Hunting is in a spot of bother

[ycbm]

This incident is grim and should never have happened. In the interest of balance though, dog attacks on cats, other dogs, sheep and horses are happening increasingly regularly. It is NOT just hunts that are unable to effectively 'manage' their animals though it is definately something that needs addressing. As is the number of cats which predate on songbirds. It isn't acceptable; dogs and hounds should be controlled or removed from those who can't control them. Cats should be contained enough or have some form of mitigation against the kind of killing of songbirds that is rarely even acknowledged.

What has any of that argument actually got to do with the disgusting spectacle of an organised hunt with paid employees and subscribers who finance them having out of control dogs in a public space, killing someone's pet and then rushing to chuck the warm carcass out of view over a fence to hide what happened?

This attempt to "balance" people's view of hunting actually reinforces the view that hunting folk don't care what problems they cause as long as their sport can can continue.
.

 

[alibali]

Not to defend him at all, but I'm not sure a crime has been committed as such? My understanding that a dog under your control killing a cat is unfortunately not a crime in UK law. If people felt threatened by the hounds then it might come under the dangerous dogs act? Although the police are apparently investigating something so if there is a crime, I agree he will find it hard to dodge.

For the avoidance of any doubt having a dog dangerously out of control in a public place is an offence. This includes allowing your dog to attack another animal not just a human. Think it's very important to ensure dog owners everywhere, including hunts and pet owners realise they are legally responsible for their dogs actions.

https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public#:~:text=It's against the law to,in the owner's home

 

[palo1]

Everyone knows that it is not just hunts. However, a certain level of professionalism is expected from hunts. As I mentioned previously, you don't just toss the cat over the fence. Clearly fox hunting already has "image problems" and this did not help with the matter.

As for cats and songbirds...Do you have proof that this significantly damages and impacts the song bird population? I'm not sure about this, and I keep my cat indoors anyway. But if it is a significant issue, then I can understand, but I'm just ignorant on the matter. Is there also an argument about cats and the local rodent population?

Idk, I'm still struggling to see what purpose fox hunting in this style serves nowadays...aside from fun and tradition. Which is fine, if it weren't for the damages and behaviors that seem to be more than "one offs"

Yes, sadly cats (and uncontrolled dogs) are a real problem and threat to wildlife (rats and mice are not threatened by cats as they are so numerous) but other small animals and especially birds are. This is what the organisation Songbird Survival and others have to say on that: Domestic and feral cats | Research (songbird-survival.org.uk)

Cats killing huge numbers of British birds, Sir David Attenborough warns | Birds | The Guardian

Domestic Cats (Felis catus) and European Nature Conservation Law—Applying the EU Birds and Habitats Directives to a Significant but Neglected Threat to Wildlife | Journal of Environmental Law | Oxford Academic (oup.com)

The RSPB contest some of these figures - which is interesting. It may be because something like 80% of the members of the RSPB own cats (I think that was the information a local wildlife trust officer gave me fairly recently). I accept that this is a bit 'off topic' and I know that some posters will howl that I am relating hounds killing a pet cat (which is undoubtedly appalling from every angle) to this subject but the fact is that animal owners in the UK contribute to other animal deaths through their action/inaction etc all the time. It does not excuse this incident or other incidents of dogs out of control in other situations in any way but it is part of the pattern that we have here in the UK of a complete imbalance in the way that domestic and wild animals are managed and or safeguarded in my opinion.

In relation to trail hunting - one of the benefits of trail hunting is that the presence of hounds in the countryside disturbs and disrupts foxes in a sustainable way that the existing ecosystem more widely can cope with naturally. More vulnerable wildlife can cope better with this kind of disruption than the very 'hands on' management of other ways potentially. There is so much evidence that trophic cascades are healthy and beneficial but the only way we could achieve a true trophic cascade here in the UK is through the continued presence of packs of hounds in the countryside. Wolves a la Yellowstone park are not realistic and the limited impact of say, Lynx would be pretty small. We really need to learn from what others have found about ecosystems even if that conflicts with what we want to see here and I do understand how very contested all this is. It is just my opinion and understanding.

 

[Wishfilly]

For the avoidance of any doubt having a dog dangerously out of control in a public place is an offence. This includes allowing your dog to attack another animal not just a human. Think it's very important to ensure dog owners everywhere, including hunts and pet owners realise they are legally responsible for their dogs actions.

https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public#:~:text=It's against the law to,in the owner's home

What about a load of dogs running onto an A road and posing a risk to human life?

Yes, sadly cats (and uncontrolled dogs) are a real problem and threat to wildlife (rats and mice are not threatened by cats as they are so numerous) but other small animals and especially birds are. This is what the organisation Songbird Survival and others have to say on that: Domestic and feral cats | Research (songbird-survival.org.uk)

Cats killing huge numbers of British birds, Sir David Attenborough warns | Birds | The Guardian

Domestic Cats (Felis catus) and European Nature Conservation Law—Applying the EU Birds and Habitats Directives to a Significant but Neglected Threat to Wildlife | Journal of Environmental Law | Oxford Academic (oup.com)

The RSPB contest some of these figures - which is interesting. It may be because something like 80% of the members of the RSPB own cats (I think that was the information a local wildlife trust officer gave me fairly recently). I accept that this is a bit 'off topic' and I know that some posters will howl that I am relating hounds killing a pet cat (which is undoubtedly appalling from every angle) to this subject but the fact is that animal owners in the UK contribute to other animal deaths through their action/inaction etc all the time. It does not excuse this incident or other incidents of dogs out of control in other situations in any way but it is part of the pattern that we have here in the UK of a complete imbalance in the way that domestic and wild animals are managed and or safeguarded in my opinion.

In relation to trail hunting - one of the benefits of trail hunting is that the presence of hounds in the countryside disturbs and disrupts foxes in a sustainable way that the existing ecosystem more widely can cope with naturally. More vulnerable wildlife can cope better with this kind of disruption than the very 'hands on' management of other ways potentially. There is so much evidence that trophic cascades are healthy and beneficial but the only way we could achieve a true trophic cascade here in the UK is through the continued presence of packs of hounds in the countryside. Wolves a la Yellowstone park are not realistic and the limited impact of say, Lynx would be pretty small. We really need to learn from what others have found about ecosystems even if that conflicts with what we want to see here and I do understand how very contested all this is. It is just my opinion and understanding.

FWIW I agree that cats left to roam free are a menace to wildlife.

However, I don't think it's hugely relevant to this thread. I live near where the western hunt operate, and their lack of control over their hounds is a real cause for concern to me.

For balance, I used to live in a different part of Cornwall, and the local hunt (East Cornwall) to that area never caused issues of this kind. They also, AFIAK hunt within the law, whereas the Western hunt don't (according to rumour). I have a few friends who have hunted/hunt with the East Cornwall, and one of them actually said to me they feel the Western are giving all hunts in the county a bad name. They'd never say this publicly, though.

I think possibly, instead of defending all hunts, those who want hunting to continue in its current form, hunts need to start policing their own.

 

[alibali]

[QUOTE="Wishfilly, post: 14564543, member: 125094"]What about a load of dogs running onto an A road and posing a risk to human life? QUOTE]

Not sure if you're being rhetorical?

FWIW the examples on the government website I posted a link to are unlikely to be exhaustive so other circumstances might be considered an infringement of the law.

At the end of the day it would be for a court to determine whether particular circumstances constituted an offence. I could see in some circumstances there might be sufficient for the Crown to pursue a case for example hounds allowed to run riot with no control on a national speed limit road where the topography would not allow drivers sufficient time to take evasive action and in other circumstances for example a well marshalled group of hounds crossing at a safe place but not on a leash might be unlikely to constitute an offence. Where on that spectrum each set of circumstances would sit would need to be tested in court.

So in short the answer to your question is well above my pay grade ? Nonetheless the owners of the dog are legally responsible for their dogs actions in both sets of circumstances which was the point I was originally trying to make. Too many people fail to take responsibility for their dogs behaviour.

Edited coz the quote went wonky!

 

[Wishfilly]

[QUOTE="Wishfilly, post: 14564543, member: 125094"]What about a load of dogs running onto an A road and posing a risk to human life? QUOTE]

Not sure if you're being rhetorical?

FWIW the examples on the government website I posted a link to are unlikely to be exhaustive so other circumstances might be considered an infringement of the law.

At the end of the day it would be for a court to determine whether particular circumstances constituted an offence. I could see in some circumstances there might be sufficient for the Crown to pursue a case for example hounds allowed to run riot with no control on a national speed limit road where the topography would not allow drivers sufficient time to take evasive action and in other circumstances for example a well marshalled group of hounds crossing at a safe place but not on a leash might be unlikely to constitute an offence. Where on that spectrum each set of circumstances would sit would need to be tested in court.

So in short the answer to your question is well above my pay grade ? Nonetheless the owners of the dog are legally responsible for their dogs actions in both sets of circumstances which was the point I was originally trying to make. Too many people fail to take responsibility for their dogs behaviour.

Edited coz the quote went wonky!

No it was a serious question. The Western hunt have form for their hounds getting loose onto the A30 (and other A roads)- out of control, not under control, but if anyone knows the A30, they will know it's not a sensible road to be taking horses or hounds on. They're not crossing the road- the hounds are out of control. In one case this autumn the hounds came very close to causing a serious accident. I saw footage on facebook, which if I find again I'll share on the thread.

It is a genuine concern that one day these hounds will cause an accident, and I am genuinely interested to know if something could be done to prevent it from getting to that stage.

 

[Tiddlypom]

The Director of the Master of Foxhounds Association, Mark Hankinson, has entered a Not Guilty plea at magistrates‘ court. He now faces trial in September.

He and the hunting fraternity will be sweating over it all summer, then.

 

[palo1]

And the Hunting Leaks twitter account has been suspended. First account was suspended so the doxxers opened a new one which has also been suspended. Baily's Hunting Directory fb page says ''Update: Following our conversation with the Twitter legal team the offending account has been suspended. We thank Twitter for its prompt response.''

Sabinder's Sab News puts it succinctly 'Doxing isn't free speech. It's an abuse of it.''

 

[Tiddlypom]

Please remind me what doxxing is?

The Hunting Leaks website is still up.

 

[shortstuff99]

Please remind me what doxxing is?

The Hunting Leaks website is still up.

Where you 'out' someones real name/address/contact details etc online.

 

[palo1]

From Merriam Webster: ''To 'dox' someone is to publicly identify or publish private information about that person—especially as a way of getting revenge. To 'swat' someone is to falsely report a dangerous situation that provokes a police response. Both acts are malicious and harmful.''

 

[palo1]

News today: West Grinstead huntsman cleared of illegal fox hunting - BBC News

Maybe not quite a case of Sab 'swatting' but of that ilk...

 

[Koweyka]

“Crawley & Horsham huntsman, William Bishop, was acquitted of two Hunting Act charges at the court. The first count was thrown out when the bungling CPS failed to send video footage to the defence; the second failed when the judge couldn’t understand why other hunters weren’t in the dock! An acquittal of any kind is a rarity for the Crawley & Horsham: they are Britain’s most convicted hunt, with a host of Hunting Act and public order offences to their name”

 

[Koweyka]

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/...KgxFKnq9cU8ssCc09BgqtREq9Tl0gIKOUtZQlK7CZ3C3A

 

[Koweyka]

There will be plenty more hunts in the dock and rightly so, the hunting act needs strengthening so the loopholes that are present at the moment are closed. The webinars blew open the trail hunting myth. The days of fox hunting are numbered.

 

[palo1]

There will be plenty more hunts in the dock and rightly so, the hunting act needs strengthening so the loopholes that are present at the moment are closed. The webinars blew open the trail hunting myth. The days of fox hunting are numbered.

Well the CPS and the Judge would contradict you on the case of William Bishop where it was accepted that trails had been laid and that there was no case to answer.

https://www.countryside-alliance.or...liOhe0bX8mhvmSf8yzbPQzCfq01kbrClzD1JbHyiTvBRc ''Despite hunt saboteurs’ assertions that they saw no trails being laid, numerous trails were pre-laid on both dates in the areas visited by the hunt. Evidence of this was supplied to the police prior to charge, and it was accepted by the CPS at trial that trails had indeed been laid. '' (ergo that trail hunting was in fact being carried out at the time).

Clearly this is from the CA who will support trail hunting activities and I am sure that you may feel that this is biased in some way but certainly no more biased than other media coverage. The 'evidence' provided by sabs and their determination to make a case where there isn't always one is highly questionable as well as wasting police and CPS time. There is no other situation in the UK where well funded vigilantes get to play games with the law. Thank goodness for that really too...

 

[Koweyka]

Well given the webinars provide a manual on how to circumvent the law.... ie get one in the can ie film a trail so you can use it to cast enough doubt that a trail was laid ....SMOKESCREEN.

Hopefully when Hankinson is found guilty the hunts won’t be able to rely on that particular defence, without cast iron proof as in time stamped and gps located films ....

I also can’t think of any other incidences of people who set out to deliberately break the law have managed to secure COVID grants from councils ....thank goodness for that too.

To get a hunting case in court the success benchmark is set incredibly high, it isn’t the sabs that tell the police or CPS to take the case to court, that decision is made by the CPS alone, the police know the act is useless and doesn’t protect foxes and want to add several additions, however that is down to the MP’s and until we get a government that actually cares about wildlife that isn’t going to happen. But until it does as much as you will find it distasteful judging from the comments you have made throughout this thread, the monitors and the sabs will not be going anywhere.

 

[palo1]

Well given the webinars provide a manual on how to circumvent the law.... ie get one in the can ie film a trail so you can use it to cast enough doubt that a trail was laid ....SMOKESCREEN.

Hopefully when Hankinson is found guilty the hunts won’t be able to rely on that particular defence, without cast iron proof as in time stamped and gps located films ....

I also can’t think of any other incidences of people who set out to deliberately break the law have managed to secure COVID grants from councils ....thank goodness for that too.

To get a hunting case in court the success benchmark is set incredibly high, it isn’t the sabs that tell the police or CPS to take the case to court, that decision is made by the CPS alone, the police know the act is useless and doesn’t protect foxes and want to add several additions, however that is down to the MP’s and until we get a government that actually cares about wildlife that isn’t going to happen. But until it does as much as you will find it distasteful judging from the comments you have made throughout this thread, the monitors and the sabs will not be going anywhere.

Well Hankinson hasn't been found guilty at this point - cast iron proof is often collected by trail hunts in exactly the ways you identify though certainly not with all hunts. Possibly more fool them but there you go. As for the issue of Covid grants; they are legitimately provided for hunts who have to keep legal and accurate accounts. However, a number of sab groups 'fund raise' with no accountability for that and with blank refusals to make public their accounts...not to mention the dodgy fund raising in the first place:-

From Sabinder's Sab News: ''Severn Vale Sabs (both of them) demonstrating, as if proof were needed, how sabs are exploiting well-meaning members of the public to fund their lifestyles. They are looking for donations to renew the insurance on their sab vehicle, even though they haven't been able to sab anyone for the last three months and are unlikely to do so for the next six. Why is it so important to keep this vehicle on the road right now, rather than SORN it, park it up until it is needed again and save a bit of cash? That's a rhetorical question: no answer needed. It must be nice to have the unlimited use of a vehicle with all expenses paid for by someone else: Sabinder wonders whether HMRC benefit in kind rules apply to vehicles run by sab groups. "We hate to ask for money" my arse. Shameless.''

=AZXI6kRMJ1HLIjqF7bmjvee_xgDKezvUx2FLqpaFFZgrMEDrJJ93Jo5QiWJqwNo3_bsG5TYpykTe3fZJXIF3b6a0JCda0H0FpegSgCo07iXslKoNxdOsWgTsTAttIBZu5AGEJyhSuCwmoTMGpGwZkx3V&__tn__=EH-R']
It is pretty low to suggest that all of the sabs in this group (possibly both of them?) are 'essential workers' - that has nothing to do with fundraising for anti-hunt activities but is a cynical statement for sure. I know many 'essential workers' who have also worked hard during the pandemic but they don't use that to fund raise for their hunts....Funding for LACS is highly suspect too but that is entirely another topic. And as for safeguarding foxes (or any other animal) they are not really protected under the law and certainly wouldn't be even if any and all trail hunting was banned. They can be legally shot, gassed, snared, flushed by 2 dogs, hunted by 2 dogs, (not necessarily hounds) etc etc etc. There are many instances of foxes with horrific injuries, clearly having received veterinary treatment, including amputation being dumped in the countryside by well meaning people...perhaps that is in the name of animal welfare or 'wildlife protection'? I don't know but if there was a genuine care for wildlife from sab and anti-hunting groups there would be so many other worthwhile ways to go about protecting that and improving the situation of both wildlife and domestic animals. Sadly there is plenty of animal cruelty to go round.

 

[Koweyka]

Well if you are quoting Clive/Sabindar to prove a point then you are scraping the barrel ...

You have no idea what sabs do and don’t do to improve the situation of wildlife and domestic animals, though the sabs are currently doing a great job highlighting the case of Mini who was recently killed by a pack of hounds that were clearly out of control, or would you rather incidents like that are kept quiet ? Would you prefer it if all incidences when the hunts kill foxes, domestic pets and other wildlife be brushed under the carpet, simply because it doesn’t fit the narrative the pro hunt like to portray, some of the disingenuous stereotypical comments about sabs and monitors on this thread are eye opening.

As for fundraising, are you trying to dictate where the public give their money ? Its a rather low opinion of the public you have if you think they are stupid enough to donate to a cause they clearly believe in...the public donate because they can’t always get out in the fields to help, only a very small minority of hunts are monitored and the ones that are clearly do themselves no favours do they.

So you can bang the drum for Fox Hunting to continue Palo, but even a large section of the pro hunt know it’s coming to an end, we always knew it would be the hunts themselves with their arrogance and total disregard for wildlife would orchestrate their own downfall and it can’t come soon enough.

 

[ycbm]

https://www.countryside-alliance.or...liOhe0bX8mhvmSf8yzbPQzCfq01kbrClzD1JbHyiTvBRc ''Despite hunt saboteurs’ assertions that they saw no trails being laid, numerous trails were pre-laid on both dates in the areas visited by the hunt. Evidence of this was supplied to the police prior to charge, and it was accepted by the CPS at trial that trails had indeed been laid. '' (ergo that trail hunting was in fact being carried out at the time).

Is that your own ergo statement inside the brackets, Palo, or the CA's?


Because there is no "ergo" about it. It does not follow that trail hunting was being carried out because trails were laid. It is well known that some hunts lay very weak scented trails so that they can put up exactly that defence in court, that it was "an accident" that hounds picked up live fox instead.
.

 

[palo1]

Well if you are quoting Clive/Sabindar to prove a point then you are scraping the barrel ...

You have no idea what sabs do and don’t do to improve the situation of wildlife and domestic animals, though the sabs are currently doing a great job highlighting the case of Mini who was recently killed by a pack of hounds that were clearly out of control, or would you rather incidents like that are kept quiet ? Would you prefer it if all incidences when the hunts kill foxes, domestic pets and other wildlife be brushed under the carpet, simply because it doesn’t fit the narrative the pro hunt like to portray, some of the disingenuous stereotypical comments about sabs and monitors on this thread are eye opening.

As for fundraising, are you trying to dictate where the public give their money ? Its a rather low opinion of the public you have if you think they are stupid enough to donate to a cause they clearly believe in...the public donate because they can’t always get out in the fields to help, only a very small minority of hunts are monitored and the ones that are clearly do themselves no favours do they.

So you can bang the drum for Fox Hunting to continue Palo, but even a large section of the pro hunt know it’s coming to an end, we always knew it would be the hunts themselves with their arrogance and total disregard for wildlife would orchestrate their own downfall and it can’t come soon enough.

I am not banging the drum for fox hunting but for trail hunting. Sabinder, bless him is as good a source as many too. Easily as good as some of the monitors but that is just my opinion of course/ as the opposite is yours. I have never suggested that anything like cat killing or rioting hounds should be swept under the carpet either.

 

[palo1]

Is that your own ergo statement inside the brackets, Palo, or the CA's?


Because there is no "ergo" about it. It does not follow that trail hunting was being carried out because trails were laid. It is well known that some hunts lay very weak scented trails so that they can put up exactly that defence in court, that it was "an accident" that hounds picked up live fox instead.
.

'Tis my 'ergo' ycbm. I can only respond to you by saying that you would say that though wouldn't you?

The law states that trails must be laid and that hounds should follow those trails. How do you expect to prove that one trail is 'too weak' to be legit? Or that another trail is 'good enough'? Good enough for you or good enough for hounds to follow? The idea of hunting is that hounds follow a scent, not the antis.

 

[Sandstone1]

'Tis my 'ergo' ycbm. I can only respond to you by saying that you would say that though wouldn't you?

The law states that trails must be laid and that hounds should follow those trails. How do you expect to prove that one trail is 'too weak' to be legit? Or that another trail is 'good enough'? Good enough for you or good enough for hounds to follow? The idea of hunting is that hounds follow a scent, not the antis.

Or a trail is laid to try and fool the general public in to thinking hunts are hunting within the law and following said trail when in fact they are illegally hunting fox? ie a smokescreen.

 

[Koweyka]

I am not banging the drum for fox hunting but for trail hunting. Sabinder, bless him is as good a source as many too. Easily as good as some of the monitors but that is just my opinion of course/ as the opposite is yours. I have never suggested that anything like cat killing or rioting hounds should be swept under the carpet either.

Earlier in this thread you posted this ....”In relation to trail hunting - one of the benefits of trail hunting is that the presence of hounds in the countryside disturbs and disrupts foxes in a sustainable way that the existing ecosystem more widely can cope with naturally.”

Now this sounds awfully like you are talking about cubbing, another dirty secret we know happens, foxes don’t need hounds to disturb and disrupt and how do you propose they do that exactly.... by chasing them ?

A pack of hounds should not be allowed in the countryside to follow a trial made of fox urine, or fox stew .....have you ever smelt a fox when it’s been ripped open by hounds ? The smell stays with you, it would drive hounds trained on fox to an absolute frenzy, the first whiff of fox and they are on it. They should also not be pulling a trail anywhere a fox could live, this “mimicking” where a fox will run to make it authentic....so they lay a trail in copses and undergrowth....errr why unless you want to pick up the scent of a live fox, which hunts do frequently and ultimately many foxes die, this is the smokescreen and this is why trail hunting needs to end.

Why cant you be satisfied riding your horse around countryside that would normally be off limits, why do you think that risking the life of sentient creatures is no cause of concern and not as important than you getting your kicks ?

 

[palo1]

Earlier in this thread you posted this ....”In relation to trail hunting - one of the benefits of trail hunting is that the presence of hounds in the countryside disturbs and disrupts foxes in a sustainable way that the existing ecosystem more widely can cope with naturally.”

Now this sounds awfully like you are talking about cubbing, another dirty secret we know happens, foxes don’t need hounds to disturb and disrupt and how do you propose they do that exactly.... by chasing them ?

A pack of hounds should not be allowed in the countryside to follow a trial made of fox urine, or fox stew .....have you ever smelt a fox when it’s been ripped open by hounds ? The smell stays with you, it would drive hounds trained on fox to an absolute frenzy, the first whiff of fox and they are on it. They should also not be pulling a trail anywhere a fox could live, this “mimicking” where a fox will run to make it authentic....so they lay a trail in copses and undergrowth....errr why unless you want to pick up the scent of a live fox, which hunts do frequently and ultimately many foxes die, this is the smokescreen and this is why trail hunting needs to end.

Why cant you be satisfied riding your horse around countryside that would normally be off limits, why do you think that risking the life of sentient creatures is no cause of concern and not as important than you getting your kicks ?

I haven't got time to reply fully but that is just nonsense and you can have no idea at all what I think or how I feel without knowing me. But anyway...You believe hounds shouldn't be allowed in the countryside at all - that is your opinion. Mine is different, not least in part because of research like this:-

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10698: Fear of large carnivores causes a trophic cascade

That isn't research based here in the UK but it is very pertinent. Trophic cascades are very much considered to be important , by ecologists and biodiversity experts in ways that we may redress some of the loss of balance and health in our ecosystems. I didn't always believe in the benefits of traditional fox hunting but over time I have understood that far more and have held those beliefs for some time. I am far from stupid nor, I hope arrogant or ignorant so I like to read widely and understand what the place of traditional activities may or may not have in the present and future. I have not a little academic training to assess and evaluate information too. I love riding my horse in the countryside and enjoy amazing experiences in nature as a result; trail hunting is just part of that.

I am not interested in smokescreens but I am passionately interested in ecosystems, biodiversity and nature.

 

[ycbm]

The law states that trails must be laid and that hounds should follow those trails. How do you expect to prove that one trail is 'too weak' to be legit? Or that another trail is 'good enough'? Good enough for you or good enough for hounds to follow? The idea of hunting is that hounds follow a scent, not the antis.

Thats the point! The exploitation of the lack of ability to define "strong enough" scent is the main thing which has allowed illegal fox hunting to continue and is directly responsible, imo, for the resurgence of disruptive sabbing.
.

 

[Koweyka]

Nonsense hmmm and yet you are doing again what you have done throughout this thread and post links to this and that and deflecting from the discussion at hand and that is trail hunting is a myth and inherently cruel and costs foxes their lives in the most repugnant way.

At least you have finally admitted after some wishy washy statements throughout this thread about not supporting fox hunting that you do actually believe in it, tell me have you ever looked into the eyes of a fox after it’s been disembowelled, please don’t spout the swift nip to a neck rubbish again that’s another myth fox killers like to spin.

I find your statement about being passionate about about nature and believing foxes should be hunted to death an oxymoron of almost biblical magnitude.

 

[Koweyka]

Thats the point! The exploitation of the lack of ability to define "strong enough" scent is the main thing which has allowed illegal fox hunting to continue and is directly responsible, imo, for the resurgence of disruptive sabbing.
.

I have seen and filmed a rag being dragged one way and the hounds going totally the opposite direction and the mass panic of the huntsman and whips trying to stop them because they were being filmed. If it wasn’t so serious you would liken it to a carry on film.

 

[palo1]

Nonsense hmmm and yet you are doing again what you have done throughout this thread and post links to this and that and deflecting from the discussion at hand and that is trail hunting is a myth and inherently cruel and costs foxes their lives in the most repugnant way.

At least you have finally admitted after some wishy washy statements throughout this thread about not supporting fox hunting that you do actually believe in it, tell me have you ever looked into the eyes of a fox after it’s been disembowelled, please don’t spout the swift nip to a neck rubbish again that’s another myth fox killers like to spin.

I find your statement about being passionate about about nature and believing foxes should be hunted to death an oxymoron of almost biblical magnitude.

I think this thread has already covered that ground tbh but I am certainly not alone in my beliefs and others who feel the same include a wide variety of folk including vets, ecologists, environmentalists etc etc. I feel equally that your view is appallingly limited, anthropomorphic to the point of detriment to wildlife, oxymoronic, ignorant and intolerant but we live in a country where both those positions are free thankfully.

 

[Koweyka]

Can somebody tell me where the laughing emoji is please, your response is certainly worthy of it...

It’s clear you derive some sort of pleasure in fox hunting, it’s been evident throughout this thread, however you dodge direct questions and you deflect, thankfully the vets, the ecologists and environmentalists I work with and are present in the fields have the polar opposite to you views to you and your ilk You are in the minority. Your hobby is dying on its feet and it’s about time, no fox, hare, deer, stag, pet cat or dog should ever lose its life because of an outdated pass time.

You have to stop the killing, it’s as simple as that.