Hunting is in a spot of bother

[Tiddlypom]

Going back to the incident of the walker who was allegedly kicked and badly injured by a horse ridden by a member of the field, what are the current obligations of anyone who hunts with a registered pack to be insured? Is membership of one of the hunting bodies required?

I’ve got third party insurance through my BHS Gold membership, which would cover me for hunting. Is it ever checked whether followers have any insurance?

 

[PurpleSpots]

I’ve got third party insurance through my BHS Gold membership, which would cover me for hunting.

Wouldn't there be a loophole that insurance wouldn't cover illegal activities, if it was found that a hunt was indeed hunting illegally at the time any claim was necessary?

 

[palo1]

Going back to the incident of the walker who was allegedly kicked and badly injured by a horse ridden by a member of the field, what are the current obligations of anyone who hunts with a registered pack to be insured? Is membership of one of the hunting bodies required?

I’ve got third party insurance through my BHS Gold membership, which would cover me for hunting. Is it ever checked whether followers have any

My experience has been that many hunts will advise subscribers to have 3rd party insurance for themselves. Hunts must also have insurance as part of their membership of any of the hunting bodies: BHSA, BDHA etc. This is to cover incidents where the hunt may be seen to be involved. A great many equestrians don't have 3rd party insurance and I imagine that unregulated/pirate packs don't have insurance either as an organisation.

insurance?

 

[Sealine]

When I was hunting I had to prove membership of the Countryside Alliance which provides 3rd party liability insurance for hunting.

 

[Clodagh]

Going back to the incident of the walker who was allegedly kicked and badly injured by a horse ridden by a member of the field, what are the current obligations of anyone who hunts with a registered pack to be insured? Is membership of one of the hunting bodies required?

I’ve got third party insurance through my BHS Gold membership, which would cover me for hunting. Is it ever checked whether followers have any insurance?

I haven’t hunted for years but when I did we had to prove membership of a body that would provide cover.

 

[Sandstone1]

Does insurance cover illegal activity?

 

[Clodagh]

Does insurance cover illegal activity?

Would be irrelevant as a follower.

 

[PurpleSpots]

Does insurance cover illegal activity?

I posted about this a little higher up wondering the same thing.

 

[Tiddlypom]

Followers would still need to be acting legally, though. So, for instance, no ‘helpful’ turning the fox back towards hounds.

Though followers can indeed knowingly ride with a pack which is clearly hunting illegally and get away with it legally if they are just passive followers. It’s the masters and hunt servants who take the legal rap for illegal hunting.

My view of the moral stance of people who ride out with a clearly illegal hunt getting all the thrills of fox hunting and none of the legal risks is unprintable.

 

[skinnydipper]

How are we expected to believe that hunts are not hunting fox when they continue to train the hounds to hunt fox.

 

[lizziebell]

How are we expected to believe that hunts are not hunting fox when they continue to train the hounds to hunt fox.

This is what frustrates me the most! Why use fox scent which only encourages them to hunt fox - the dogs can’t discriminate between which fox scent has been laid by a runner and which fox scent is that of an actual live fox crossing the same ground. It’s the biggest smoke screen ever. You rarely get draghounds wandering off an aniseed scent onto a fox scent. I’ve done a fair bit of Scentwork with my dogs - we train to specific scents, and once at a certain level you start to add in “distraction” scents. Dogs are born to use their nose, but they don’t naturally follow one specific target scent from another. That comes with training, whether that be a wild dog learning from its parents which scent to follow, or human intervention.

Did I read that Scotland have/ are introducing a law that trail hunts can longer use animal derived scents?

 

[palo1]

How are we expected to believe that hunts are not hunting fox when they continue to train the hounds to hunt fox.

You have to go back in time to The Hunting Act for the answer. Tony Blair and those writing the act knowingly and deliberately built in the provision for using animal (fox) scent because they knew that the bill would not pass without that. As it was, the parliament Act was invoked so that the draft Hunting Act didn't pass to the house of Lords as the Labour govt of the time knew the Lords would throw the bill out. Invoking the parliament Act was extraordinary; it is designed for emergencies really! A huge donation from the animal rights lobby was the only thing that got the bill as far as it did.

You can't really blame hunters for using a legal device when, to many, the parliamentary process was unjust and unduly influenced by lobbyists. That is not the way democracy should work. Those are the reasons hunters, some at least, use fox scent still. Not all do though as the acquisition of it is anathema to many hunters. The Hunting Act was bad law, bad process - admitted by those making it at the time and ever since but the Labour govt had hoped to please it's donors. That didn't really work and we are now here.

 

[minesadouble]

Tony Blair has said that the Hunting Act was seen as retribution for Thatcher's treatment of the miners by the hard left of the Labour Party.
Not the best basis for any Statute!

 

[palo1]

You have to go back in time to The Hunting Act for the answer. Tony Blair and those writing the act knowingly and deliberately built in the provision for using animal (fox) scent because they knew that the bill would not pass without that. As it was, the parliament Act was invoked so that the draft Hunting Act didn't pass to the house of Lords as the Labour govt of the time knew the Lords would throw the bill out. Invoking the parliament Act was extraordinary; it is designed for emergencies really! A huge donation from the animal rights lobby was the only thing that got the bill as far as it did.

You can't really blame hunters for using a legal device when, to many, the parliamentary process was unjust and unduly influenced by lobbyists. That is not the way democracy should work. Those are the reasons hunters, some at least, use fox scent still. Not all do though as the acquisition of it is anathema to many hunters. The Hunting Act was bad law, bad process - admitted by those making it at the time and ever since but the Labour govt had hoped to please it's donors. That didn't really work and we are now here.

@moosea - I'm genuinely curious why you find my reply, which should have been to @lizziebell rather than @skinnydipper - apologies, funny as it is a matter of historical record?

 

[palo1]

Tony Blair has said that the Hunting Act was seen as retribution for Thatcher's treatment of the miners by the hard left of the Labour Party.
Not the best basis for any Statute!

Tony Blair also said that The Hunting Act was his greatest regret which is quite some admission when his tenure also included the Iraq war and WMD scandal...

 

[moosea]

You can't really blame hunters for using a legal device when, to many, the parliamentary process was unjust and unduly influenced by lobbyists. That is not the way democracy should work.

I don't find it amusing but there is no roll eyes little face available.
The fact that hunters applied the law as they saw fit and did as much as possible to find ways to circumvent that law, and that this in turn is leading to their 'sports' demise just seems ironic and I find myself on the verge of smirking.

The hunters become the quarry. Perhaps one could have seen the preceeding years a time to thin out the hunting community and by way of harsher penalties for those who sought to actively break the law, therefore improving the face of hunting and securing it's future
Very similar reasons that those who have broken the law by hunting live quarry give for their desire to continue their activities.

@moosea - I'm genuinely curious why you find my reply, which should have been to @lizziebell rather than @skinnydipper - apologies, funny as it is a matter of historical record?

 

[palo1]

I don't find it amusing but there is no roll eyes little face available.
The fact that hunters applied the law as they saw fit and did as much as possible to find ways to circumvent that law, and that this in turn is leading to their 'sports' demise just seems ironic and I find myself on the verge of smirking.

The hunters become the quarry. Perhaps one could have seen the preceeding years a time to thin out the hunting community and by way of harsher penalties for those who sought to actively break the law, therefore improving the face of hunting and securing it's future
Very similar reasons that those who have broken the law by hunting live quarry give for their desire to continue their activities.

Well that is one interpretation...but when those forcing the legislation through as well as those drafting it knew and intended hunting to effectively carry on - which is what the Act enabled, it is actually heartening that so many hunts have adapted in spite of it. You clearly do not understand the history of the act or the many contradictions and injustices around it. I am not defending illegality, merely stating where that comes from. As a UK citizen and tax payer I feel deeply resentful of this kind of shoddy, undemocratic process and even more let down by those who are politically influenced by extremists without taking a balanced and fair view. At this year's Labour Party conference LACS were given a platform whilst the entirely legal BHSA were refused. How is that democratic?

 

[Caol Ila]

There is a rolling eye face. It's my favourite emoji.

Carry on.

 

[Tiddlypom]

To be picky, we’re limited by admin/forum constraints to a choice of just six emojis if you want to react to a thread, and a isn’t one of them.

 

[Sandstone1]

Well that is one interpretation...but when those forcing the legislation through as well as those drafting it knew and intended hunting to effectively carry on - which is what the Act enabled, it is actually heartening that so many hunts have adapted in spite of it. You clearly do not understand the history of the act or the many contradictions and injustices around it. I am not defending illegality, merely stating where that comes from. As a UK citizen and tax payer I feel deeply resentful of this kind of shoddy, undemocratic process and even more let down by those who are politically influenced by extremists without taking a balanced and fair view. At this year's Labour Party conference LACS were given a platform whilst the entirely legal BHSA were refused. How is that democratic?

It could be seen that " The Extremists " are actually the hunters! They are continuing a illegal activity which has been banned for years! Yes the hunting act has many loopholes BUT it says that hunting foxes with hounds is ILEGAL but " The EXTREMISTS" continue to try and find ways to hoodwink the public and create a SMOKESCREEN to allow them to carry on with it. Yes sabs have may have faults but in general they are highlighting and protesting about a ILLEGAL activity. Not sure how that makes them extremists!!!! There are some very skewed ways of looking at things on here!

 

[Tiddlypom]

I too agree that it was an unwise decision not to allow the BHSA a stand at the Labour Party Conference.

The personnel manning the stand would have needed the thickest of thick skins to make it through the duration of the conference, though.

 

[palo1]

Yes, they would but that would have been their choice to represent their viewpoint. Not all Labour delegates or supporters are anti hunting, in spite of the manifesto pledge.

I too agree that it was an unwise decision not to allow the BHSA a stand at the Labour Party Conference.

The personnel manning the stand would have needed the thickest of thick skins to make it through the duration of the conference, though.

 

[Tiddlypom]

Pro hunting Labour delegates might well have given the BHSA a good earful about its cackhanded handling of the governance of hunting!

 

[Fellewell]

The method of scent marking and territorial behaviour has long been part of the fox's appeal. The myriad ways foxes mark boundaries /behaviour is a challenge for any animal, even hounds who can distinguish between thousands of different scents, old and new. It is quite possible to simulate fox urine but that wont stop them overmarking it, although much of what foxes communicate to each other is above ground. As you will know when finding scat halfway up the ragwort you want to pull.
Following a pre-laid trail is straight forward for hounds. The art is in the training, when following the trail the hounds will put up any number of 'non-target species' which they will ignore. That's what they've been trained to do. That is the huntsman's job. The problem occurs when others, followers or sabs, deliberately interfere with the hounds. Anyone who trains canines will know that the ability to scent is deeply compromised when confidence is lost.

 

[skinnydipper]

The method of scent marking and territorial behaviour has long been part of the fox's appeal. The myriad ways foxes mark boundaries /behaviour is a challenge for any animal, even hounds who can distinguish between thousands of different scents, old and new. It is quite possible to simulate fox urine but that wont stop them overmarking it, although much of what foxes communicate to each other is above ground. As you will know when finding scat halfway up the ragwort you want to pull.

I think you are missing the point here.

If you are not training hounds to hunt fox, which you shouldn't be - because it is illegal , then don't use a fox derived scent. Use a non animal based target scent.

 

[Millionwords]

. The problem occurs when others, followers or sabs, deliberately interfere with the hounds.

This is not the problem at all.

 

[palo1]

I think you are missing the point here.

If you are not training hounds to hunt fox, which you shouldn't be - because it is illegal , then don't use a fox derived scent. Use a non animal based target scent.

Well yes, but as has been explained a number of times the legislation allows for using a natural fox derived scent; choosing NOT to use a legally specified target scent is good sense but not required. For people who see the Hunting Act as judicially misbegotten, the use of fox derived scent isn't an issue legally or in any other sense although it puts them at risk of breaking the law of 'intent' - this has been proven to be very difficult to demonstrate. Even without using naturally derived fox scent the law allows for a close approximation of natural hunting with scent that behaves differently to a purely dragged scent. Hence the very different style of hunting whilst trail hunting; much more time is spent watching hounds work out the trail. Sabs leap on traditional hunting behaviours without any proof of illegality - possibly because they don't understand the act, or trail hunting, although they've had enough time to do that. Sabs frequently demonstrate and publicize their interference as well as announce that they have 'seen foxes to safety' with zero evidence that foxes have actually been at risk.

 

[Tiddlypom]

Sabs actively interfering with the huntsman’s control of hounds really is a thing - they boast on the sab pages of using false horn calls and gizmos to distract hounds.

It’s highly irresponsible and leads to some (by no means all) of the chaos of hounds criss crossing busy roads endangering other road users.

 

[Millionwords]

Sabs actively interfering with the huntsman’s control of hounds really is a thing - they boast on the sab pages of using false horn calls and gizmos to distract hounds.

It’s highly irresponsible and leads to some (by no means all) of the chaos of hounds criss crossing busy roads endangering other road users.

Sorry yes. I know this, it wasn't clear what I meant.
I mean it's not the reason that foxes end up involved when they shouldn't, and not the reason they shouldnt use a different scent.

 

[Crazy_cat_lady]

The method of scent marking and territorial behaviour has long been part of the fox's appeal. The myriad ways foxes mark boundaries /behaviour is a challenge for any animal, even hounds who can distinguish between thousands of different scents, old and new. It is quite possible to simulate fox urine but that wont stop them overmarking it, although much of what foxes communicate to each other is above ground. As you will know when finding scat halfway up the ragwort you want to pull.
Following a pre-laid trail is straight forward for hounds. The art is in the training, when following the trail the hounds will put up any number of 'non-target species' which they will ignore. That's what they've been trained to do. That is the huntsman's job. The problem occurs when others, followers or sabs, deliberately interfere with the hounds. Anyone who trains canines will know that the ability to scent is deeply compromised when confidence is lost.

So why are people's pets getting killed then? Surely by your logic they should be ignoring them