Hunting is in a spot of bother

[GoldenWillow]

I always thought that re. what is in it for farmers yet many trail only hunts are still welcomed, even when no fallen stock service is available. I guess it would be helpful for them to find out why that is and replicate it.

In my immediate area the hunt was allowed purely as goodwill towards the hunt as they had hunted there for an extremely long time and there was a much loved and respected local ex farmer involved with the hunt. They do not provide a fallen stock service covering our area. After he sadly passed away the hunt was still allowed access by land owner but after numerous incidents of them hunting on land they were specifically asked to avoid and members of the hunt being incredibly rude to both LO's partner and farm manager they are no longer allowed access.

 

[Sandstone1]

It always amuses me when Im told I dont understand hunting as its a countryside tradition etc etc, Problem is I was born and bred in the countryside. I do understand it and still dont agree with it, whats more it is against the law.

 

[palo1]

I take it that the 'ignorant and unimaginative' might be directed at me, Palo1? I'm from a farming family and know many farmers. My family still farm. They have a profit to make and many I know do not share your golden view of trail hunts and their followers. In fact many of them are royally p*ssed off with the cavalier way that some riders treat crops and pasture land and have taken to banning them completely. Venture on to the Farmers Forum and you'll not find many who seem to have any patience with hunts/trail hunts of any description. Going onto land where they have not been invited, hounds harassing stock, damage to fencing, trashing crops, are just a few of their complaints. I would also suggest that insulting people who don't totally see your rosy view of things is hardly the best, or polite, way forward.

Kipper's Dick, I certainly wasn't aiming any of my comments at anyone in particular; I apologise if you felt somehow singled out by what I wrote. I too am from a farming family and I certainly understand the pressures that farmers feel under. Not all farmers post on the farmers forum though and there are lots of different views within farming; about hunting and other things. I do think one of the really big problems with such a social media driven world as we live in is the strength of the echo chamber walls - all of us end up surrounded by palatable views and like minded people. It is problematic in having a real discussion. I certainly have no intention to insult anyone directly.

 

[palo1]

It always amuses me when Im told I dont understand hunting as its a countryside tradition etc etc, Problem is I was born and bred in the countryside. I do understand it and still dont agree with it, whats more it is against the law.

Trail hunting is legal Sandstone.

 

[Tiddlypom]

I know too, that as soon as I assert this, several people will leap up to prove that I am utterly wrong, ignorant, naive, clueless etc but really I have NEVER seen a local hunt damaging ground in the way that the anti-hunt lobby maintain they do.

All I can say is that I have seen and heard of this hereabouts many times, and directly from the farmers and landowners. Remember my equine vet hiding in a barn hiding from clients while her farmer husband ranted at the hunt for trespassing? The milking and non milking cows mixed up and injured after the same hunt trespassed across another local farm and brought down all the fencling?

Just because your pack behaves well does not mean that there are those (all too many) who do not.

 

[Sandstone1]

Trail hunting is legal Sandstone.

It is, but most hunts do not trail hunt do they?

 

[ester]

One thing I've noticed since here is that the cambridge drag definitely have a much wider area over which they hold meets than has been usual for non-drags IME. Not sure if that is the same for other drags. Though arguably with the number of hunt mergers other countries are going to quickly increase in geographical spread too.

 

[Michen]

All I can say is that I have seen and heard of this hereabouts many times, and directly from the farmers and landowners. Remember my equine vet hiding in a barn hiding from clients while her farmer husband ranted at the hunt for trespassing? The milking and non milking cows mixed up and injured after the same hunt trespassed across another local farm and brought down all the fencling?

Just because your pack behaves well does not mean that there are those (all too many) who do not.

I really don’t believe that this is the norm. How is it that this doesn't seem to be the case in packs local to me? I remember once my stirrup flying off the bar at a flat out gallop, in order to emergency pull my horse up I did a big turn and one of his hooves went on the drilled field. Boy did I (rightly so) get a bollocking and I was mortified!

Every single hunt I’ve ever hunted with, trail or drag (and in total that’s 8 different packs) have been nothing but hugely respectful and grateful to landowners.

Is it just fluke that I have decent packs where I am!?

 

[Tiddlypom]

Michen, I don’t know why some packs are like this. It was a shock to me too after moving up from the West Country. In my day, we did as we were told, or we got sent home.

Maybe here it is because much of the land here belongs to big sporting estates who require their tenant farmers to allow the hunt access, like it or not. It is fair to say that some masters do not accord the tenants the respect they deserve. Even now, I hear of such a such joint master who the farmers don’t like, so the hunt have to wheel out another more genial acting master for certain days.

I did smile after the hunt had somehow upset my farmer neighbour. For years he would allow the hunt onto his land as he was bidden, but from first thing he’d be out there, muck spreading right across the fields they would hunt over.

 

[palo1]

I really don’t believe that this is the norm. How is it that this doesn't seem to be the case in packs local to me? I remember once my stirrup flying off the bar at a flat out gallop, in order to emergency pull my horse up I did a big turn and one of his hooves went on the drilled field. Boy did I (rightly so) get a bollocking and I was mortified!

Every single hunt I’ve ever hunted with, trail or drag (and in total that’s 8 different packs) have been nothing but hugely respectful and grateful to landowners.

Is it just fluke that I have decent packs where I am!?

No, I don't think it is a fluke. All of the packs that I know too are like this. We always have instruction about exactly where we can and can't go; this is often in relation to specific fields and we usually have information about WHY certain places (LH side of this field/not the field bounded by the stone wall etc) are not cleared. A lot of our country is open hill too and the graziers provide both permission and information about cleared land and where the neighbours are likely to be concerned about the hunt moving. Last season, for example, we were asked to stay away from the hill boundary near one farm as the owner of that farm did not welcome the hunt and we were aware of the need not to cause any upset. A couple of hounds went quite close to this landowner's boundary and even though we were definately not on the property hounds were picked up quick smart with no rating but quietly and with no fuss. That is how hunts must and do operate as a norm. I am in pretty close contact with neighbouring packs via friends there and this is how it is across English and Welsh packs, Vale and Hill.

The fact that landlords are uncaring about their tenants wishes wrt to hunting is absolutely not the problem of hunting!!

 

[ycbm]

The fact that landlords are uncaring about their tenants wishes wrt to hunting is absolutely not the problem of hunting!!

Of course it is. You wouldn't, I hope, go and have a family barbecue in your neighbour's garden if you knew they didn't want you to but their landlord told you it was ok?

Hunts knowingly take numerous horses over land where they know they aren't wanted, causing work to safeguard stock, repair hedges and fences, and restore tracks and land. I don't see how that's not a problem of the hunt, because it's a problem for the farmer directly caused by the hunt.
.

 

[Tiddlypom]

The fact that landlords are uncaring about their tenants wishes wrt to hunting is absolutely not the problem of hunting!!

Palo, it is not just that. The hunt knew that the tenants could not refuse them access to the land, so some joint masters did not bother to liaise with them re their plans for a hunting day. The tenants were expected to lump it.

A hunting friend who used to give out meet cards got so fed up of being kept out of the loop when farmers tried to pass on requests to avoid such and such a piece of land that she packed it in.

This pack is all round much better now, but up until recently it reckoned that it was number one priority rural traffic, all else to give way.

Anyhow, that is only my local experience. As a former hunting person, I was genuinely shocked at the hunt’s attitude.

 

[Gucc]

I have two horses living out 24/7 and the hunt do not have the common decency to let me know when they are in the area despite them having my contact details and the contact details of other local horse owners. this causes much distress to others horses as they go past and also injuries from my horses getting so wound up and panicked. Is this acceptable? Work with the local horse owners and also the landowners as the hunt alienate themselves otherwise. I did ring the hunt to complain and all that was said was oh... sorry about that!

 

[palo1]

Of course it is. You wouldn't, I hope, go and have a family barbecue in your neighbour's garden if you knew they didn't want you to but their landlord told you it was ok?

Hunts knowingly take numerous horses over land where they know they aren't wanted, causing work to safeguard stock, repair hedges and fences, and restore tracks and land. I don't see how that's not a problem of the hunt, because its a problem for the farmer directly caused by the hunt.
.

]

I get your point ycbm and you are right that you would not hold a bbq in your neighbour's garden even if the landlord said it was ok but that is actually different and you are deliberately (and often rather good at) ignoring the nuance here. Agricultural tenants know that they may differ in their opinion to their landlords over things like hunting, shooting and other access as well as particular farming practices. They are, through their agents or in direct negotiation, in a position to discuss and re-negotiate those things. If you had tenants on your land and you determined that they could not mow a field before the end of July due to ground nesting birds under a monitoring scheme with an outside agency that is your right as the landowner to dictate. Your tenant may be mightily cheesed off but it would not be the fault of the third party. I get that this is not a direct comparison and that you will pick holes in what I am saying, lol but I am just dashing out of the door!! The landowner does have the final say over land use and agricultural terms and conditions are entirely different and have slightly different legal conventions to that of domestic/home tenancies. I think you know that and that you are being disingenuous...

 

[ycbm]

I get your point ycbm and you are right that you would not hold a bbq in your neighbour's garden even if the landlord said it was ok but that is actually different and you are deliberately (and often rather good at) ignoring the nuance here. Agricultural tenants know that they may differ in their opinion to their landlords over things like hunting, shooting and other access as well as particular farming practices. They are, through their agents or in direct negotiation, in a position to discuss and re-negotiate those things. If you had tenants on your land and you determined that they could not mow a field before the end of July due to ground nesting birds under a monitoring scheme with an outside agency that is your right as the landowner to dictate. Your tenant may be mightily cheesed off but it would not be the fault of the third party. I get that this is not a direct comparison and that you will pick holes in what I am saying, lol but I am just dashing out of the door!! The landowner does have the final say over land use and agricultural terms and conditions are entirely different and have slightly different legal conventions to that of domestic/home tenancies. I think you know that and that you are being disingenuous...

I get your point that the land is rented with the condition that it is hunted.

But I'm being disingenuous? No, but I'm not going to pick holes in your argument that contractual land management practices equate to damage and inconvenience caused by a group of people on horseback enjoying themselves.

It is hunting's problem, because it further adds to the image of hunting as arrogant and entitled that hunts are prepared to ride for the pleasure of the followers over land where they know they are not welcome, whether they are contractually entitled to or not.

 

[neddy man]

In the old days when I hunted 2x weekly the forbidden fields had red flags placed in them if you jumped into one of them you were asked/told to leave the meet and not comeback until you knew and understood hunting etiquette.

 

[Tiddlypom]

Agricultural tenants know that they may differ in their opinion to their landlords over things like hunting, shooting and other access as well as particular farming practices

You are missing the point. The farmer tenants are not anti hunting, but they need to be treated with the same courtesy as landowners. These are not incomers, but long standing tenants often stretching back generations.

Having 50 to 100 horses rock up to cross your land when you are not expecting them, or would prefer them to keep off certain areas, is not acceptable.

Certain joint masters saw the country as their plaything, to cross as they saw fit and to provide amusement for the mounted field.

 

[Kipper's Dick]

Kipper's Dick, I certainly wasn't aiming any of my comments at anyone in particular; I apologise if you felt somehow singled out by what I wrote. I too am from a farming family and I certainly understand the pressures that farmers feel under. Not all farmers post on the farmers forum though and there are lots of different views within farming; about hunting and other things. I do think one of the really big problems with such a social media driven world as we live in is the strength of the echo chamber walls - all of us end up surrounded by palatable views and like minded people. It is problematic in having a real discussion. I certainly have no intention to insult anyone directly.

I appreciate your apology, Palo1, which is why I 'liked' your post. But I still feel care should be taken when using words such as 'unimaginative' and 'ignorant'. It might be best not to insult people indirectly, either!

Some hunts do a great job of keeping their farmers and landowners happy: requesting permission beforehand, strict field-mastering, making good damage to fences, recompense for crop damage, regular Farmers Suppers, bottle of whisky at Christmas, etc. Others behave like entitled brats. It is no surprise which is more popular. It can all change with a change of mastership, too. A hunt's reputation can soon go downhill.

I would actually like to see trail-hunting continue. I've made that clear in previous posts. But I really struggle in my support when I read of pets being killed, and horses and livestock being harassed and injured. I sometimes wonder if some hunts deserve the privileges they receive.

 

[palo1]

I get your point that the land is rented with the condition that it is hunted.

But I'm being disingenuous? No, but I'm not going to pick holes in your argument that contractual land management practices equate to damage and inconvenience caused by a group of people on horseback enjoying themselves.

It is hunting's problem, because it further adds to the image of hunting as arrogant and entitled that hunts are prepared to ride for the pleasure of the followers over land where they know they are not welcome, whether they are contractually entitled to or not.

Sorry, I am genuinely a bit lost with this - I have nowhere argued that contractual land management practices equate to damage and inconvenience caused by a group of people on horseback enjoying themselves!!

Land management practices can be viewed in so many different ways and I am sure you know that. There are plenty of landlords, for example that see rewilding as a shocking and destructive act of land 'management' too. There are many farmers that feel the best use of their land is through intensive production, control and dredging of rivers, extensive fertiliser and pesticide use (in order to make their farm pay for itself) which other people may see as 'damage'. The same goes for the extensive grazing of sheep for example where some folk would argue that this causes an ecological desert where others would assert that the landscape has been created by sheep grazing and that the same thing prevents dominant species such as bracken from overtaking the uplands. Some landowners view trailhunting as a significant continuation of cultural practice that has meaning and value to them and they do not find that there is 'damage' or inconvenience caused by that activity. What people choose to do with their land is bound by the law, not by public opinion.

 

[palo1]

You are missing the point. The farmer tenants are not anti hunting, but they need to be treated with the same courtesy as landowners. These are not incomers, but long standing tenants often stretching back generations.

Having 50 to 100 horses rock up to cross your land when you are not expecting them, or would prefer them to keep off certain areas, is not acceptable.

Certain joint masters saw the country as their plaything, to cross as they saw fit and to provide amusement for the mounted field.

I do agree that tenants should be accorded respect in the matter of hunting BUT tenants may come and go, the landowner is the person with the final say. When you say 50-100 horses rocking up to cross your land when you are not expecting them...this is an entirely unfamiliar scenario for me but you have repeated this so many times that you must have experienced or witnessed such a thing.

 

[palo1]

I appreciate your apology, Palo1, which is why I 'liked' your post. But I still feel care should be taken when using words such as 'unimaginative' and 'ignorant'. It might be best not to insult people indirectly, either!

Some hunts do a great job of keeping their farmers and landowners happy: requesting permission beforehand, strict field-mastering, making good damage to fences, recompense for crop damage, regular Farmers Suppers, bottle of whisky at Christmas, etc. Others behave like entitled brats. It is no surprise which is more popular. It can all change with a change of mastership, too. A hunt's reputation can soon go downhill.

I would actually like to see trail-hunting continue. I've made that clear in previous posts. But I really struggle in my support when I read of pets being killed, and horses and livestock being harassed and injured. I sometimes wonder if some hunts deserve the privileges they receive.

I didn't mean to offend anyone directly or indirectly and I am usually at pains to be tactful so I am sorry if I wasn't on this occasion. I think traditional hunting people would always assert that rioting hounds, disrespectful riders and hunt committees are intolerable. I have seen the rise and fall of masters and the reputation of hunts over the years - you are right in how easy it is for good relationships to be ruined. Sadly, I do think that some of the reports that bring hunts into disrepute are made a very great deal of; I have seen with my own eyes this thing; we pass a field of horses - they literally trot round for the time we are passing their field (even though I myself have informed this neighbour that we will be about and no issues or concerns raised by that person; we have other potential routes past this horse owner so could have diverted had we been requested to) and later on that day the local social media is full of reports of 'traumatised' horses and fences broken by their distress; fences which have been broken for several months...I am not saying that all of these incidents are of that ilk but I do know what I have experienced myself. Those people who dislike hunting, for whatever reason are often vindicated in almost anything they say. I guess that is because it is a good story for the media to pick up?

 

[ycbm]

Sorry, I am genuinely a bit lost with this - I have nowhere argued that contractual land management practices equate to damage and inconvenience caused by a group of people on horseback enjoying themselves!!

You said you expected me to pick holes, so I avoided doing that.

But you compared this situation

If you had tenants on your land and you determined that they could not mow a field before the end of July due to ground nesting birds under a monitoring scheme with an outside agency that is your right as the landowner to dictate. Your tenant may be mightily cheesed off but it would not be the fault of the third party.

with a large group of riders going out purely to enjoy themselves, inevitably causing disruption and usually some damage even if minor.

In the first case, the third party has an objective which I would suggest is considerably more worthy of upsetting a tenant farmer than a group of riders having fun, and the third party does not enter the property en masse.

I think if hunt people could get themselves out of the mindset that they are preserving hunting until legal fox hunting returns, and understand that it will never return, then they will see that what they are doing is no more and no less than an entertainment.

In that context, a lot of things about the way hunts behave become questionable.
.

 

[Tiddlypom]

I do agree that tenants should be accorded respect in the matter of hunting BUT tenants may come and go, the landowner is the person with the final say. When you say 50-100 horses rocking up to cross your land when you are not expecting them...this is an entirely unfamiliar scenario for me but you have repeated this so many times that you must have experienced or witnessed such a thing.

We are actually agreeing here a lot . Of course the tenant farmers know that the hunt has right of access to their land, it is written down as part of the tenancy agreement.

This is not about anti hunting tenant farmers, it is about farmers who are working the land and need to know when to expect the hunt for stock management purposes, and to able to request that certain areas are avoided for genuine farming reasons. A person handing out meet cards was asked by a farmer of the hunt’s intentions on one day, and they asked the relevant joint master about this to pass back to the farmer. They were told ‘Don’t engage with him, he’s been given a meet card, that’s enough’ ie the joint master cba to work with the farmer.

Yes, I have repeated it frequently because it is what has happened here. I know of some of the ill feeling that has been caused by inadequate mastership from in hunt sources.

This would never have happened back in my hunting days, but how much of that is down to the different ethos of small West Country packs to posher larger packs up here, I do not know.

 

[palo1]

You said you expected me to pick holes, so I avoided doing that.

But you compared this situation



with a large group of riders going out purely to enjoy themselves, inevitably causing disruption and usually some damage even if minor.

In the first case, the third party has an objective which I would suggest is considerably more worthy of upsetting a tenant farmer than a group of riders having fun, and the third party does not enter the property en masse.

I think if hunt people could get themselves out of the mindset that they are preserving hunting until legal fox hunting returns, and understand that it will never return, then they will see that what they are doing is no more and no less than an entertainment.

In that context, a lot of things about the way hunts behave become questionable.
.

I understand why you might feel this to be the case but that denies acknowledgement that some people do view hunting and trail hunting as culturally valuable, worth hanging on to for reasons other than might relate to foxes and that maintaining a link with historic hunting cultures, traditions and communities does have real meaning and value. I am not suggesting that everyone has to see that but even UNESCO has identified that the intangible cultural heritage of hunting (in Europe) is something which may need legal protection. UNESCO already works to protect the cultural heritage of hunting in other places where it is considered that is severely endangered. This also ackowledges the potential conflict with other very worthwhile and meaningful goals. Just because you don't value those things on the basis that they are linked to activities you don't approve of or appreciate does not mean they are definitively valueless. Within the cultural heritage context it is impossible to see that the continuation of rituals, engagement with the land, directly related crafts, dress codes, music, song, art, literature as pure 'entertainment' as they are the cultural capital that creates a rich and diverse culture and society.

Safeguarding the sub-culture of Punk, Rave or other things is probably anathema to many people but you would be very hard pressed to find any cultural organisation prepared to destroy it wilfully. Those too are/were 'entertainment' on one level but manifestations of culture at a much deeper and more important level as well.

 

[Miss_Millie]

Palo, you fail to address the beloved pets killed and livestock attacked by hunting hounds. You fail to mention the trespass and damage caused to land, which as Kipper has said, many farmers on forums express their disgust and anger at.

It seems that to many who hunt, any 'accidents', such as cats killed, are just unfortunate collateral damage. I can't think of a single other outdoor activity that repeatedly results in trespass, damaged fencing, and animal attacks. People feeling unsafe on their own properties and worrying for the lives of their animals.

I still remember, in horror, the many cats who lost their lives when the Celia Hammond sanctuary was invaded by a pack of hounds in 2018. After SO many incidents like this, year after year, no-one can convince me that the behaviour of hunters is anything other than irresponsible and self-serving.

 

[ycbm]

Dupe

 

[ycbm]

I understand why you might feel this to be the case but that denies acknowledgement that some people do view hunting and trail hunting as culturally valuable, worth hanging on to for reasons other than might relate to foxes and that maintaining a link with historic hunting cultures, traditions and communities does have real meaning and value. I am not suggesting that everyone has to see that but even UNESCO has identified that the intangible cultural heritage of hunting (in Europe) is something which may need legal protection. UNESCO already works to protect the cultural heritage of hunting in other places where it is considered that is severely endangered. This also ackowledges the potential conflict with other very worthwhile and meaningful goals. Just because you don't value those things on the basis that they are linked to activities you don't approve of or appreciate does not mean they are definitively valueless. Within the cultural heritage context it is impossible to see that the continuation of rituals, engagement with the land, directly related crafts, dress codes, music, song, art, literature as pure 'entertainment' as they are the cultural capital that creates a rich and diverse culture and society.

Safeguarding the sub-culture of Punk, Rave or other things is probably anathema to many people but you would be very hard pressed to find any cultural organisation prepared to destroy it wilfully. Those too are/were 'entertainment' on one level but manifestations of culture at a much deeper and more important level as well.

Preserving the cultural heritage does not require riding where you are not welcome.

Quite the reverse, I would think it's more likely that hunts riding en masse where they are not welcome will probably hasten the demise of all forms of following hounds on horseback, as all hunts become tarred with the same brush.
.

 

[Tiddlypom]

I understand why you might feel this to be the case but that denies acknowledgement that some people do view hunting and trail hunting as culturally valuable, worth hanging on to for reasons other than might relate to foxes and that maintaining a link with historic hunting cultures, traditions and communities does have real meaning and value.

Yup.

So to be allowed to continue hunts need to obey the freeking law, stop hunting foxes, and stop trespassing onto land which they do not have permission to be on.

Oh, and stop killing cats, alpacas, chasing calves...

 

[palo1]

Yup.

So to be allowed to continue hunts need to obey the freeking law, stop hunting foxes, and stop trespassing onto land which they do not have permission to be on.

Oh, and stop killing cats, alpacas, chasing calves...

Well I agree that hunts, nor anyone else should be where they don't have permission to be. I have to add, to your frustration I am sure, that some of the incidents that bring hunts into disrepute (not all but some at least) are caused and then exacerbated by the actions of sabs who are only too delighted to see trouble caused. This has caused death, injury, trespass and mayhem - all of which the most 'influential' sab groups delight in. They view this as collateral damage in their desire to see hunting banished at all and any cost. Sabs make a very great deal of incidents of great upset in which they have had a large hand...

 

[palo1]

And the sabs are increasing their 'range' ...latest updates from the HSA include angling in their pursuits:-

''The number of sab groups including angling in their activities is increasing. On the whole anglers are less likely to get pleasure out of the suffering they cause than hunters and enjoy instead the mindlessness of outwitting a fish into impaling itself on a hook, they don’t tend to be inherently violent. This is a bonus if you are a small group, as you can sab more anglers than you might want to confront if they were all blood crazed terrier boys. The other thing about sabbing angling, is that it can form a satisfying end to a day, after dealing with a hound pack.'' (https://www.huntsabs.org.uk/sabbing-angling/). I suppose at least they are getting a day out in the countryside!