Hunting is in a spot of bother
- Thread starter Tiddlypom
- Start date
Koweyka
Well-Known Member
In the last ten days I have watched two foxes torn to pieces by hounds, I have consoled a landowner when the hunt trespassed on her land after a fox going through the field where pregnant sheep were, chasing and scattering the sheep, we have been notified at least two have aborted, several members of our group have been attacked by hunt support with an iron bar and one beaten to the ground and I come in here to see members blaming a 60yr old woman who had her back to a rider who saw she was there and yet still deliberately jumped a gate, he could have killed her and his horse. In what universe is what he did ok ?
My group is predominantly monitoring, we intervene if an animal is at risk, we use no horns and only use citronella when a fox has bolted. Not one member of my group has ever been so much as warned by the police, yet we are attacked, have our tyres slashed and the latest is having bullets left on our cars.
The illegal hunting I have seen this season is worse than any previous year. The “hobby” is dying on its feet, I will not call it a sport it’s not a level playing field for the foxes.
The Avon Vale incident isn’t isolated, I suspect more hunts will be found out in a similar way soon. Only a small fraction of hunts are monitored or sabbed, anyone who believes that all the 270 hunts or so that aren’t watched are behaving is in denial, even the ones that are watched can’t stay on the right side of the law.
As for the governing body, what a terrible joke they are, as corrupt as they always were, sitting on such abhorrent footage for a month, hoping it would go away. Trail hunting needs to be stopped now, I believe it’s on its last legs and in five years it will be gone, consigned to history and for those who are asking what will activists move onto next, you are right to worry because until animals and birds are treated with the respect they deserve in the wild and in any industry people will never stop standing up for them.
My group is predominantly monitoring, we intervene if an animal is at risk, we use no horns and only use citronella when a fox has bolted. Not one member of my group has ever been so much as warned by the police, yet we are attacked, have our tyres slashed and the latest is having bullets left on our cars.
The illegal hunting I have seen this season is worse than any previous year. The “hobby” is dying on its feet, I will not call it a sport it’s not a level playing field for the foxes.
The Avon Vale incident isn’t isolated, I suspect more hunts will be found out in a similar way soon. Only a small fraction of hunts are monitored or sabbed, anyone who believes that all the 270 hunts or so that aren’t watched are behaving is in denial, even the ones that are watched can’t stay on the right side of the law.
As for the governing body, what a terrible joke they are, as corrupt as they always were, sitting on such abhorrent footage for a month, hoping it would go away. Trail hunting needs to be stopped now, I believe it’s on its last legs and in five years it will be gone, consigned to history and for those who are asking what will activists move onto next, you are right to worry because until animals and birds are treated with the respect they deserve in the wild and in any industry people will never stop standing up for them.
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
Just as with this one, the rest of your post was irrelevant to what I wanted to say.
If I had quote your entire post, the piece I was specifically referring to would not have shown in the quote box.
My post wasn't for your benefit but to explain to others on the forum who are not versed in law and could easily have misunderstood you to suggest that the huntsman will get a lesser penalty because of the sabs' recklessness.
.
Gallop_Away
Well-Known Member
I disagree. It was relevant to the post as a whole and by only quoting that specific part, you took my post completely out of contents to the overall point.
I ask again, please read my post as a whole and the point I am making as a whole.
meleeka
Well-Known Member
I didn’t realise there was a whole etiquette on quoting. I’ve always just taken the bit I wanted to reply to (as I’ve done here). Is that not correct?
Gallop_Away
Well-Known Member
Which is fine but not when you then take the point out of context instead of reading it within the whole overall point of the post.
It's very frustrating to constantly feel like I need to repeat myself and explain a point I have already made, because someone has chosen to only read/quote a few lines to then take completely out of context.
palo1
Well-Known Member
Sabs are already sabbing shooting which is absolutely legal. There is no justification for those actions and they are almost invariably guilty of trespass on those occasions, as well as the disruption to people's legitimate business. I wonder how long it will be before sabs jump out at kids crabbing in the harbour at various seasides yelling 'fishing scum...' or other such phrases.
sakura
Well-Known Member
Again, a lot of hypotheticals going around. We'll see what happens when hunting is inevitably banned.
palo1
Well-Known Member
The sabbing of shooting is not remotely hypothetical - it is happening every season. The HSA identified fishing as a suitable target for their activities years ago too...
sakura
Well-Known Member
Then that can be discussed in it's own thread - it's not related to hunts breaking the law.
Gallop_Away
Well-Known Member
It's part of the wider hunting discussion. Sabs and illegal hunting go hand in hand so I think it's perfectly appropriate to discuss here.
sakura
Well-Known Member
Go ahead, but I'm only here to discuss illegal hunting so I'll leave you both to it!
Gallop_Away
Well-Known Member
Of course, by all means.
suestowford
Well-Known Member
It's been said on this thread (sorry, it was a while ago and I'll never find it to quote it) that it's not the job of law-abiding hunts, and hunt members, to do anything about the renegade hunts. I think if you want to carry on in any guise, it's time to change that view, and start to make a fuss.
It's not going to be enough to save trail hunting, to keep your head down and be responsible. Especially now that the thug element of the hunting world have been in the news so much recently. Hunting needs to be cleaned up, and seen to be doing so, and for that I think the BHSA needs to be put under pressure by the members of the organisation. If it's true that the law-abiding are in the majority, and enough of them contact the BHSA about this, then they'd have to act. At present it appears to an outsider, that they only take action when they are forced to, which suggests a lack of will. I hope I'm wrong about this.
It's not going to be enough to save trail hunting, to keep your head down and be responsible. Especially now that the thug element of the hunting world have been in the news so much recently. Hunting needs to be cleaned up, and seen to be doing so, and for that I think the BHSA needs to be put under pressure by the members of the organisation. If it's true that the law-abiding are in the majority, and enough of them contact the BHSA about this, then they'd have to act. At present it appears to an outsider, that they only take action when they are forced to, which suggests a lack of will. I hope I'm wrong about this.
Clodagh
Well-Known Member
As someone who hunted their whole life, pre ban, I obviously have absolutely nothing in common with your take on it.
But I’m starting to be absolutely sickened by what I’m seeing, from the East Essex to to AVH. I really don’t think, and sincerely pray, that it wasn’t common then but it shouldn’t happen at all.
From my own POV I’m not talking about illegal hunting but the incidents of deliberate torture.
Miss_Millie
Well-Known Member
If social media is anything to go by, I'm seeing a lot of (I assume hunting types looking at their profile pictures) sharing the video of the horse colliding with the rider with lots of laughing emojis and making comments along the lines of 'serves them right', 'well done that man', 'well deserved' etc. Disgusting comments from people about a fellow human being who could have been seriously injured or killed. You would think that all of the recent bad press would make them keep their mouths shut, but no. They are clearly oblivious to how in danger their 'sport' is from being banned entirely.
paddy555
Well-Known Member
didn't ever get an answer to this question.
I think the ability of the hunting folk on here to twist everything around to blaming the sabs is amazing.
Gallop_Away
Well-Known Member
Perhaps you are reading a different thread to me but I've seen it stated many times throughout this thread by myself and others, that the blame for all this mess lies squarely at the feet of illegal hunts.
palo1
Well-Known Member
I understand completely this point of view but in reality whilst there is a governing body, many, many hunts have so little to do with that in practice that the 'members' (ie individual hunts) have little influence there, nor do some hunts (like mine) have much confidence in that governing body. Hunts always have been far more individual and localised than they have been any kind of 'centralised' or unified thing. The difference between small farmers hunts on the hills of Wales and the uplands and the big, smart Vale hunts (such as the AVH) are so large that there is little common ground in hunting terms; it would be difficult to bring issues together across those groups in the overseeing body as the country, style of hunting, hound breeding, finances etc etc are all wildly different. I do think that this should have been addressed ages ago: it was and is possible for discipline and governance to be the common ground in trail hunting but historically that hasn't really been the case. Hunts like mine never sent anyone to join the Zoom meetings that caused such trouble as our hunt, while registered with the BHSA (of MFHA as was) have little faith in that organisation nor did they ever 'get' anything from them! There are quite a few hunts like that to my knowledge. The bad behaviour and illegal hunting in some of these Vale hunts really does not encourage anyone to associate with the overseeing organisation and frankly I think the pirate packs that rely absolutely on their manners and good relations in the countries they hunt have had some sense. I don't want to support a pirate pack but there is no way I could persuade our hunt committee to get any closer to the BHSA at this point in time; they would feel that open support or discussion is likely to bring all manner of trouble. I am not justifying or excusing anything here - just saying how I see it and how it is from that perspective!
palo1
Well-Known Member
Erm...Social Media really isn't anything to go by. You probably know that actually...
Millionwords
Well-Known Member
But it is if referring to sabs "advice" Post #5,270 ...about interfering with horses /riders?
sakura
Well-Known Member
I really wouldn't underestimate the power of social media. Anyone in marketing will tell you just how influential it is.
palo1
Well-Known Member
I get this. It does look like double standards I agree!! Apologies and apologies to @Miss_Millie . What I meant was that when I seek out the Hunt Saboteurs pages there are lots of comments about wanting to injure/distress hunters. When things pop up on your feed, they are usually sent there by an algorithm which has identified what content you might 'want' to see. The two experiences are different but I am not saying that Miss_Millie doesn't belong to various hunting groups where they could see un-algorithmed content (!) but I suspect that they don't belong to groups like that and are receiving what the SM algorithm thinks they may want to see and that may present a very different slant on things; that is much more of an echo chamber and tends to not include contradictory stuff. That's just how SM works sadly.
Miss_Millie
Well-Known Member
I just searched for public posts on Facebook. They weren't in groups, just the video shared onto people's personal feeds (surprising how many people have zero privacy on their Facebook pages). They may not have all been hunters (some definitely were), but they were all certainly at least equestrians, looking at their profiles.
I have also seen disgusting comments by sabs towards those who hunt in the past. Wishing physical harm upon anyone is not acceptable.
Nancykitt
Well-Known Member
Yes - it was quite a while ago but I remember seeing some awful comments by sabs who were 'celebrating' that fact that a rider had been fatally injured while out hunting. Really sickening. I'm not sure if that sort of behaviour is as common now - I would hope not.
I was out hunting once when a group of monitors appeared. It was all very civilised really and while I can't say that the huntsman and masters were thrilled to have them around, no-one got irritated. I think one of them did some sort of write-up on their FB page afterwards saying that nothing illegal had happened that day.
I was wondering why there aren't more monitors and fewer sabs; I do think that sabs want to discourage people from going hunting because some people (understandably) don't want any sort of confrontation. I know people who wouldn't go out with some packs, even if they were known to be hunting within the law, because of this. Others clearly don't mind - one woman I knew said that she looked forward to Boxing Day because 'The antis are part of the sport' - she loved to taunt them. Perhaps the huntsman in the clip was of a similar mindset, who knows.
Millionwords
Well-Known Member
In my limited experience, monitors try and gather evidence of illegal hunting.
Sabs want to intervene to stop the individual foxes being killed, so they are less able to gather evidence as they wouldnt be able to intervene to save that fox. Its not about intimidation ime. Just that to be in a position to save a fox, they have to be near the hounds and therefore the field.
As I've said previously they said little or nothing to us mostly. Now and again they'd even say good morning, or mention the weather.
Last edited:
Fellewell
Well-Known Member
That woman was in her 60s!
What on earth was she doing conducting guerrilla warfare in the countryside??
I'm sorry but age is indeed a big factor here. There are countless studies of the aging process showing that reaction times are slower, coordination is poorer, muscles are weaker, joints/tendons less flexible. Even down to less awareness of where their limbs actually are which of course reduces ability to make rapid adjustments when balance is lost. Hence high risk of falls, breakages.
She was very lucky not to have been seriously injured and should never have put herself in that position.
It's doubtful he would have been able to ascertain how old she was in that clothing let alone conduct a mobility assessment in that brief exchange. Clearly she was unable to move as quickly as she intended and it was a bloody big risk to take.
Also, in the footage I saw he had slowed to a trot and did indeed look back to check she was on her feet.
What on earth was she doing conducting guerrilla warfare in the countryside??
I'm sorry but age is indeed a big factor here. There are countless studies of the aging process showing that reaction times are slower, coordination is poorer, muscles are weaker, joints/tendons less flexible. Even down to less awareness of where their limbs actually are which of course reduces ability to make rapid adjustments when balance is lost. Hence high risk of falls, breakages.
She was very lucky not to have been seriously injured and should never have put herself in that position.
It's doubtful he would have been able to ascertain how old she was in that clothing let alone conduct a mobility assessment in that brief exchange. Clearly she was unable to move as quickly as she intended and it was a bloody big risk to take.
Also, in the footage I saw he had slowed to a trot and did indeed look back to check she was on her feet.
Tiddlypom
Carries on creakily
His actions would have been just as reckless if the sab had been a man in his 20s instead of being a woman in her 60s.
And I am a female in my 60s and your post is so ageist that it beggars belief. Plenty of life left in this tough old bird, I tell you.
And I am a female in my 60s and your post is so ageist that it beggars belief. Plenty of life left in this tough old bird, I tell you.
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
Speaking as someone who is 65 in a couple of weeks time, I find this post utterly insulting to the point of being offensive.
Are you seriously suggesting women of my age should sit in an armchair all safe and cosy for the rest of our lives?!
stangs
Well-Known Member
You know, just the other day I killed a 60 year old woman. Went to court and they said I didn't have to go to prison for it because I couldn't have known that her reflexes would be too slow to move away from my knife. It's all her fault really. At 60 years old, she should have known that she was too weak to be picking a fight with me.