Hunting is in a spot of bother

[Ceriann]

And yet, we have permission to trail hunt across a nature reserve; that is reserved for the huntsman and hounds only; the field must stay outside the reserve which we do; it is usually a good opportunity for a chat and catch up. We can watch hounds and follow them via the lane and fields surrounding the actual reserve. If you want a gentle day, this meet is a good one! We have had this privelage for a number of years and we are glad of it. We are also able to ride across land where there is an area of real sensitivity in terms of plant life. Again, we have had this meet many times, everyone is clearly instructed as to where they can and cannot ride and we have had no problems. Constant reporting of 'issues' on either side really doesn't achieve anything as both points of view can evidence positive and negative stories.

I don’t have a side in my post - I simply set out the way this particular hunt has acted and the way in which they have disregarded a request not to use certain land. I am not saying all hunts do this, I am saying this one does and I have witnessed it personally. Your hunt is more respectful - this is not my experience of the one close to me. As for constant reporting - I see no issue reporting the way this hunt ignores what has been a consistent, clear and respectful request not to use that land. It is likley to help achieve what the landowner wants, which is for this hunt to stop using the land.

 

[palo1]

An interesting and thought provoking article about trapping, Chris Packham and the RSPB. See here for the full article: https://countrysquire.co.uk/2021/01/12/justice-perverted-by-set-ups/

Staged ‘set ups’ have become an increasingly popular tool of activists and campaigners across the country, particularly if they have celebrity support. What started as a favourite trick of animal rights extremists has now spread to anti-lockdown protestors and other conspiracy theorists, who use these tactics for a quick headline-grabbing image, with little consideration to the consequences.

Yesterday across the UK media a story ran about police tactics after a woman in Bournemouth was arrested for ‘sitting on a bench’, having left her house on more than one occasion. It now transpires that this was a ‘planned, staged-managed and recorded’ set up by an extreme anti-lockdown group, according to Dorset Police...

The fact that private farmland boasts such a broader array of wildlife and bio-diversity than the RSPB’s reserves appears to have enraged Chris Packham CBE. Speaking about using traps to control wildlife and the consequent remote risk that a properly set trap might kill a non-target species, such as a Little Owl, he said he wanted owners of land used for farming to declare: ‘We are not going to do trapping’, and posed the question, ‘It’s legal but is it ecologically ethical?’.

Why might this cause the people who manage his organisation, the RSPB, any disquiet? Well, they knew that their excitable Vice-President was standing in a large and fragile glasshouse when he started throwing his stones.

As his PR team constructed his edgy, exciting quotes his own organisation’s partners had just made public the list of mammals and birds that had been trapped in the RSPB’s (that’s the one he represents) Orkney stoat eradication programme. He can hardly have been unaware that his RSPB had received £6 million from the EU to exterminate stoats on the Orkney Isles. Even someone as rich as Chris would raise an eyebrow at £6 million of taxpayers money.

Chris and his RSPB are forever proselytising about conservation and the environment. Chris says it is unthinkable to do so, if the traps you set to catch rats accidentally catch something else or indeed if you set traps at all.

Many well-informed readers of this website may be wondering how he has got the bare faced cheek to make such a statement when his own organisation, the RSPB, is using traps on a vast scale themselves. Is it that he thinks the RSPB are just much better at trapping than gamekeepers?

Well, we have the list of what his organisation said they caught and killed.

The plan was to kill stoats and they indeed managed to kill quite a lot. Seven hundred and fifty to be exact. It is also fair to point out that they caught not a single Little Owl. That seems likely to be a result of there being no Little Owls on Orkney, because they seemed so very good at catching other things.

The thousands of traps used by the organisation Chris is proud to represent caught:

• 2068 Rats;
• 242 Rabbits;
• 111 Starlings;
• 48 mice;
• 18 Hedgehogs;
• 12 unidentified birds;
• 10 Orkney Voles;
• 9 Frogs and Toads;
• 4 Cats;
• 2 Blackbirds
• 2 Water Rails.

That’s a total of 3,276 birds, mammals and amphibians caught in RSPB traps.

It is possible that, when he made his palpably hypocritical remarks, he was so ill-informed about his own organisation, that he did not know about the £6 million grant and the mayhem on Orkney.

It’s possible, but hardly probable. Chris specialises in knowing everything, it’s his thing. It is tempting to say that his behaviour is shameless. It is not. It is shameful. The only good to come out of this entire non-event is that it provides another example of the cant and hypocrisy that lies at the heart of some of the big names in the conservation industry.

Of course, engaging in legal predator control does not put someone beyond the pale as a conservationist. Chris Packham CBE knows that perfectly well. His organisation does it – not very well – but a lot.

[An illegally set RSPB trap in Orkney]

He may not like to admit it in front of his adoring fans but the legal use of traps to catch small mammalian predators is an essential tool in the protection of many rare, ground nesting birds. He must know this, or he would have long ago broken his ties with RSPB, because they use traps, in the case of Orkney on a scale which is entirely unprecedented. Yet he is happy to casually blacken the entire process for a few column inches intended to, at any given opportunity, promote his image to his acolytes.

Yes. Shameful probably was the right word.

 

[ycbm]

Constant reporting of 'issues' on either side really doesn't achieve anything as both points of view can evidence positive and negative stories.

It's only the negative ones which are going to affect the future of hunting, though Palo. They need to be stopped or everyone's sport is at risk.

I've ridden three times (that I know of) on land where the hunt had been told not to go, and been (reluctant) party to poaching bridleways, footpaths, canal towpaths and verges.

The countryside is getting too crowded for people to turn a blind eye for much longer. The 3 packs (drag and bloodhound) I have been out with have all folded in the last 10 years.
.

 

[ycbm]

And yet, we have permission to trail hunt across a nature reserve; that is reserved for the huntsman and hounds only; the field must stay outside the reserve which we do; it is usually a good opportunity for a chat and catch up. .

I can't be the only one wondering what the point of that exercise is?

 

[hollyandivy123]

And yet, we have permission to trail hunt across a nature reserve; that is reserved for the huntsman and hounds only; the field must stay outside the reserve which we do; it is usually a good opportunity for a chat and catch up. We can watch hounds and follow them via the lane and fields surrounding the actual reserve. If you want a gentle day, this meet is a good one! We have had this privelage for a number of years and we are glad of it. We are also able to ride across land where there is an area of real sensitivity in terms of plant life. Again, we have had this meet many times, everyone is clearly instructed as to where they can and cannot ride and we have had no problems. Constant reporting of 'issues' on either side really doesn't achieve anything as both points of view can evidence positive and negative stories.

Why would you set a trail through a nature reserve. ....just seems to make a complication for yourself...

 

[meleeka]

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.

Interesting that this comment has been pretty much ignored. This sums it up for me.

 

[Tiddlypom]

Why would you set a trail through a nature reserve. ....just seems to make a complication for yourself...

Keep the local wildlife on their toes (or paws)?

 

[palo1]

I don’t have a side in my post - I simply set out the way this particular hunt has acted and the way in which they have disregarded a request not to use certain land. I am not saying all hunts do this, I am saying this one does and I have witnessed it personally. Your hunt is more respectful - this is not my experience of the one close to me. As for constant reporting - I see no issue reporting the way this hunt ignores what has been a consistent, clear and respectful request not to use that land. It is likley to help achieve what the landowner wants, which is for this hunt to stop using the land.

Blimey - it is just madness for a hunt to go on land where they are clearly not welcome.

 

[palo1]

Interesting that this comment has been pretty much ignored. This sums it up for me.

I only didn't respond to this post because all of these issues have already been discussed at some length on this thread and it just isn't contentious or needing debate to state that the killing of pets, trespass and damage are wrong!! I read the post as a statement rather than an opening for discussion tbh. My response though, if you like, is that this is not what happens with most hunts at all and that some significant disciplinary action should be taken on hunts that bring hunting in disrepute in these ways. I cannot comment on any of the examples specifically but there are most certainly instances where the actions of sabs have led directly to some ghastly incidents too.

 

[palo1]

Why would you set a trail through a nature reserve. ....just seems to make a complication for yourself...

The owners and management of the reserve don't perceive any harm at all to the reserve in the way that trail hunting is carried out there AND it has been an area of land traditionally hunted; now not farmed and the owners/management are sympathetic to trail hunting. There is no reason for a trail not to work through that bit as long as we all stick to the rules (which we do).

 

[Miss_Millie]

Interesting that this comment has been pretty much ignored. This sums it up for me.

Yep, and the fact that it was ignored by the pro-hunters confirms my key points - damage, death of pets and trepass are just collateral damage to them. The woman who's cat was killed recently, will have to deal with that grief and trauma for the rest of her life.

And from what I have read, the people in charge of the dogs who killed her cat have got off scott free (as per usual). Had a random pedestrian walked onto her property and broken her cat's neck, they would have been arrested on the spot!!

As it were, the hunt are above the law, and 'accidents happen'.

 

[meleeka]

I only didn't respond to this post because all of these issues have already been discussed at some length on this thread and it just isn't contentious or needing debate to state that the killing of pets, trespass and damage are wrong!! I read the post as a statement rather than an opening for discussion tbh. My response though, if you like, is that this is not what happens with most hunts at all and that some significant disciplinary action should be taken on hunts that bring hunting in disrepute in these ways. I cannot comment on any of the examples specifically but there are most certainly instances where the actions of sabs have led directly to some ghastly incidents too.

As my mum always says “Two wrongs don’t make a right”. Your defence on pretty much all points is that sabs are worse. If there was a sab on here defending the actions of their group, I’m pretty sure we’d all jump on that, probably more so. When there’s so many incidences of hunts behaving badly, you really can’t keep making the same point, in the hope that people will sympathise.

 

[palo1]

I am slightly reluctant to write this, which I do purely out of some frustration, and it does not relate to Miss_Millie or Meleeka's posts, but the assertions about hunts and killing wildlife (which may be justified on occasion) never seem to relate too to people's pets also killing wildlife - particularly cats. The RSPB has done loads of studies about this and people choose to have cats and are responsible for them - they are predators the same as dogs, yet they are allowed, mostly, to do what they like, with that also, presumably, being seen as the collateral damage of having a pet cat and that 'accidents' happen/it is in the cat's nature etc etc. It seems entirely acceptable for people to post and report on the birds and small mammals that their cat has dragged in but that wouldn't be/isn't acceptable when it is a dog (not referring to hounds or hunting here so please feel free to say that this is off-topic) Perhaps this would be better as a separate thread possibly but why is this so? I find it genuinely boggling that so many people who want to see the end of legal trail hunting and all hunting, shooting etc also have cats. Please explain this. I don't have a cat though I do really like them.

 

[Miss_Millie]

As my mum always says “Two wrongs don’t make a right”. Your defence on pretty much all points is that sabs are worse. If there was a sab on here defending the actions of their group, I’m pretty sure we’d all jump on that, probably more so. When there’s so many incidences of hunts behaving badly, you really can’t keep making the same point, in the hope that people will sympathise.

Exactly. And sabs wouldn't need to do what they do if hunts stopped hunting foxes. Banned in 2004 (a very long time ago!!) and yet, photos emerged on boxing day of foxes being chased. If there are hunts that are actually trail hunting legally, the many who continue to break the law are not doing the image of hunting any favours!

 

[palo1]

As my mum always says “Two wrongs don’t make a right”. Your defence on pretty much all points is that sabs are worse. If there was a sab on here defending the actions of their group, I’m pretty sure we’d all jump on that, probably more so. When there’s so many incidences of hunts behaving badly, you really can’t keep making the same point, in the hope that people will sympathise.

Two wrongs don't make a right - you are quite correct. I only keep making the 'same' points because that is my experience and I support trail hunting; it would be daft if I didn't keep responding and engaging in a discussion about something I am passionate about. I think the discussion here has actually covered quite a lot of ground but there are sort of fundamental arguments underlying both sides of the debate and that is why certain points of view keep being repeated. Also, sadly, there is what seems to be an unbridgeable divide between pro and anti-hunting people in spite of many common interests (wildlife, conservation, rural issues) and polarised debate does seem to get 'stuck' in that kind of cycle. It is the reason that previously I have just withdrawn from the discussion as I agree that constant re-hashing of things doesn't achieve much. I really can't agree however, that my defence on pretty much all points is that sabs are worse; there are so many other things that I have actually discussed but it would be silly if I didn't try to balance the assertion that hunts are criminal, irritating, anti-social, trespassing, arrogant etc with the facts that sabs can be seen to be equally so.

 

[Miss_Millie]

I am slightly reluctant to write this, which I do purely out of some frustration, and it does not relate to Miss_Millie or Meleeka's posts, but the assertions about hunts and killing wildlife (which may be justified on occasion) never seem to relate too to people's pets also killing wildlife - particularly cats. The RSPB has done loads of studies about this and people choose to have cats and are responsible for them - they are predators the same as dogs, yet they are allowed, mostly, to do what they like, with that also, presumably, being seen as the collateral damage of having a pet cat and that 'accidents' happen/it is in the cat's nature etc etc. It seems entirely acceptable for people to post and report on the birds and small mammals that their cat has dragged in but that wouldn't be/isn't acceptable when it is a dog (not referring to hounds or hunting here so please feel free to say that this is off-topic) Perhaps this would be better as a separate thread possibly but why is this so? I find it genuinely boggling that so many people who want to see the end of legal trail hunting and all hunting, shooting etc also have cats. Please explain this. I don't have a cat though I do really like them.

So...you're comparing an obligate carnivore, killing mice, birds etc, to a PACK OF DOGS, bred by humans to have a bloodlust for anything small that moves, terrorizing and killing someone's pet on their own property?! I genuinely don't know how you can compare the two.

My cat occassionally will kill mice. He always eats them. That is nature. Cats have been domesticated for thousands of years, all the way back to Egyptian times. Most cat owners will take precautions to prevent their cat from killing wildlife - bells on collars etc. Sometimes it happens - they are obligate carnivores and natural preditors.

Let's go back to the case of Spider the cat - owner sees hounds tearing towards her property. She is terrified and quickly tries to get her cats to high ground. Spider is scared and runs under her car. The dogs drag her cat out and kill it in front of her eyes. Her pet (which is also her property) killed on her land, right in front of her. Because of dogs that are bred for a 'sport' are out of control.

Totally different, not even slightly comparable. Once again, if a person had walked onto her property and killed her cat with their bare hands, they would be imprisoned.

 

[palo1]

As my mum always says “Two wrongs don’t make a right”. Your defence on pretty much all points is that sabs are worse. If there was a sab on here defending the actions of their group, I’m pretty sure we’d all jump on that, probably more so. When there’s so many incidences of hunts behaving badly, you really can’t keep making the same point, in the hope that people will sympathise.

Interesting that this comment has been pretty much ignored. This sums it up for me.

I often wonder why things I write are ignored too tbh; I assume that either other posters can't be bothered to reply/respond or that they can't respond or even that they might be thinking about what has been written and are uncertain of how to respond.

 

[BeckyFlowers]

I often wonder why things I write are ignored too tbh; I assume that either other posters can't be bothered to reply/respond or that they can't respond or even that they might be thinking about what has been written and are uncertain of how to respond.

What have you written that you think has been ignored?

 

[palo1]

So...you're comparing an obligate carnivore, killing mice, birds etc, to a PACK OF DOGS, bred by humans to have a bloodlust for anything small that moves, terrorizing and killing someone's pet on their own property?! I genuinely don't know how you can compare the two.

My cat occassionally will kill mice. He always eats them. That is nature. Cats have been domesticated for thousands of years, all the way back to Egyptian times. Most cat owners will take precautions to prevent their cat from killing wildlife - bells on collars etc. Sometimes it happens - they are obligate carnivores and natural preditors.

Let's go back to the case of Spider the cat - owner sees hounds tearing towards her property. She is terrified and quickly tries to get her cats to high ground. Spider is scared and runs under her car. The dogs drag her cat out and kill it in front of her eyes. Her pet (which is also her property) killed on her land, right in front of her. Because of dogs that are bred for a 'sport' are out of control.

Totally different, not even slightly comparable. Once again, if a person had walked onto her property and killed her cat with their bare hands, they would be imprisoned.

Oh dear. I really think you have got this completely wrong (apart from the point about a person killing someone's cat!). This seems like incredibly muddled and contradictory thinking to me so I hope someone else can respond too.

 

[palo1]

What have you written that you think has been ignored?

I guess in the last couple of pages (!!) posts #634, 651, 654 and 661 which all bring slightly different things in to the discussion. I don't especially mind - I am not asking people to respond to everything anyone posts of course but it is interesting to think about why something doesn't get a response.

 

[BeckyFlowers]

I replied to your post 634, and there's many posts from others condemning much of the sab's behaviour.

 

[BeckyFlowers]

Post 651 started as "slightly off topic", which may be why it didn't get directly replied to, but post 653 seemed to be addressing your post 651, although it wasn't quoted.

 

[BeckyFlowers]

Post 654 is talking about shooting and fishing, where this thread is about hunting - I'm not saying the three things are not somewhat interlinked, but that may be why you perceive this post as being ignored.

 

[Miss_Millie]

Oh dear. I really think you have got this completely wrong (apart from the point about a person killing someone's cat!). This seems like incredibly muddled and contradictory thinking to me so I hope someone else can respond too.

What is contradictory?

 

[BeckyFlowers]

Post 661 (assuming you are referring to your post that was quoted?) was also quoted in post 664.

Re trail hunting through a nature reserve, I guess if you have permission then there's not much of an issue.

Sorry you feel you're being ignored, but I can't see much evidence of it from the posts you referred to.

 

[palo1]

Post 661 (assuming you are referring to your post that was quoted?) was also quoted in post 664.

Re trail hunting through a nature reserve, I guess if you have permission then there's not much of an issue.

Sorry you feel you're being ignored, but I can't see much evidence of it from the posts you referred to.

I am not worried at all about some posts not getting a direct response - I was just reflecting on Meleeka's post where clearly no response made her assume something and I was responding to that.

 

[BeckyFlowers]

I am not worried at all about some posts not getting a direct response - I was just reflecting on Meleeka's post where clearly no response made her assume something and I was responding to that.

I'm really glad that you're participating on this thread Palo1, it's refreshing to have a civilised debate with people on both sides of the fence. I hope you don't feel ignored and then stop replying ??

 

[ycbm]

I find it genuinely boggling that so many people who want to see the end of legal trail hunting and all hunting, shooting etc also have cats. Please explain this. I don't have a cat though I do really like them.

I don't want to see the end of trail hunting if laid with a thick enough scent with obedient hounds following. I'm bemused that trail hunters can't see that they are likely to lose their sport altogether unless they completely disavow repealing the law and also distance themselves from all other blood sports. Nobody is going to trust hunts not to hunt fox until they state that they do not want the law repealed.

As a cat owner, I will answer, though. It is not my intention that my cats chase anything. I do not train them to chase anything. I do not take them out of my local area to set them chasing anything. I do not keep them for the pleasure that I see in them chasing anything except a laser dot inside a house.

It's a question of intent.

Having said that I've drag hunted often in semi urban areas and as far as I know nothing has ever been worried or killed except one lamb, and the short term let tenant farmer knew the hunt was coming through. He was compensated for the value of the lamb.
.

 

[Miss_Millie]

As a cat owner, I will answer, though. It is not my intention that my cats chase anything. I do not train them to chase anything. I do not take them out of my local area to set them chasing anything. I do not keep them for the pleasure that I see in them chasing anything except a laser dot inside a house.

It's a question of intent.

.

This is spot on. And I remember someone saying a while back on the thread, that if hunting were to completely disappear, the hunting dogs would be euthanized en masse. This is because these dogs are born and bred to kill and have blood-lust for other animals. This is their only 'use'.

This is why, I feel, hunting is a danger to the safety of local people and their pets. No-one should have to feel unsafe on their own property, or worried for the lives of their pets. The most recent incident, being the alpaca breeder who's animals were attacked on her private property.

I will say it again, there is not other sport/outdoor activity I can think of, that callously puts the lives of pets and livestock at risk, as hunting does.

 

[Clodagh]

I hunted for years, BITD, and hounds are not driven by blood lust and liable to rip children to shreds on a whim.
Not defending any of the pet attacks or riot but when you think how many hounds are out and about daily with how many hunts if they were out of control killers there would be a lot more incidences.
I’m not knocking the upset when it happens at all, hounds should be on a one strike and you are out rule for any dangerous behaviour.