Hunting is in a spot of bother

[Sandstone1]

@Sandstone1 - I have never expressed support for illegal hunting and this thread has been about trail hunting. We have almost entirely opposing views on this; you believe that almost all trailhunting is fox-hunting; I believe that this is not so. YI understand your anger - I too have felt absolutely misrepresented on this thread. I was careful not to identify the posters on the quotes I pulled up because I didn't feel it necessary to single out individuals but you have responded to my post directly. I don't know you at all in person (as far as I know!) but the language you have used about hunting (trail hunting and illegal hunting) is absolutely idiomatic of the language of more extreme antis/sabs. That is the reason I have interpreted your posts as such and responded to @ycbm's query as to whether I felt any posts on this thread might come from that direction. I have never called anyone posting here, directly or personally 'a sab' in fact. Throughout the discussion you just haven't engaged in any of the issues other than to regularly re-iterate that hunting is all about 'the thrill of killing' etc etc. That doesn't to me suggest a particularly informed or balanced view of trail hunting or in fact, pre-ban fox hunting but thankfully we live in a free country where we can all express our opinion...

I am not deluded about the Hunting Act nor do I find it difficult to 'grasp' the arguments involved in the discussion on this thread or about hunting matters more widely. I am certainly not purely informed by those that support hunting - I am aware of many of the contradictions and different approaches to the subject. It is something I am really interested in for a number of reasons.

I give up, You clearly do find it difficult to grasp. I think you will find this thread is about illegal fox hunting in the guise of trail hunting, Did you watch the webinars? I have as I have said before been hunting pre ban. That experience did show me that hunting is not for me and yes, it did prove to me that a lot of people do go for the kill
Yes we can all express a opinion .... Something you need to remember I feel.
You pretty much have called me a sab in your reply. You can be anti illegal hunting without being a sab!
I am anti hunting and not ashamed to be.
I am leaving this thread because we will not agree and its going round in circles, making me stressed and angry too!and yes when I say I am leaving the thread I really am unlike some.....

 

[Tiddlypom]

There are certainly opinions expressed on here that suggest that the only reason anyone would want to trail hunt is to break the law and because they are full of 'bloodlust' - whatever that is!!

Can you find any posts on here that suggest that?

Still waiting...

Palo, is someone pulling your strings behind the scenes? It can hardly be a shock that many people find bloodsports (NOT legal trail hunting) to be abhorrent. That does not mean that they go out and sab hunts. Sandstone was clearly referring to illegal fox hunting, not trail hunting (and I do not know Sandstone off HHO either).

You keep interchanging trail hunting/fox hunting as if they are the same. Which is interesting, as that brings us full circle, doesn’t it - fox hunting going on under the guise of trail hunting, with the Hunting Office webinars advising on how to create smokescreens and doubt to facilitate that.

 

[palo1]

Still waiting...

Palo, is someone pulling your strings behind the scenes? It can hardly be a shock that many people find bloodsports (NOT legal trail hunting) to be abhorrent. That does not mean that they go out and sab hunts. Sandstone was clearly referring to illegal fox hunting, not trail hunting (and I do not know Sandstone off HHO either).

You keep interchanging trail hunting/fox hunting as if they are the same. Which is interesting, as that brings us full circle, doesn’t it - fox hunting going on under the guise of trail hunting, with the Hunting Office webinars advising on how to create smokescreens and doubt to facilitate that.

Umm, I don't keep interchanging trail hunting and fox hunting; you and some others have done that but I think I have been pretty clear in most of my posts that I am either talking specifically about Trail hunting or pre-ban fox hunting which was the activity that preceded it. One of the issues I have tried to clarify is exactly where some posters have lumped the two together! I completely understand about people finding bloodsports abhorrent and I understand about the tension between trail hunting and illegal fox hunting too; both of which attract sabs. I haven't discussed the webinars at all...

Like Sandstone1 I think this probably is a good time to leave the thread - it is not a discussion involving a large number of posters and positions are pretty polarised as usual. There isn't likely to be any resolution or change in those positions either so it is pretty pointless to continue I think.

 

[Miss_Millie]

Having a little chuckle at being called an extremist/sab/ill-informed all at once!

 

[Clodagh]

Now this will be unpopular, but it has really made me laugh.

An attempt to ‘ban trail hunting’ on land owned by Bolsover District Council has ground to a halt, after it was confirmed at a full meeting of the council that they had no land in which hunts could use, even if they had wanted to.

You really do think that people need to use their grey matter sometimes?

 

[Tiddlypom]

Following on from the infamous webinars:-

Hunting webinar: Man from Sherborne charged https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-56048669

Mark Hankinson (MFHA Director) of Sherborne, Dorset, is accused of intentionally encouraging or assisting others to commit an offence under the Hunting Act 2004.

 

[Tiddlypom]

Interesting choice of guest commentator today on the This is Hunting UK FB page. (TiHUK seems to set out to be the ‘acceptable’ face of hunting, with lots of cute pictures of hounds.)

The guest was other than the Head of Hunting at the Countryside Alliance, who hunts with the infamous Kimblewick Hunt ?. No mention of anything of substance, let alone the major revelation from the previous day that the Director of the MFHA has been charged with ‘intentionally encouraging or assisting others to commit an offence under the Hunting Act 2004.’

The only comment so far, a mildly critical but fair one, was rapidly pulled, I see. Here’s a screenshot of it. Wonder why it was pulled.


Pro hunt planning on hunkering down and fronting it out? Pretend that it’s not happening?

 

[Koweyka]

Come on now, you know you can only post scenic photos of hounds on that page, even a raised eyebrow emoji is classed as serious abuse .....

 

[Tiddlypom]

A mention in the current H&H mag re the charge faced by Mark Hankinson.


Plus more about it on line in the News section, but it is behind a paywall on H&H Plus. This is the bit I can see.



ETA There is more, mostly summed up as:-

Lord Mancroft said the charge is part of a “political attack on us by the anti-hunting movement”.

He said: “We all need to be clear that this prosecution will fail because Mark has done nothing wrong, and that this is part of a political attack on us by the anti-hunting movement.

 

[ycbm]

A political attack?

He's been charged by the Devon and Cornwall police after a CPS assessment that there is either a greater than 50% chance of conviction or that this is in the public interest, or (likely imo) both.

When are the heads of hunting going to wake up to the fact that it is this kind of denial that is currently doing them the greatest damage and causing the highest risk to the continuation of ANY trail hunting, legal or otherwise?

 

[Wishfilly]

I agree it's pretty unlikely the prosecution would go ahead if the CPS thought it would fail.

I also agree those sorts of statements make the speaker sound out of touch. I think most people who are aware of the webinars who aren't associated with hunting were quite shocked that people were essentially openly discussing breaking the law.

I think a lot of people feel that it's one rule for "the rich" (I accept not all those who hunt are especially wealthy) and another for the rest of us at the moment, so the idea of hunts getting away with breaking the law is quite unpopular.

 

[Koweyka]

For the CPS to charge someone, the likelihood of prosecution has to be 80% plus, so this political witch hunt from the anti’s statement is ridiculous.

The most surprising aspect of this is that more people weren’t charged, it was as clear as day what they were alluding to.

 

[Wishfilly]

I wonder if there are more prosecutions to come as lots of police forces may be involved? But equally, some of the speakers were ex-police/ex-crime commissioners, which shouldn't make a difference but probably will.

 

[Koweyka]

Devon and Cornwall police wrote to the Hunting Office several years ago, raising concerns about the increasing amount of footage showing foxes being killed and also reminded them of the hunting law.....so when you have ex copper Phil Davies stating “I hope no police officers are watching” it’s not only two fingers up at the public, it was two fingers up at the police and CPS.

 

[Steerpike]

It just seems a certain group in the hunting community think they are beyond law and will carry on regardless, by now surely they should know they need to be and look squeaky clean to the general public otherwise it will be another nail in the coffin for hunting.

 

[Apizz2019]

This is such an emotive subject with so many views, none right and none wrong - each and every one has a valid point and argument to make.

Hunting is steeped in tradition and has been the way of living for many, for many years.
Yes, there have been many hunts who have carried on regardless since the ban. I attended one myself in 2010 and I'll admit, I was a little horrified that it became blatantly obvious very quickly what we were doing and what the outcome would possibly be.

There are on the other hand many others who have abided by the law and adapted meets to ensure they don't fall foul of the law.

Hunts provide a valuable service to fallen livestock and most hunting families I know are genuinely the nicest people you will ever meet.

But the ban is here and has been for many years and nobody is above the law. The law on this was passed many years ago and my view is, whether pro or anti (I'm a fence sitter), the law must be adhered to. No ifs or buts.

Someone mentioned earlier (can't remember who) that bird shooting needs to be banned - I don't agree with shooting a bird and then it's neck being broken by the retrieving dog.
I'm not sure how correct that is though, I could be wrong, but my understanding with retrieving dogs is that they don't break the skin of the birds so I'm not sure how they break their necks without doing so. Don't shoot me down, as I've already said I don't know, so am just stating my understanding.

Many of these 'sports' are with conservation in mind, for example Grouse shooting is manged carefully to preserve the peat moors.

That doesn't make it any more palatable to some of us.

I have a close friend who is a sab monitor and from what he's told me, I don't think some of the sabs even know what they're doing at meets.
There does seem to be an element of organised thuggery with some of the anti groups, which detracts and devalues their argument, but equally there has been thuggery on the part of hunts that hasn't shone them in the best light.

I think, sadly, from what has surfaced here, even hunts abiding by the law will soon find themselves facing the end of life as they know it.

 

[Koweyka]

The hunts that possibly were abiding by the law knew exactly what some of the more notorious hunts were getting up to, that makes them complicit, they could have spoken out but they didn’t, equally the field could voice their disapproval but they don’t, even seeing the disembowelled fox bodies doesn’t make them grow a conscious and they still go out week in week out.

 

[ycbm]

Someone mentioned earlier (can't remember who) that bird shooting needs to be banned - I don't agree with shooting a bird and then it's neck being broken by the retrieving dog.
I'm not sure how correct that is though, I could be wrong, but my understanding with retrieving dogs is that they don't break the skin of the birds so I'm not sure how they break their necks without doing so. Don't shoot me down, as I've already said I don't know, so am just stating my understanding.

That was me but that's not what I wrote. The dog retrieves the bird so a human can wring the bird's neck. It would actually be more humane if the dog could do it instead of picking it up and carrying it to a human.

 

[Tiddlypom]

From post #850, posted a month ago.

‘I certainly think that improved governance and discipline are in the pipeline - there is a great deal of anger about the disrepute some hunts are bringing the whole of hunting into. There are definately changes afoot in the 'management' of hunting and hopefully these will be clarified soon.’

I don’t know what changes may have been afoot in the management of hunting, but the old guard are evidently still at the helm, and the rhetoric is unchanged.

Lord Mancroft said the charge (Mark Hankinson) is part of a “political attack on us by the anti-hunting movement”.

 

[Apizz2019]

That was me but that's not what I wrote. The dog retrieves the bird so a human can wring the bird's neck. It would actually be more humane if the dog could do it instead of picking it up and carrying it to a human.

Ahh sorry, my fault. Brutal either way, pity a clean shot can't be guaranteed but I know that's almost impossible.

 

[rextherobber]

Ahh sorry, my fault. Brutal either way, pity a clean shot can't be guaranteed but I know that's almost impossible.

Shot isn't like a bullet, it's like little ballbearings, it is pure luck where/if the bird gets hit and in the majority of cases, it won't be instantaneous death. Also wondering about "sab monitors", not a term I've heard before - do we have hunt monitors monitoring the hunts, and sab monitors monitoring the sabs? It's positively bristling with people, by the sound of it, before you even count the field...No wonder I can't get my bloody car through them all to get to work!

 

[Apizz2019]

Shot isn't like a bullet, it's like little ballbearings, it is pure luck where/if the bird gets hit and in the majority of cases, it won't be instantaneous death. Also wondering about "sab monitors", not a term I've heard before - do we have hunt monitors monitoring the hunts, and sab monitors monitoring the sabs? It's positively bristling with people, by the sound of it, before you even count the field...No wonder I can't get my bloody car through them all to get to work!

I didn't realise they used ballbearings! ?

I believe it's something most hunts have though might be known by a different moniker. I've never paid much attention to it if I'm honest, as you can guess by my uneducated response. My attention to detail isn't something to noteworthy ?

 

[Wishfilly]

This is such an emotive subject with so many views, none right and none wrong - each and every one has a valid point and argument to make.

Sorry, but I don't think when people are condoning breaking the law you can say there are "no wrong views" on a subject.

The behaviour of sabs does not justify the illegal activities of hunts, but it's fairly clear that if illegal hunting stops, the sabs tend to drift away.

Monitors are a separate type of person- they tend to obey the law and focus on recording the activities of the hunt, usually with the aim of securing prosecution. Obviously many hunts dislike this, and/or are wary, so there can still be altercations between monitors and hunts.

And of course, the line does get blurred between who is a sab and who is a monitor, and some sabs may be monitors instead on some occasions. But there is generally a clear distinction in aims. The monitors are aiming for prosecution, whereas the sabs are aiming to stop the hunt from killing foxes through more immediate means. And most people involved in such activities will identify themselves as one or the other.

 

[paddy555]

It's positively bristling with people, by the sound of it, before you even count the field...No wonder I can't get my bloody car through them all to get to work!

you made me laugh!

 

[Caol Ila]

Many of these 'sports' are with conservation in mind, for example Grouse shooting is manged carefully to preserve the peat moors.

LOL. Swap the sentence around and you've got it right. The peat moors are managed carefully to preserve grouse shooting.

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled thread.

 

[Apizz2019]

Sorry, but I don't think when people are condoning breaking the law you can say there are "no wrong views" on a subject.

The behaviour of sabs does not justify the illegal activities of hunts, but it's fairly clear that if illegal hunting stops, the sabs tend to drift away.

Monitors are a separate type of person- they tend to obey the law and focus on recording the activities of the hunt, usually with the aim of securing prosecution. Obviously many hunts dislike this, and/or are wary, so there can still be altercations between monitors and hunts.

And of course, the line does get blurred between who is a sab and who is a monitor, and some sabs may be monitors instead on some occasions. But there is generally a clear distinction in aims. The monitors are aiming for prosecution, whereas the sabs are aiming to stop the hunt from killing foxes through more immediate means. And most people involved in such activities will identify themselves as one or the other.

I meant views on hunting, not condoning breaking the law. I'm on the fence, neither pro or anti, but don't condone breaking the law in any way, shape or form.

From my understanding the sab monitors are with the hunt, making sure the sabs don't cross the line and the sabs aim is to stop the hunt killing foxes.

 

[Tiddlypom]

There isn’t such a thing as a sab monitor. There are anti hunt sabs, and also anti hunt monitors. They are two different groups. Sabs actively disrupt a hunt, whilst monitors just film and observe it.

Some pro hunt types, particularly those associated with naughty hunts, like to lump the two groups, who operate differently, into one catch-all term - the ‘sab monitor’.

ETA Pro hunt did employ some security heavies round here, but there were problems with their lack of correct licensing and tbh they didn’t seem to be much use. They had no more power than any other member of the public.

 

[Apizz2019]

There isn’t such a thing as a sab monitor. There are anti hunt sabs, and also anti hunt monitors. They are two different groups. Sabs actively disrupt a hunt, whilst monitors just film and observe it.

Some pro hunt types, particularly those associated with naughty hunts, like to lump the two groups, who operate differently, into one catch-all term - the ‘sab monitor’.

Like I said previously, monikers given may be different but the gentleman I know accompanies the hunt and is known as the sab monitor. He watches what the sabs are doing and monitors activity, wrong doing etc.

I'm quite sure it's not an official job title as he's a volunteer but he's called and known as the sab monitor.

 

[Tiddlypom]

If he wants to be called the sab monitor, that’s fine, but it is also a commonly used derogatory term by pro hunt referring to antis.

 

[Apizz2019]

Gosh, so confusing isn't it! ?