the course of stalking or flushing to protect birds for shooting;

You can’t put more than one terrier to ground, well it would be stupid as the front one blocks access by the second.

 

[Clodagh]

Round here they also drive like complete d!cks as apparently everyone should give way to the hunt including pedestrians and animals. I was nearly mown down (when walking) by a hunt quad bike last winter to the extent that I ended up on my face in a muddy ditch. The passenger on the back saw and they kept on driving, it was a dog walker who found me 5 mins later who helped me up. I was walking with crutches at the time this happened but apparently still fair game (or an acceptable casualty of the hunt's activities).

Not really liking that, but a sympathy like. I stopped hunting as much for the ban as the enormous entitlement of some of the followers.

 

[palo1]

But the terrier men follow the hunt because why would a trail enable them to better come across a fox in an earth rather a sett? ?

There is no justification for terrier men being there that doesn't implicate the hunt in illegal activity....they are after all, the hunts "soft underbelly" as they said themselves.

Where we are, terrier men are there for 2 reasons: one is to support the hunt with gates, food/drink, banter etc and the other is because it often suits the landowner to have both trail hunt and fox control on the same day. They can tell the terrier boys that they have a problem fox or that they want some pest control and we have found that our terrier men will, if asked do that job (which is legal as long as there is no interference with badger setts) at the same time as the trail hunt is there. The trail hunters do disturb foxes and move them on by virtue of the noise of hounds etc; there is no doubt about that. Our hunt does not use 2 hounds for legal hunting though - I think it is just too disruptive to the pack and likely to result in riot. 1 day, 2 jobs/activities. It is easier for the landowners to have it all on the same day and in my experience and opinion the vast majority of landowners that are happy to have the hunt also want to see something like a traditional day's hunting. A great many farmers that I know still wag their heads at the idea of trail hunting tbh. Say what you like, I am reporting my experience.

 

[palo1]

I have no doubt that many hunts are not acting correctly/using terrier men within the confines of the law, but I have seen no evidence that ALL hunts/terrier men are breaking the law.

I suspect it will be a moot point in the not-too-distant-future as the behaviour of the illegally-hunting fraternity is likely to result in the banning of using dogs in any form of hunting. I even think there might be such concern that certain people will try to find loopholes/excuses to still hunt with dogs illegally that even things like ratting with terriers may end up banned.

Well yes though the fly in that ointment is that it would be legally impossible to statute that without potentially criminalising anyone with a dog and a vengeful neighbour and the police would never support such mass sanction on what would be quite 'normal' activities of the dog owning public.

 

[palo1]

Yes, Un road legal quads, no number plates, no mot or insurance. Often overloaded with 3 or 4 large men on. often with masks on too. Its not just sabs who wear masks. Wonder what happens if they have a accident on the road? They would not have a leg to stand on.

Well our hunt committee are incredibly strict about all of those things and will enforce rules. Anyone who cannot prove they have MOT, Insurance etc goes home and never more than 2 adults on a quad. Police have been called to us (not sure who by) and everything provably above board so no problems. We also have a total quad limit: 1 quad for the trail layer's support (visibly labelled) and 2 others max.

 

[Millionwords]

Where we are, terrier men are there for 2 reasons: one is to support the hunt with gates, food/drink, banter etc and the other is because it often suits the landowner to have both trail hunt and fox control on the same day. They can tell the terrier boys that they have a problem fox or that they want some pest control and we have found that our terrier men will, if asked do that job (which is legal as long as there is no interference with badger setts) at the same time as the trail hunt is there. The trail hunters do disturb foxes and move them on by virtue of the noise of hounds etc; there is no doubt about that. Our hunt does not use 2 hounds for legal hunting though - I think it is just too disruptive to the pack and likely to result in riot. 1 day, 2 jobs/activities. It is easier for the landowners to have it all on the same day and in my experience and opinion the vast majority of landowners that are happy to have the hunt also want to see something like a traditional day's hunting. A great many farmers that I know still wag their heads at the idea of trail hunting tbh. Say what you like, I am reporting my experience.

Sounds like sailing very close to the wind and ripe for easily being accused of illegal hunting, helpful too that they could just dig out a fox that happened to go to ground...strange that combining the two is deemed better than you know..ringing a terrierman up with a grid reference at any other time.

If hunts want folk to believe that terriermen and hunts are doing nothing untoward, you'd think they'd consider more carefully how they present it, or not be killing foxes at the same time theyre pretending not to kill foxes.

 

[palo1]

Sounds like sailing very close to the wind and ripe for easily being accused of illegal hunting, helpful too that they could just dig out a fox that happened to go to ground...strange that combining the two is deemed better than you know..ringing a terrierman up with a grid reference.

If hunts want folk to believe that terriermen and hunts are doing nothing untoward, you'd think they'd consider more carefully how they present it.

You forget that the hunting community and many of the supporting landowners had the Hunting Act forced on them. From everything I have heard over the years, if it is legal (and often provably so) many hunting people feel it doesn't matter how it might look to the sabs. You may see that as arrogance but that neglects to accept the history of the legal framework of hunting in it's current form. it is the same as people going into the pub and driving home again. It is perfectly legal to spend the evening in the pub and drive home even where there is a real and present danger of people drinking alcohol and being over the legal limit. Some hunts choose to make more effort to demonstrate legal hunting than others but the terriermen are often linked by history to the hunt; it is a community that 'others' have tried to divide. You will probably never find any so intransigent as those who have had rules and division forced on them. At the same time many people hunting today, like me, have far too much to lose in professional and personal terms to want to be implicated with illegal hunting. You see so many professionals in that position (vets, police, nurses, small business owners etc) that the idea that everyone hunting is breaking the law or supporting that and/or is a psychopathic criminal is just ridiculous.

IF the hunting community are all implicated in breaking the law and have done so relentlessly for 20 years, in spite of the jeopardy they put themselves in, it is interesting to consider why, even by Sab reckoning there are around 600 hunting days taking place every week from September to March/April. That is without the unregistered packs of course too. Why would so many people choose to break the law or choose to support law breaking in spite of their diversity and the opposition they face from antis?

Either one or other scenario is the case...

 

[Millionwords]

You forget that the hunting community and many of the supporting landowners had the Hunting Act forced on them. From everything I have heard over the years, if it is legal (and often provably so) many hunting people feel it doesn't matter how it might look to the sabs. You may see that as arrogance but that neglects to accept the history of the legal framework of hunting in it's current form. it is the same as people going into the pub and driving home again. It is perfectly legal to spend the evening in the pub and drive home even where there is a real and present danger of people drinking alcohol and being over the legal limit. Some hunts choose to make more effort to demonstrate legal hunting than others but the terriermen are often linked by history to the hunt; it is a community that 'others' have tried to divide. You will probably never find any so intransigent as those who have had rules and division forced on them. At the same time many people hunting today, like me, have far too much to lose in professional and personal terms to want to be implicated with illegal hunting. You see so many professionals in that position (vets, police, nurses, small business owners etc) that the idea that everyone hunting is breaking the law or supporting that and/or is a psychopathic criminal is just ridiculous.

IF the hunting community are all implicated in breaking the law and have done so relentlessly for 20 years, in spite of the jeopardy they put themselves in, it is interesting to consider why, even by Sab reckoning there are around 600 hunting days taking place every week from September to March/April. That is without the unregistered packs of course too. Why would so many people choose to break the law or choose to support law breaking in spite of their diversity and the opposition they face from antis?

Either one or other scenario is the case...

Its clearly not one or the other. In the latter scenario, because they had the ban forced upon them...and arrogance that the law does not apply to them....being a policeman doesn't stop you being an extremist, murderer, nutter or racist it seems, so why should the other job roles stop you wanting to hunt foxes?

If hunts want support, or at least not to face constant hassle from the public, public opinion, sabs, whoever...then they should do more about it.

OR stop bleating about how sabs won't leave them alone and the public dont understand.

 

[palo1]

Its clearly not one or the other. In the latter scenario, because they had the ban forced upon them...and arrogance that the law does not apply to them....being a policeman doesn't stop you being an extremist, murderer, nutter or racist it seems, so why should the other job roles stop you wanting to hunt foxes?

If hunts want support, or at least not to face constant hassle from the public, public opinion, sabs, whoever...then they should do more about it.

OR stop bleating about how sabs won't leave them alone and the public dont understand.

So what do you think is the reality of hunting then? Genuinely interested as the general anti hunt narrative is that everyone is hunting illegally and that is the premise on which sabs are now working to bring the demise of all hunting activities. I completely agree that being a nurse/doctor/policeman/vet does not disbar you from being a psychopath or criminal sadly but on the whole it is unthinkable that across the country such diverse groups of people in so many locations collectively break the law, or support that, publicly and regularly.

Why do you think illegal hunting would appeal to those groups of people? OR why do you think that those people would risk reputational damage and potential fall out for not falling in with the 'extra' conditions that sabs and anti-hunters want to see imposed (ie presenting their legal activities in a way that pleases or reassures the very people that oppose them). How does that work?

 

[ester]

I'm not sure it does appeal per se and that plenty of them would be just as happy if the hunt were legally trail hunting, but there might not be one actually doing that to move their patronage too. And I think on horse it can be relatively easy to distance yourself from what is actually happening if you'd rather not know and are the sort to be there for a day out and the hip flasks. . .

 

[Koweyka]

You forget that the hunting community and many of the supporting landowners had the Hunting Act forced on them. From everything I have heard over the years, if it is legal (and often provably so) many hunting people feel it doesn't matter how it might look to the sabs. You may see that as arrogance but that neglects to accept the history of the legal framework of hunting in it's current form. it is the same as people going into the pub and driving home again. It is perfectly legal to spend the evening in the pub and drive home even where there is a real and present danger of people drinking alcohol and being over the legal limit. Some hunts choose to make more effort to demonstrate legal hunting than others but the terriermen are often linked by history to the hunt; it is a community that 'others' have tried to divide. You will probably never find any so intransigent as those who have had rules and division forced on them. At the same time many people hunting today, like me, have far too much to lose in professional and personal terms to want to be implicated with illegal hunting. You see so many professionals in that position (vets, police, nurses, small business owners etc) that the idea that everyone hunting is breaking the law or supporting that and/or is a psychopathic criminal is just ridiculous.

IF the hunting community are all implicated in breaking the law and have done so relentlessly for 20 years, in spite of the jeopardy they put themselves in, it is interesting to consider why, even by Sab reckoning there are around 600 hunting days taking place every week from September to March/April. That is without the unregistered packs of course too. Why would so many people choose to break the law or choose to support law breaking in spite of their diversity and the opposition they face from antis?

Either one or other scenario is the case...

Just how many sab groups do you think there are ? The hunt that killed Matrix is one I have never even heard of. I am very sure that we had the bodies to go and watch every single hunt there would be even more evidence of illegal hunting.

 

[Millionwords]

So what do you think is the reality of hunting then? Genuinely interested as the general anti hunt narrative is that everyone is hunting illegally and that is the premise on which sabs are now working to bring the demise of all hunting activities. I completely agree that being a nurse/doctor/policeman/vet does not disbar you from being a psychopath or criminal sadly but on the whole it is unthinkable that across the country such diverse groups of people in so many locations collectively break the law, or support that, publicly and regularly.

Why do you think illegal hunting would appeal to those groups of people? OR why do you think that those people would risk reputational damage and potential fall out for not falling in with the 'extra' conditions that sabs and anti-hunters want to see imposed (ie presenting their legal activities in a way that pleases or reassures the very people that oppose them). How does that work?

It would be very difficult to prosecute one of the field as you well know.
As with any organisation there are varying levels of "being in the know" about what's going on.

Many people here have hunted and never witnessed a kill. If you are happy to have an inkling this might be the case, but you dislike foxes youd turn a blind eye.

If you were told they hunt legally and are in the field and didn't hunt pre ban, you'd probably believe it.

I don't know why you're asking, you're not stupid, you know all of this.

it's just deflection, waffling around the point to muddy the waters and avoid having to actually respond directly and honestly to every statement put forward no matter how unarguable it is (in general, not just statements by me. And in general by pro hunt, including you)

Its like pro hunt turn into Boris Johnson when asked a straightforward question. Or they just pretend it wasn't asked and find an interesting spot somewhere in another room to look at, and hope the question goes away.

 

[palo1]

It would be very difficult to prosecute one of the field as you well know.
As with any organisation there are varying levels of "being in the know" about what's going on.

Many people here have hunted and never witnessed a kill. If you are happy to have an inkling this might be the case, but you dislike foxes youd turn a blind eye.

If you were told they hunt legally and are in the field and didn't hunt pre ban, you'd probably believe it.

I don't know why you're asking, you're not stupid, you know all of this.

it's just deflection, waffling around the point to muddy the waters and avoid having to actually respond directly and honestly to every statement put forward no matter how unarguable it is (in general, not just statements by me. And in general by pro hunt, including you)

Its like pro hunt turn into Boris Johnson when asked a straightforward question. Or they just pretend it wasn't asked and find an interesting spot somewhere in another room to look at, and hope the question goes away.

I think this is pretty rude tbh. In all the hunting threads on this forum I have been pretty open and have been, I think, respectful. I am not sure why the anti-hunting lobby here can't at least treat that openness and respect with equal measure. I am not deflecting or waffling actually but bringing up relevant stuff. The narrative that anti-hunters regularly bring out is that the police turn a blind eye, that the toffs (in hunting) stick together, that the justice system never works against hunters, that everybody out hunting DOES know what is going on (hence the justification for abusing children and other members of the field etc). These are the tropes that suggest that hunters are completely aware of what is going on. I have been told here, time and time again 'everyone knows...'. Yet now you tell me that they probably don't... You are right about one thing though; I am not stupid, nor are many of my friends that want to continue to hunt. It is genuine prejudice that will paint any group of people at the same time as being stupid, dirty, uncivilised, lawless and backward as well as having the power to manipulate the police, the justice system etc etc.

I have answered questions about the logistics of hunting, about my own experiences and about issues around hunting with genuine openness and the desire to communicate my position - what exactly do you think I have avoided?

Having read through your reply again, I really want to ask actually, why have you avoided answering my genuine questions about what you think or how you think anti-hunters think about ordinary people out hunting? Is it because you think my 'content' is silly, meaningless or just waffle or because you don't actually know or haven't considered those things?

 

[Fred66]

It would be very difficult to prosecute one of the field as you well know.
As with any organisation there are varying levels of "being in the know" about what's going on.

Many people here have hunted and never witnessed a kill. If you are happy to have an inkling this might be the case, but you dislike foxes youd turn a blind eye.

If you were told they hunt legally and are in the field and didn't hunt pre ban, you'd probably believe it.

I don't know why you're asking, you're not stupid, you know all of this.

it's just deflection, waffling around the point to muddy the waters and avoid having to actually respond directly and honestly to every statement put forward no matter how unarguable it is (in general, not just statements by me. And in general by pro hunt, including you)

Its like pro hunt turn into Boris Johnson when asked a straightforward question. Or they just pretend it wasn't asked and find an interesting spot somewhere in another room to look at, and hope the question goes away.

All of what you have said could be said about hunt monitors. They know that hunt saboteurs regularly break the law, that they commit aggravated trespass on a regular basis, they are also guilty of harassment and stalking, some of which is directed at minors. The level of sentence if charged and found guilty varies from 3 months for trespass up to 10 years for stalking. Possibly this is why so many of them try to hide their identity.
They have no justification, if they were genuinely monitoring and calling the police if they had evidence of a crime (or genuinely believed a crime to be occurring) then I would be more than happy to have them out each week. However this is not what happens and hopefully the hunts will start to actually request the support of the law to stop these crimes from occurring.

 

[Sandstone1]

The thing is that most pro hunters are well aware of whats going on. They are in a lot a cases knowingly participating in a illegal activity. They will continue to say " But but sabs do this and that so that makes it ok that we are breaking the law and anyway the law does not mean us!"
I have no doubt that sabs do on occasion do stuff they should not but at the moment its not illegal to protest about things. It is however illegal to hunt foxes with packs of hounds. A lot of hunters know full well that hunting is going on. This subject will go round and round until " trail hunting" Is banned too.
Hunters are slashing tyres, running people down and physically assaulting sabs. However hunters will say sabs do the same. The only way is to ban trail hunting too and I think that day is coming.

 

[Lulwind]

A few questions for the sabs on here:

1. If you believe a hunt is acting illegally why not film and send the evidence to the police? Rather than spray scent and blow the horn etc to confuse hounds?
2. Why do you wear masks and then have a go at hunt supports for wearing them?
3. Why do you constantly call the police over minor incidents thus taking the overstretched police from serious incidents eg domestic violence?
4. Going back to point 1 above if you did that it would stop antagonising hunt supporters.
5. Why do your supporters feel the need to write the same defamatory often very personal comments on social media regarding individuals? These often include violent threats, references to sexual status etc. I will be flabbergasted if anyone can defend this

 

[GoldenWillow]

It does continue to amaze and confuse me that the illegal hunters are so arrogant (or stupid?) that they seem to be totally blind to the fact that they are a very tiny minority, and they are binging about both the demise of the 'sport' they love and the demise of the next best thing (trail hunting).

Our nearest hunt has just lost another landowners permission to go on their land from behaving in an incredibly arrogant and entitled way.

Round here they also drive like complete d!cks as apparently everyone should give way to the hunt including pedestrians and animals. I was nearly mown down (when walking) by a hunt quad bike last winter to the extent that I ended up on my face in a muddy ditch. The passenger on the back saw and they kept on driving, it was a dog walker who found me 5 mins later who helped me up. I was walking with crutches at the time this happened but apparently still fair game (or an acceptable casualty of the hunt's activities).

As well as the actual hunt staff and hounds the hunt traffic causes huge problems in our area and some of it is most deliberately done.

 

[Millionwords]

Daniel Cherriman, huntsman of the South Shropshire Hunt, has pleaded guilty to hunting a wild mammal with dogs, contrary to the Hunting Act 2004.


The incident took place in November 2021 when National Trust members filmed the South Shropshire Hunt illegally hunting a fox and trespassing at Inwood, the Longmynd, Church Stretton, Shropshire which is owned by the National Trust. The video shows Cherriman encouraging his hounds onto a fox and then doing nothing to stop them when they hunt the animal. Cherriman pleaded guilty on the condition that charges were dropped against his whipper in Oliver Beasley who was also due to stand trial.

Three other huntsmen were also due in court last week, all on charges of illegal hunting, but the cases have been adjourned. John Holiday, ex-huntsman of the Belvoir Hunt and Will Hanson, ex-huntsman of the Fernie hunt will both face trial in March next year. Puckeridge huntsman Arun Squire will stand trial in May next year where the court will see drone footage, gathered by hunt sabs, of his hounds killing a fox.

 

[Millionwords]

Why aren't these hunts suspended?

 

[moosea]

A few questions for the sabs on here:

1. If you believe a hunt is acting illegally why not film and send the evidence to the police? Rather than spray scent and blow the horn etc to confuse hounds?
2. Why do you wear masks and then have a go at hunt supports for wearing them?
3. Why do you constantly call the police over minor incidents thus taking the overstretched police from serious incidents eg domestic violence?
4. Going back to point 1 above if you did that it would stop antagonising hunt supporters.
5. Why do your supporters feel the need to write the same defamatory often very personal comments on social media regarding individuals? These often include violent threats, references to sexual status etc. I will be flabbergasted if anyone can defend this

I don't 'sab', But have become more and more anti hunting since the ban.
I'll have a go at answering .

1. If you believe a hunt is acting illegally why not film and send the evidence to the police? Rather than spray scent and blow the horn etc to confuse hounds?
As an animal lover I could not sit back and watch and film an animal being killed illegaly and in a way that was in my opinion cruel. Videoing is all well and good but won't stop hounds going after the fox, just capture it on film. So I would use any tool I could to help the fox escape.
If I saw a person getting mugged I wouldn't stop and film it, I'd take action.
As already stated up thread, it's really hard to prosecute one person in a field. Perhaps the masters should be the ones held legaly responsible for the actions of their pack and their field - possibly would clean up their behaviour?
2. Why do you wear masks and then have a go at hunt supports for wearing them?
Why do you wear masks and then question why sabs wear them?
3. Why do you constantly call the police over minor incidents thus taking the overstretched police from serious incidents eg domestic violence?
What do you call a minor incident? Who gets to decide what is minor and what is major? If it's illegal then it's illegal. That's the job of the police, to enforce the law without bias.
4. Going back to point 1 above if you did that it would stop antagonising hunt supporters.
If hunts did not break the law, terrorise local pets and cause much disruption to locals then there wouldn't need to be monitors and sabs.


5. Why do your supporters feel the need to write the same defamatory often very personal comments on social media regarding individuals? These often include violent threats, references to sexual status etc.
I imaagine that it is the same reason that pro hunt have done the exact same thing. People are very passionate about this issue, whichever 'side' they sit on.

I will be flabbergasted if anyone can defend this
Hoping I have caused a little, tiny bit of fabbergastation ( I think I made that word up!! )

 

[Lulwind]

I don't 'sab', But have become more and more anti hunting since the ban.
I'll have a go at answering .

1. If you believe a hunt is acting illegally why not film and send the evidence to the police? Rather than spray scent and blow the horn etc to confuse hounds?
As an animal lover I could not sit back and watch and film an animal being killed illegaly and in a way that was in my opinion cruel. Videoing is all well and good but won't stop hounds going after the fox, just capture it on film. So I would use any tool I could to help the fox escape.
If I saw a person getting mugged I wouldn't stop and film it, I'd take action.
As already stated up thread, it's really hard to prosecute one person in a field. Perhaps the masters should be the ones held legaly responsible for the actions of their pack and their field - possibly would clean up their behaviour?
2. Why do you wear masks and then have a go at hunt supports for wearing them?
Why do you wear masks and then question why sabs wear them?
3. Why do you constantly call the police over minor incidents thus taking the overstretched police from serious incidents eg domestic violence?
What do you call a minor incident? Who gets to decide what is minor and what is major? If it's illegal then it's illegal. That's the job of the police, to enforce the law without bias.
4. Going back to point 1 above if you did that it would stop antagonising hunt supporters.
If hunts did not break the law, terrorise local pets and cause much disruption to locals then there wouldn't need to be monitors and sabs.


5. Why do your supporters feel the need to write the same defamatory often very personal comments on social media regarding individuals? These often include violent threats, references to sexual status etc.
I imaagine that it is the same reason that pro hunt have done the exact same thing. People are very passionate about this issue, whichever 'side' they sit on.

I will be flabbergasted if anyone can defend this
Hoping I have caused a little, tiny bit of fabbergastation ( I think I made that word up!! )

Thank you Moosea for your considered responses. Few points from me:

I fully appreciate your passion. I don’t however agree with sabs confusing hounds. However that is my opinion and you are fully entitled to yours. Police are constantly called where there is no endanger to human life. That to my mind is minor. I don’t ever wear a mask. Hunt supporters do not put on public open groups vial personal comments.

I still appreciate what you have written and hope no one thinks I am being agnostic to the point we can’t have an open discussion with neither side willing to listen to the other. Can I add the incident with the cat greatly saddens me as a (very spoilt and much loved) pet owner

 

[Sandstone1]

I don't 'sab', But have become more and more anti hunting since the ban.
I'll have a go at answering .

1. If you believe a hunt is acting illegally why not film and send the evidence to the police? Rather than spray scent and blow the horn etc to confuse hounds?
As an animal lover I could not sit back and watch and film an animal being killed illegaly and in a way that was in my opinion cruel. Videoing is all well and good but won't stop hounds going after the fox, just capture it on film. So I would use any tool I could to help the fox escape.
If I saw a person getting mugged I wouldn't stop and film it, I'd take action.
As already stated up thread, it's really hard to prosecute one person in a field. Perhaps the masters should be the ones held legaly responsible for the actions of their pack and their field - possibly would clean up their behaviour?
2. Why do you wear masks and then have a go at hunt supports for wearing them?
Why do you wear masks and then question why sabs wear them?
3. Why do you constantly call the police over minor incidents thus taking the overstretched police from serious incidents eg domestic violence?
What do you call a minor incident? Who gets to decide what is minor and what is major? If it's illegal then it's illegal. That's the job of the police, to enforce the law without bias.
4. Going back to point 1 above if you did that it would stop antagonising hunt supporters.
If hunts did not break the law, terrorise local pets and cause much disruption to locals then there wouldn't need to be monitors and sabs.


5. Why do your supporters feel the need to write the same defamatory often very personal comments on social media regarding individuals? These often include violent threats, references to sexual status etc.
I imaagine that it is the same reason that pro hunt have done the exact same thing. People are very passionate about this issue, whichever 'side' they sit on.

I will be flabbergasted if anyone can defend this
Hoping I have caused a little, tiny bit of fabbergastation ( I think I made that word up!! )

I was going to reply almost exactly the same thing last night but decided not to bother as I honestly feel there is little point. However I would just add a couple of things. Firstly I like you am not a sab although I have been accused of being one on here more than once. I would probably do it if I had more time, anyway thats not the point.
I completely agree with you regarding why sabs distract and use scent and horn calls to distract hounds. I could not stand by and let hounds kill without trying to stop it. It is after all ILLEGAL.
Masks? As far as I am aware sabs wear masks because they have had death threats, been followed home and had damage done to vehicles and homes by hunt supporters so I do not blame them for wearing masks. Why do terrier men wear masks??
Police? Its not a minor offence to break the law by illegal hunting.
If hunts did completely and genuinely trail hunt as they should be, there would be no need for sabs. Sadly as we all know there is actually hardly any proper trail hunting it is after all just a " SMOKESCREEN"

 

[sunleychops]

Shooting is indeed legal for now, although IMHO morally it is much less defensible than hunting. Make the most of the time you have left.

So shooting something is worse than chasing something to the point of exhaustion and then having a pack of dogs rip it to shreds?

 

[sunleychops]

The Policeman who shot a stray sheep on my land during the last foot&mouth crisis. The stalker who regularly culls the excess red deer in the western Peaks. Any farmer with a shotgun. The fallen stock people.
.

Right so youre anti shooting but are cool with things being shot.