Hunting is in a spot of bother

[Tiddlypom]

It's the same old arrogant attitude of 'The hunt is number one priority traffic, all others must defer' coming to the fore. I'm surprised at some of the posters who think that the huntsman's actions were acceptable simply because his day was being inconvenienced.

 

[Sandstone1]

I'm absolutely astounded ANYONE can even begin to defend actions which could have killed someone (without not only even a backwards glance for their welfare, but to claim it was all the injured parties fault), which were done in pursuit of carrying out an activity for enjoyment.
It doesn't matter whether sabs whether hunt, strip that away, you are defending potentially killing someone's because your fun is being spoilt momentarily.

I'm genuinely shocked by some posters.

Yes, makes you think doesn't it?

 

[SilverLinings]

IMO the sabs shouldn't have been trespassing, the sab hit knew the rider might jump but made the error of assuming he wouldn't (but I don't think he deliberately stepped in front of jumping horse) and the rider shouldn't have jumped the gate with the sab sitting on it, let alone with the one wandering around in front. I don't think the rider was intending to hurt someone but I think he made a silly (and potentially very dangerous) mistake, as other posters have said he should have either opened the gate or gone another way.

FWIW I actually think most (with only one or possibly two exceptions) of us are agreeing on the big issue that the rider made an error of judgement; the disagreements on the thread about this seem to be around the significance of the sabs being trespassers* and whose needs/rights/desires (the sabs or the hunters) regarding their day out should trump whose. I think the main issue of whether any rider should intentionally risk injuring someone else with their horse is fortunately something we mostly agree on.

I think this thread has been an informative and mostly civilised discussion, it seems to get most heated when people go down side routes like seems to be happening in some cases here (that is just my opinion obviously, I am not speaking for anyone else).

*do we know that for a fact?

 

[Burnttoast]

I'm absolutely astounded ANYONE can even begin to defend actions which could have killed someone (without not only even a backwards glance for their welfare, but to claim it was all the injured parties fault), which were done in pursuit of carrying out an activity for enjoyment.
It doesn't matter whether sabs whether hunt, strip that away, you are defending potentially killing someone's because your fun is being spoilt momentarily.

I'm genuinely shocked by some posters.

Massive amounts of entitlement and self-importance.

 

[Honey08]

I’m absolutely disgusted at the ignorance and law flouncing of so many hunts recently (I was going to say that I was shocked, but I’m not!)Their sense of selfish entitlement will mean the end of all hunting sooner or later, including trail and drag. They will have ruined it for everyone who does follow the law.

 

[meleeka]

So we have a huntsman, going about his lawful business when he is unlawfully obstructed. Was he supposed to stand there all day with concerns about what was going on elsewhere and his responsibility for the rest of the field probably uppermost in his mind? He gave them due warning of his intention to proceed and while his horse was mid-air the sab moved into his path. Is there that much to fathom, really? And this is far from being an isolated incident.

If that had been a car driver they’d have been charged with failure to stop. It would have been classed as a hit and run even if the pedestrian had stepped out in front of them.

 

[ycbm]

Anyone other than sabs would have moved aside when he came up to the gate and said he needed to go through.

They should have, but they didn't and getting in someone's way does not give them the right to put another person's life in danger.

And I can’t see any one person getting off their horse into a group of sabs to try to open a gate, get my horse and hounds through and then shut it again.

Which did not give them the right to put anyone else's life in danger.

And even if anyone does think this action was justifiable in the circumstances can't you all SEE how monumentally arrogant and entitled this looks to everyone who doesn't hunt?

 

[Miss_Millie]

I have watched the video several times. The sab was looking at their phone and did not see the horse approaching from behind. Even if they had, they would not have had enough time to get out of the way.

This morning I was on a hack with my horse. A car came up behind us and I did not hear it (must have been electric) I was looking straight ahead. The driver was very careful and stayed well back, it was a narrow country lane with no way past. I pulled in at the nearest passing point when I saw the car. Should the car have ploughed into me and my horse just because we were in their way? Even if I had turned around earlier and seen the car coming, would that have justified the car driving into me and hitting my horse?

Similarly if I was on a hack in the woods and wanted to pop some logs, I would only do so if there were no walkers/dog walkers etc in my path. If there was a walker even to the far side of the path, there's no way I would jump it - the path is very narrow. Too much of a risk of my horse accidentally clipping them, or if she shied, bumping into them. I would have thought it is common decency and etiquette to be considerate of those around us, especially when we are in control of massive, unpredictable animals that could quite easily kill a person if they kicked you in the head or landed on you.

I'm incredibly shocked that some people on this forum have tried to justify what was ultimately a VERY dangerous, stupid thing to do. Not only did the rider put the person standing by the fence at risk, he also risked the life of his horse, who could have easily had a fatal fall from colliding with the person.

I hope that the average non-horsey person would know that most of us recreational riders would NEVER risk the safety of our horses or other people in such a reckless, arrogant manner. This incident could quite easily paint all equestrians in a bad light.

 

[Fred66]

They should have, but they didn't and getting in someone's way does not give them the right to put another person's life in danger.

I do think he was reckless and certainly wouldn’t have risked it, but he told them he intended to jump the gate and informed them that it would be safer if they moved.

They chose not to move and risked their own safety. Thankfully no one was seriously injured and lessons learned on both sides

 

[moosea]

So we have a huntsman, going about his lawful business when he is unlawfully obstructed. Was he supposed to stand there all day with concerns about what was going on elsewhere and his responsibility for the rest of the field probably uppermost in his mind? He gave them due warning of his intention to proceed and while his horse was mid-air the sab moved into his path. Is there that much to fathom, really? And this is far from being an isolated incident.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous this sounds to most normal people??

 

[AmyMay]

I do think he was reckless and certainly wouldn’t have risked it, but he told them he intended to jump the gate and informed them that it would be safer if they moved.

They chose not to move and risked their own safety. Thankfully no one was seriously injured and lessons learned on both sides

That just doesn’t cut it.

 

[moosea]

I do think he was reckless and certainly wouldn’t have risked it, but he told them he intended to jump the gate and informed them that it would be safer if they moved.

They chose not to move and risked their own safety. Thankfully no one was seriously injured and lessons learned on both sides

Again, post like these not only damage the 'sport' you claim to love, but also make you sound so very arrogant.

 

[Miss_Millie]

I do think he was reckless and certainly wouldn’t have risked it, but he told them he intended to jump the gate and informed them that it would be safer if they moved.

They chose not to move and risked their own safety. Thankfully no one was seriously injured and lessons learned on both sides

That would be like shouting out to a pedestrian crossing the road 'If you don't cross in the next 5 seconds I'm going to drive anyway and hit you'

Dumbest excuse/reasoning to endanger someone's life.

 

[Fred66]

That would be like shouting out to a pedestrian crossing the road 'If you don't cross in the next 5 seconds I'm going to drive anyway and hit you'

Dumbest excuse/reasoning to endanger someone's life.

Absolutely not the same.
I have responsibility for my safety. If I was standing in the road and was told that someone was going to drive past and could I move to make it safer, I would do so.
If I chose to ignore the warning then I would be at least equally responsible for any subsequent injuries.
If I not only ignored the warning but then chose to step into the path narrowing the gap when the driver was already moving then I would be responsible for not only my own injuries but damage caused to the driver and his vehicle.

 

[shortstuff99]

Absolutely not the same.
I have responsibility for my safety. If I was standing in the road and was told that someone was going to drive past and could I move to make it safer, I would do so.
If I chose to ignore the warning then I would be at least equally responsible for any subsequent injuries.
If I not only ignored the warning but then chose to step into the path narrowing the gap when the driver was already moving then I would be responsible for not only my own injuries but damage caused to the driver and his vehicle.

Under the law you wouldn't as pedestrians have right of way over cars.

If you stepped out from a pavement into a moving car, different to if you were already on the road. Although the whole hazard perception part of driving theory test is for this. To expect people to walk out in front and to drive accordingly.

 

[Miss_Millie]

Absolutely not the same.
I have responsibility for my safety. If I was standing in the road and was told that someone was going to drive past and could I move to make it safer, I would do so.
If I chose to ignore the warning then I would be at least equally responsible for any subsequent injuries.
If I not only ignored the warning but then chose to step into the path narrowing the gap when the driver was already moving then I would be responsible for not only my own injuries but damage caused to the driver and his vehicle.

Fred, I think you need to read the Highway Code.

We are actually explicitly told in the Highway Code not to signal to pedestrians to cross the road, as it could put them in more danger if a car is coming from another direction, they rush across because we have pressured them and do not see it. As drivers we must give way to pedestrians.

 

[Fred66]

Fred, I think you need to read the Highway Code.

We are actually explicitly told in the Highway Code not to signal to pedestrians to cross the road, as it could put them in more danger if a car is coming from another direction, they rush across because we have pressured them and do not see it. As drivers we must give way to pedestrians.

It was an analogy not a real life situation the Highway Code applies to the Roads not to fields!!!

 

[meleeka]

Absolutely not the same.
I have responsibility for my safety. If I was standing in the road and was told that someone was going to drive past and could I move to make it safer, I would do so.
If I chose to ignore the warning then I would be at least equally responsible for any subsequent injuries.
If I not only ignored the warning but then chose to step into the path narrowing the gap when the driver was already moving then I would be responsible for not only my own injuries but damage caused to the driver and his vehicle.

Again, it would be an offence if the driver didn’t stop, even if it wasn’t their fault.

 

[Miss_Millie]

It was an analogy not a real life situation the Highway Code applies to the Roads not to fields!!!

So you don't think that someone in control of a 600kg+ animal should take sensible precautions so as not to endanger vulnerable people on the ground? As a rider I take that responsibility extremely seriously when I am out and about with my horse. I won't even pass a pedestrian on a bridleway if it is narrow, I'll stop to one side and wait for them to pass safely. My horse is very well behaved but I would never put another person at risk unnecessarily for the sake of my hobby.

 

[Nancykitt]

I'm just not accepting the stuff about how 'experienced'/capable the horse and rider were, therefore it was apparently OK.
I've hunted with drag hunts and bloodhounds in the past. I'm sorry to say that I've seen things go horribly wrong with the most experienced horses and riders. I've seen hunt staff badly injured because their horse unexpectedly did something 'out of character'. I've also seen horses get badly injured. Added to that, there have been numerous 'near misses'; I have to say that the hunts I went out did everything they could to minimise risk, but the fact is that accidents do happen.

There is absolutely no way that any rider - let alone an 'experienced huntsman' - could look at a situation like that and think 'I'm 100% sure that my horse is going to get over this with no risk whatsoever to these people - or to the horse.' Quite apart from the person who got knocked, as others have said there was someone on the gate, without head protection, not very far from a horse's hooves.
Also, as has been pointed out, the huntsman isn't responsible for the field. I know that there are some people who love to jump metal gates, but there are many who don't want to and there would certainly have been another way round.
This is a leisure activity. There is absolutely no need to put the lives of two people - and a horse - at risk. However foolish the sabs were (and I've seen sabs do some daft things) it does not give anyone the right to take that sort of risk.

 

[Miss_Millie]

I've drawn a line next to the person standing in front of the gate so you can see just how little room there was for the horse to clear them. The first picture is when the person is still stationary, 2nd picture is a couple of seconds later. They literally take one step to the side, even if they hadn't moved an inch the horse still would have been too close and could have quite easily hit them. Even if the standing person had not been there and it was just the person on the gate, it would still have been a stupidly dangerous thing to do.

 

[Caol Ila]

I rewatched the video. Actually listening is enlightening. The rider says, Please get out of the way.

The sab on the fence says, Go that way...(something unintelligible)

Rider: So we can jump it.

Sab: Unintelligible, but pointing to the side of the field, indicating there's another route.

Rider: Right, well, you'll have to come out of the way.

Quite quickly, he wheels the horse around and then canters at the fence. We are talking seconds.

The second sab had her back to the gate and horse, looking down like she was futzing with her phone, and either not 100% switched on to what the rider was doing or assuming he had in fact turned around to go the other way. Rider canters a couple strides just as sab steps sideways, still with her back to him, and then he crashes into her. It did not look like the sabs expected the rider to jump that gate, and he made the decision to do it anyway very quickly, so they didn't have much time to react.

Jumping the fence with two people in front of it and sitting on top of it was stupid. Even if the person on the ground hadn't been there, he was dangerously close to the one on the fence. If the person on the ground had stayed put, it still would have been dangerously close.

Given the rider's snarky, "well, you'll have to come out of the way," he probably had the option to go around but made the decision to jump the gate just to be an a*rsehole.

It wasn’t like the sabs leapt out of a bush just as the horse was jumping. The rider clearly made a deliberate decision to jump more or less on top of them.

I don't even canter past people on the trails. If we have to pass someone, I bring my horse back to walk.

 

[Landcruiser]

Police investigate after hunt saboteur is hit by horse

Hunt saboteurs filmed a horse hitting one of them as the rider jumped over a gate.

www.bbc.co.uk

So it was a woman on the ground, and the hunt are considering a criminal charge against her. Good luck with that. Listening to the sound track of this event as well as watching it's very clear she was oblivious of the approaching horse, and assuming the hunters were going the other way once the huntsman turned away. This looks like assault with actual bodily harm to me. Absolutely shocking behaviour.

 

[SO1]

Why would the sab with their back to the gate suddenly move and put themselves in so much danger that they could get killed. I expect they did not expect the huntsman to jump as they were looking the other way and thought their friend was blocking the access and there would not be enough space for the huntsman to safely jump.

It is very risky and I expect done in a moment of anger and expectation that the sabs would quickly move if he started charging towards them, rather an experienced huntsman evaluating the risks in a calm professional way.

There are a lot of Alpha males involved in these confrontational situations and I think that can make them more dangerous.

The situation with the digging out of the foxes again mainly men. It is terrier men as well mainly not terrier women.

It is shooting, hunting, fishing that now struggle these are old fashioned activities with an origin as pest control or killing for food which may have been the primary reasons for the activities many years ago but it is mainly people doing it now as they enjoy it now rather than out of necessity and many people find it it unsavoury. In the same way as more people are becoming opposed to factory farming and animal cruelty in testing on cosmetics and thinking about what they eat and that in order for them to have pleasure an animal has had it is life taken and in many cases not a good quality of life. How we treat animals is becoming a big deal for a lot more people.

Yes I have been hunting as a teenager with the waveny harriers in pony club over 35 years ago and it was fun galloping around the countryside but I feel a bit ashamed about it. I think most pony clubs had strong links with hunts. I was with two pony clubs as a child waveny harriers and thetford chase both have names that sound like hunts.

I wonder if people who are more aggressive or dominant are drawn to these activities both hunting and sabs and that is perhaps they are less likely to give in or act in a safe way when it comes to confrontation. I think if I was out on a trail hunt and came across some sabs for the safety of my horse and my own self preservation I would do all I could to keep out of their way.

If you hunt you know there is a risk that there might be sabs and you act accordingly and try and not get into a dangerous situation. The safely of the horses and the hounds who have no choice to be out on the field is paramount.

 

[View]

They chose not to move and risked their own safety. Thankfully no one was seriously injured and lessons learned on both sides

But have they? And what lessons do you think the huntsman has learned?



The huntsman acted in the course of his employment (please correct me if this assumption is wrong). I’m simplifying this, but he has a legal obligation not to put others at risk while carrying out his employment. And his employers are vicariously liable.

I am horrified that anyone with any common sense whatsoever would think that jumping the gate with anyone that close was not putting anyone at risk.

 

[Sandstone1]

I do think he was reckless and certainly wouldn’t have risked it, but he told them he intended to jump the gate and informed them that it would be safer if they moved.

They chose not to move and risked their own safety. Thankfully no one was seriously injured and lessons learned on both sides

And that comment right there tells you everything you need to know about the entitled arrogant mindset of hunters. They think they have the right to go where they like and do what they like. Everyone needs to get out of the way and let them do what they want. I am very sorry to tell you but that sort of attitude is very out dated. Its the main reason that hunting will soon be completely banned. There simply is nothing else to say.

 

[ycbm]

I do think he was reckless and certainly wouldn’t have risked it, but he told them he intended to jump the gate and informed them that it would be safer if they moved.

They chose not to move and risked their own safety. Thankfully no one was seriously injured and lessons learned on both sides

I don't think the Huntsman learned anything at all.

The sabs learned they need more of them blocking the gate.

The general public learned that people in red coats on posh horses really do go round behaving like privileged arrogant idiots.

Keir Starmer learned that he might get quite a few more votes if he promised to outlaw trail hunting like Scotland has.
.

 

[palo1]

I'm absolutely astounded ANYONE can even begin to defend actions which could have killed someone (without not only even a backwards glance for their welfare, but to claim it was all the injured parties fault), which were done in pursuit of carrying out an activity for enjoyment.
It doesn't matter whether sabs whether hunt, strip that away, you are defending potentially killing someone's because your fun is being spoilt momentarily.

I'm genuinely shocked by some posters.

I understand that but the fact that you are shocked does indicate the lack of grasp about just how charged and difficult these situations are. I have rarely been 'shocked' by sab behaviour or other people losing it in that situation because I do understand how that dynamic works. It is dangerous and both sides are prepared to play cat and mouse in order to score points. Both sides think they have the 'right' do do what they do.

 

[AmyMay]

I understand that but the fact that you are shocked does indicate the lack of grasp about just how charged and difficult these situations are. I have rarely been 'shocked' by sab behaviour or other people losing it in that situation because I do understand how that dynamic works. It is dangerous and both sides are prepared to play cat and mouse in order to score points. Both sides think they have the 'right' do do what they do.

I do sort of get your point.

However the fact that people are defending the huntsman (on here, where there is at least a modicum of intelligence) is pretty astonishing.

 

[palo1]

@Caol Ila : I don't even canter past people on the trails. If we have to pass someone, I bring my horse back to walk.

Last edited: Yesterday at 23:35

Absolutely this! I have always been instructed when out hunting to pass pedestrians (whether on road or field) if they are close at WALK. Even, especially actually Sabs. But we don't have much trouble and are rarely anywhere where we might be in close proximity to pedestrians but that is simply good manners and safety.