Hunting is in a spot of bother

[palo1]

No holds barred piece in The Times quoting the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead on foxhunting crime. He says that there is a "significant criminal hunting scene. I am not saying it’s all hunts, but it is common.”

He wants to encourage police forces to work with hunt monitors.

Illegal foxhunting is still prolific, says police chief

Illegal foxhunting is “prolific in UK” and the police have “much more to do” in tackling it, the national police spokesman on the crime has said. Chief superi

www.thetimes.co.uk

Illegal foxhunting is “prolific in UK” and the police have “much more to do” in tackling it, the national police spokesman on the crime has said.

Chief superintendent Matt Longman, the commander for Plymouth, made the comments after a video was leaked showing members of a hunt digging foxes out of a den before the animals were chased by hounds.

He tweeted: “Deliberately killing a fox with a pack of hounds is illegal, wrong and prolific in the UK. National experts will offer support to investigating forces to raise the game of UK policing. Much more to do.”


Longman, who is the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead on foxhunting crime, told The Times he wanted police forces to work with the “volunteers” who monitored hunts so they could learn how to provide the kind of evidence, such as unedited and time-stamped footage, that could lead to successful prosecutions.

I wonder what actual evidence he has for saying that illegal hunting is 'prolifiic'? As a police Chief I guess that is a good thing to say I suppose but it isn't supported by the Ministry of Justice data which he will know. Popular sound bite territory slightly...

ETA And supporting unofficial vigilante groups to do the work of his force isn't exactly good policy or good policing in a democracy either...Sigh.

 

[ycbm]

I wonder what actual evidence he has for saying that illegal hunting is 'prolifiic'? As a police Chief I guess that is a good thing to say I suppose but it isn't supported by the Ministry of Justice data which he will know. Popular sound bite territory slightly...

Illegal hunting doesn't have to have been prosecuted to exist. We've discussed long and hard previously on this forum about how difficult it is to get a conviction.

He is FAR from alone in believing that it's prolific and we have had reports from bona fide forum members from all over England saying it's going on in their area.
.

 

[Sandstone1]

I disagree actually. In the most part people who follow hounds really are just after a fun day out across the country.

In which case why do they not trail hunt? If people had spoken out about all the illegal things going on then maybe I could believe what you say but if their "Fun day out" comes at the cost a animal being terrified and tortured I think I will pass on that kind of "Fun" How many isolated instances of illegal hunting does it take before people really see whats going on?

 

[Arzada]

I disagree actually. In the most part people who follow hounds really are just after a fun day out across the country.

A long time ago I went hunting to see what it was like. There wasn't the Internet, I wasn't born into a family with horses, farms etc so I was naively ignorant. We spent a boring day clattering up and down lanes and eventually they thought they had a fox in a small wooded area. I was willing the fox not to be there or to get away while surrounded by people baying for blood, It was truly horrible. It really was about seeing the fox killed. It wasn't thank goodness. I cannot see any fun at all in chasing and killing.

 

[lizziebell]

Hounds are highly intelligent animals, but they can not detect the difference between an artificial fox scent and a natural fox scent. So while trail hunting continue to use a fox scent, it is inevitable that a natural fox will cross an artificial laid fox scent - doesn’t matter how lawful a hunt is, by continuing to use fox scent, accidents WILL happen and that then becomes illegal hunting. Sorry, but in my opinion anyone who believes you can be 100% within the law while still using fox scent is in denial.

 

[lizziebell]

There has been absolute unanimous condemnation of the AVH within the hunting community; even the BBC commented on that this morning! But there is a legal process pending. There is no sense in which I think anyone wants to excuse this vile behaviour. Trail hunting here today was conducted as usual, with trails laid and an invitation to all bystanders to ask questions, follow, film etc. Scent wasn't great so it gave many of us time to talk about this. Everyone I spoke to was simply appalled and relieved that the AVH are finished. I think that in part because of social media, many people live in an echo chamber so it is easy to simply see what you get rather than a bigger picture or more varied views. This morning we had a meet near a village and not a single person has indicated anything other than good manners and support to both the hunt as an entity and individual riders hacking to or from the meet. That doesn't mean that I don't realise that some people will have been questioning the legitimacy of trail hunting or actively wishing that we were banned; I am just reporting what I have experienced. It is possible, entirely possible for me and many others to trail hunt legally, safely and with consideration for other people and their views, even with incidents like that at the AVH; we are not all the same just because we are engaged in trail hunting (or not, in fact in the case of the AVH).

I respect your support of the hunting community of which you belong.

Unfortunately I’m not finding this is reflected in my area. There is more of a grumbling that the hunting community is feeling let down by the fact that “one of their own” was stupid enough to share the footage, than they are of what the footage actually contains !

 

[ycbm]

doesn’t matter how clean boot a hunt is, by continuing to use fox scent, accidents WILL happen and that then becomes illegal hunting

Clean boot is a term used to refer ONLY to bloodhounds following a person who is not using any scent other than his/her own body odour.
.

 

[Clodagh]

Hounds are highly intelligent animals, but they can not detect the difference between an artificial fox scent and a natural fox scent. So while trail hunting continue to use a fox scent, it is inevitable that a natural fox will cross an artificial laid fox scent - doesn’t matter how clean boot a hunt is, by continuing to use fox scent, accidents WILL happen and that then becomes illegal hunting. Sorry, but in my opinion anyone who believes you can be 100% clean boot while still using fox scent is in denial.

I suspect you don’t know an awful lot about it, seeing you don’t understand what hunting the clean boot means.
I bet hounds can tell the difference between a laid trail and a fresh one. My dogs obviously know the difference between a dummy and a pheasant and they’d go after the pheasant if they lay side by side.

 

[lizziebell]

Clean boot is a term used to refer ONLY to bloodhounds following a person who is not using any scent other than his/her own body odour.
.

Thanks ycbm - I wasn’t aware the term specifically was for bloodhounds, so thank you. I’ll amend my post

 

[Ample Prosecco]

I grew up an out and out city girl and don't pretend I know much about this. I love the idea of galloping over big country, hedge hopping. But I read pony books as a child freely discussing being 'in at the kill' as a huge honour and the excitement of being 'blooded'. I also remember Prince William and Harry being blooded. Even then, 40 plus years ago, the idea of seeing an animal die having it's tail chopped off and having blood smeared on you left me sickened and coloured my view of fox hunting forevermore. The killing part of it certainly seemed relevant to plenty of people! Maybe not growing up with it made the brutal aspects of it more obvious to me than to country kids.

I would never have contemplated hunting pre-ban. I was happy to hunt post ban but never got round to it. But I did sign the girls up to a PC affiliated to a hunt. I no longer believe that the local hunt operates within the law so have not pursued it. Bizarrely my mum, who has never ridden in her life, and lived in Hong Kong from 1958 to 1997 went to the Countryside Alliance March in 1997. She is very much not a demo attending kind of person but it was a demo like no other by all accounts. Fortum and Mason's Picnic Hampers galore. I don't pretend to undertand why the ban inspired such passions even among people who would never hunt but it points to the fact that the debate has always seemed to be driven by very high emotion on both sides with a sense of traditions and ways of life being lost and that being bitterly resented on the one hand and a feeling of evil posh bastards, dressing up to brutally terrorise wildlife on the other. So there is very rarely any objectivity in the discussions.

 

[lizziebell]

I suspect you don’t know an awful lot about it, seeing you don’t understand what hunting the clean boot means.
I bet hounds can tell the difference between a laid trail and a fresh one. My dogs obviously know the difference between a dummy and a pheasant and they’d go after the pheasant if they lay side by side.

I wasn’t aware that clean boot only referred to bloodhounds, and ycbm politely pointed me to the correct definition without being rude like you! I do however know that trail hunting use a fox scent, I also know about dogs scenting as i participate in dog Scentwork and man trailing. A dog can not detect the difference between an artificial fox scent and a natural fox scent, unless that artificial fox scent doesn’t actually smell like fox. That is not at all the same thing as a visual dummy and a pheasant.

 

[ycbm]

So there is very rarely any objectivity in the discussions.

I'm not sure if you are talking only about the forum, AE, but I think there has been plenty of objectivity in our discussions on this forum. Especially by people who used to hunt, like me, and people who live in hunted areas, and supporters like Palo.
.

 

[Ample Prosecco]

No not the forum. Just in my normal life. I have hugely pro hunting friends who are out all the time and passionately anti hunting friends. Including my deputy director - a friend of 30 years and a passionate vegan. I daren't let the 2 groups meet! And there is absolutely no point raising the subject with either side so I refuse to discuss it with anyone IRL.

 

[ycbm]

No not the forum. Just in my normal life. I have hugely pro hunting friends who are out all the time and passionately anti hunting friends. Including my deputy director - a friend of 30 years and a passionate vegan. I daren't let the 2 groups meet! And there is absolutely no point raising the subject with either side so I refuse to discuss it with anyone IRL.

I recognise that situation.
.

 

[Sossigpoker]

In which case why do they not trail hunt? If people had spoken out about all the illegal things going on then maybe I could believe what you say but if their "Fun day out" comes at the cost a animal being terrified and tortured I think I will pass on that kind of "Fun" How many isolated instances of illegal hunting does it take before people really see whats going on?

The ones going out with Avon Vale 100% know what they're doing , it has been a very poorly kept secret. The sad fact is that they don't care and even accept that "it's the way of the countryside " .

 

[Elf On A Shelf]

No not the forum. Just in my normal life. I have hugely pro hunting friends who are out all the time and passionately anti hunting friends. Including my deputy director - a friend of 30 years and a passionate vegan. I daren't let the 2 groups meet! And there is absolutely no point raising the subject with either side so I refuse to discuss it with anyone IRL.

Oh go on! Please invite them all to a party! It will provide endless hours of amusement! Or horror depending on which side pics up a weapon first!

 

[Ample Prosecco]

Oh go on! Please invite them all to a party! It will provide endless hours of amusement! Or horror depending on which side pics up a weapon first!

 

[ycbm]

The ones going out with Avon Vale 100% know what they're doing , it has been a very poorly kept secret. The sad fact is that they don't care and even accept that "it's the way of the countryside " .

I would also say anyone who hunted with a hunt in Cheshire knew. It was an open secret. I had a friend who was the secretary of our drag hunt but her husband followed a hunt a couple of hours drive south. At the hunt ball he talked about being sabbed and I asked him why they were being sabbed. He looked at me as if I was missing a brain cell or three and said "because we hunt fox of course".

I would guess most followers of illegal hunts are either consciously or subconsciously turning a blind eye.
.

 

[ester]

I've genuinely never had the impression that anyone I've hunted with have been there for the kill/bloodlust/whatever we're calling it, though obviously those people do exist so I've maybe just been lucky.

I think I'd split them into
there for the social side (most)
there to watch hounds and keen to tell you all about them individually (also the people that knew where hounds were going before they did)
Blokes on hirelings who think they're being quiet macho but actually having been given saints of horses.

we didn't have any hedges so no one at the meets I went to were there for the adrenalin rush of giant leaps over things.

 

[Clodagh]

Honestly having given up after one season post ban, many people wouldn’t know what on earth was happening and as long as they looked cool in their tight jods and on their shiny horse they didn’t really care either.

 

[TGM]

Therefore you’d think if you were a clean boot hunt, you’d want to condemn the actions of the AVH, distance yourself from that behaviour and make it clear you only trial hunt …….

You seem to not understand much about ‘hunting the clean boot’! It is not trail hunting at all but using a pack of bloodhounds to follow the natural scent of human runners. Bloodhound packs along with true drag packs, are not governed by the BSHA, instead most belong to the Master of Drag and Bloodhounds Association.

 

[Clodagh]

A dog can not detect the difference between an artificial fox scent and a natural fox scent, unless that artificial fox scent doesn’t actually smell like fox. That is not at all the same thing as a visual dummy and a pheasant.

I find it beyond unlikely that a dog that can sniff out cancer, can track people who have been missing for days, can find a set of car keys on a Moor but can’t tell the difference between stale fox urine and fresh running fox.
Pheasants and dummies are not hidden in plain sight.

 

[palo1]

I find it beyond unlikely that a dog that can sniff out cancer, can track people who have been missing for days, can find a set of car keys on a Moor but can’t tell the difference between stale fox urine and fresh running fox.
Pheasants and dummies are not hidden in plain sight.

Well put! My terrier clearly knows the difference between a dead rat smell (just dead!) and one that is under a bale for example and he isn't even a scent hound. I know that because he shows no interest in the place where we find a dead rat and clearly identifies places where they are sitting tight.

WRT @Ambers Echo 's post and references to behaviour around 'the kill' - the honour was actually that of pride in being able to keep up with the hounds. 'In at the kill' was a phrase which was used of course but it indicated more than anything that you could maintain pace to keep with hounds and, hopefully, the huntsman. That was something to be proud of, even where many people would deliberately turn away from witnessing the death of a fox in reality. As for the blooding thing, that was very long established ritual behaviour that in anthropological terms at the very least, closely linked the hunter with their prey in a way that was, in fact, respectful, if primitive and to modern standards disgusting. I was blooded as a child - I did not see the death of the fox but was asked by the huntsman if I wished to be blooded and tbh I really didn't give it a thought. My hunting mentor (not a parent) wouldn't have thought anything of it if I had chosen not to have that smear of stinking blood but it felt significant. I can't apologise now for that act though I recognise it would be very out of place in this time. That close association; my link to a fox made explicit in this ritual, witnessed and respected by those around me gave me a sense of rite of passage that connected me to life and death - it was probably my very first experience of the open fact of death of anything in fact. I know there will be howls of outrage at this description and later in my life I really resented that initiiation when I questioned the place of hunting (I was anti-hunting for a while as a student). Now, well my feelings on that are personal. Private...

 

[cauda equina]

I think a lot of the resentment towards the ban was because it seemed so political; there was Tony Blair's unpopularity over the Gulf war and it was seen as his 'get out of jail free' card with his left wingers; old scores to be settled ('Thatcher closed the pits, now it's the toffs' turn') and the alleged huge donation to the Labour Party from PETA
If it had been seen purely as an animal welfare thing welfare issue the reaction might have been very different
I'm very anti 'real' hunting now but got sucked into the hype; I'm embarrassed to admit that I even signed Roger Scruton's stupid Hunting Declaration

 

[Sandstone1]

I agree that hounds probably can tell the difference between stale fox urine and live fox BUT why take the risk? Hunting fox with hounds is against the law so why oh why use fox scent at all??
Its still fox.
Once again the old old excuse of Ritual, rite of passage tradition etc rears its head.
How ever much you dress it up what you were doing is chasing a terrified animal for miles before watching it be killed and ripped apart FOR FUN.
There have been so many instances recently such as the fox being stabbed by a pitchfork, bagged foxes released to be chased, foxes dug up and thrown to the hounds. Do you really in all honesty think these are just isolated instances? They are simply ones that have been caught. You can dress it up all you like but the reality is fox hunting is still going in as it was pre ban in very very many hunts so all the excuses in the world will not change that.

 

[SEL]

I find it beyond unlikely that a dog that can sniff out cancer, can track people who have been missing for days, can find a set of car keys on a Moor but can’t tell the difference between stale fox urine and fresh running fox.
Pheasants and dummies are not hidden in plain sight.

I imagine it's ingrained deep in a foxhound DNA to recognise the scent of a fox and give chase. Much like collies being born with the herding instinct

The hunt round here a few weeks ago had laid a trail. Whether it was robust enough to stand up to the heavy rain I don't know, but I could tell the minute the hounds latched onto a live fox - I told my OH that all h3ll was about to break loose because the sound changed. Sure enough fox and hounds flat out across road and into a field with no horse access (fox got away - young, fit, fast, knew where it was going).

 

[ycbm]

I imagine it's ingrained deep in a foxhound DNA to recognise the scent of a fox and give chase. Much like collies being born with the herding instinct

The hunt round here a few weeks ago had laid a trail. Whether it was robust enough to stand up to the heavy rain I don't know, but I could tell the minute the hounds latched onto a live fox - I told my OH that all h3ll was about to break loose because the sound changed. Sure enough fox and hounds flat out across road and into a field with no horse access (fox got away - young, fit, fast, knew where it was going).

I've remarked a few times before on the change of voice when drag hounds pick up a fox scent. It's very noticeable. The difference between a foxhound pack used to drag hunt and and a foxhound pack used to trail hunt appears to lie in the ability (or desire) of the huntsman to recall them.
.

 

[Ample Prosecco]

WRT @Ambers Echo 's post and references to behaviour around 'the kill' - the honour was actually that of pride in being able to keep up with the hounds. 'In at the kill' was a phrase which was used of course but it indicated more than anything that you could maintain pace to keep with hounds and, hopefully, the huntsman. That was something to be proud of, even where many people would deliberately turn away from witnessing the death of a fox in reality. As for the blooding thing, that was very long established ritual behaviour that in anthropological terms at the very least, closely linked the hunter with their prey in a way that was, in fact, respectful, if primitive and to modern standards disgusting. I was blooded as a child - I did not see the death of the fox but was asked by the huntsman if I wished to be blooded and tbh I really didn't give it a thought. My hunting mentor (not a parent) wouldn't have thought anything of it if I had chosen not to have that smear of stinking blood but it felt significant. I can't apologise now for that act though I recognise it would be very out of place in this time. That close association; my link to a fox made explicit in this ritual, witnessed and respected by those around me gave me a sense of rite of passage that connected me to life and death - it was probably my very first experience of the open fact of death of anything in fact. I know there will be howls of outrage at this description and later in my life I really resented that initiiation when I questioned the place of hunting (I was anti-hunting for a while as a student). Now, well my feelings on that are personal. Private...

Thank-you for this very well articulated explanation. SO many experiences are culturally significant and treasured to those whp grow up with them. And can seem so alien, brutal, disgusting to outsiders. Food is a good example: Insects generally make westerners recoil but what are prawns if not marine grasshoppers! And the whole concept of eating dead flesh would horrify cultures who have always been vegetarian.

I can understand why those rites of passage mean so much and are symbolic. And so the characterisation of hunt supporters as bloody thirsty bullies never rang true about the people I personally know who hunt. But I also feel cultures and individuals should never stop reflecting on the ethics and values behind what they do and how they do it. And some traditions should change or disappear. But issues like hunting get so polarised that people feel attaced and want to defend rather then reflect.

 

[palo1]

Thank-you for this very well articulated explanation. SO many experiences are culturally significant and treasured to those whp grow up with them. And can seem so alien, brutal, disgusting to outsiders. Food is a good example: Insects generally make westerners recoil but what are prawns if not marine grasshoppers! And the whole concept of eating dead flesh would horrify cultures who have always been vegetarian.

I can understand why those rites of passage mean so much and are symbolic. And so the characterisation of hunt supporters as bloody thirsty bullies never rang true about the people I personally know who hunt. But I also feel cultures and individuals should never stop reflecting on the ethics and values behind what they do and how they do it. And some traditions should change or disappear. But issues like hunting get so polarised that people feel attaced and want to defend rather then reflect.

Yes, thank you for this reply. It is exceptionally difficult for many people within a culture to really reflect and accept external directors of change such as conflicting laws imposed/cultures damaged by 'outsiders'. The failure of externally imposed change has been so well documented, as have the impacts on cultures that have been 'destroyed' by imposed values. I do not want to enrage people with 'difficult' comparisons but there are many that are relevant including, for example the cultural imposition of alcohol on various indigenous people through Western cultural behaviours such as trade/commerce/religion etc. There are too many to document really and it is depressing to list. However, for some people within hunting communities (which ARE identified by UNESCO as distinct cultural groups regardless of what some folk would prefer to read) this feels very real to them: the imposition of external values and the pace of change which feels acceptable to some people is impossible for others. Having spent some time studying and understanding this aspect of anthropology in other contexts I do have sympathy and a degree of empathy, notwithstanding my own ability to accept change. I am younger perhaps and having had the benefit of 'educational insight' lol, can perhaps step back a little.

The politicisation of hunting in the UK and the difficulties of making change truly democratic, at the same time as other social and scientific conflicts around the subject of hunting really has made this appallingly difficult for both hunters and anti-hunters. I know extreme views on either side will dismiss that and say 'It is simple'. Cultural behaviours are not simple. When hunting groups say if they were 'more exotic' or met the criteria that others impose for 'indigenous' status and other things, that they would have more protection and understanding from a cultural and possibly environmental point of view; having worked with truly indigenous communities, I have real sympathy and sadness about this. However, I know that is not the way the political current is flowing here in the UK. I hate that hypocrisy tbh and have other reasons for wanting to support sustainable hunting too.

 

[palo1]

I agree that hounds probably can tell the difference between stale fox urine and live fox BUT why take the risk? Hunting fox with hounds is against the law so why oh why use fox scent at all??
Its still fox.
Once again the old old excuse of Ritual, rite of passage tradition etc rears its head.
How ever much you dress it up what you were doing is chasing a terrified animal for miles before watching it be killed and ripped apart FOR FUN.
There have been so many instances recently such as the fox being stabbed by a pitchfork, bagged foxes released to be chased, foxes dug up and thrown to the hounds. Do you really in all honesty think these are just isolated instances? They are simply ones that have been caught. You can dress it up all you like but the reality is fox hunting is still going in as it was pre ban in very very many hunts so all the excuses in the world will not change that.

I really don't think you will read this as I assume you have me on UI but those behaviours you describe have always been despicable. I see them both as abhorrent and also representative of the death of the hunting culture that had very clear and strong codes of conduct which were largely adhered to when that hunting culture was legal and tolerated. There are lots of other examples of how, when a culture is decaying, that it becomes degraded and loses integrity.