Hunting is in a spot of bother

[Tiddlypom]

This seems to be the latest hunt incident brought up earlier. I only know what I have seen on the This is Hunting UK FB page, from which this quote below was taken.

"IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM THE HUNTING OFFICE"

This is Hunting UK has been sent the following Statement by the Hunting Office:

"The Hunting Office has received reports that Hounds accompanied by three people on horses were seen in the area of Burley on the Hill Leicestershire on the 18th March. Earlier this week the MFHA initiated an enquiry to investigate the circumstances surrounding these reports and is taking this matter very seriously.

The Hunting Office issued clear guidance to all Hunts about Covid Restrictions and Operations during the lockdown period. The MFHA is investigating if there has been any breach of these regulations and one Master has been suspended pending a conclusion to the inquiry,"

 

[Koweyka]

It’s believed to be much more serious than the statement on TIHUK poor Maurice seems utterly despondent, but has gone to default mode and posted photos of puppies ... kill a fox ...look at a puppy..... describe how we break the law to hunt foxes .... look at a puppy.

 

[Pointless1]

What about otters? They were hunted and numbers dropped massively, now they are more plentiful and can cause issues. Should they be hunted again? I certainly don't think so but I'm sure people would if they could.

 

[Clodagh]

Possibly out on hound exercise? They might still be on the horses for that? Mind you the MFHA would have known if that was the case.

 

[ester]

Even if they were on hound exercise I'm not sure there is any provision for having more than 2 people out at a time? Unless there is something under animal welfare? That you can have as many people as you need to control your animals during exercise?

 

[Tiddlypom]

Again from TiHUK, the following statement re the incident from the Cottesmore Hunt.

"IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COTTESMORE HUNT"

"Some of you may be aware of reports relating to Hounds and Horses being seen in the vicinity of Burley on the Hill on the 18th March This Message is to make clear that despite the location none of the Cottesmore Hunt Staff, their Hounds or horses were among those present and that the Masters had no prior knowledge of the event whatsoever.

As a result a number of reports received the matter was looked into and was dealt with between the relevant Masters when our views were made known. We have nothing further to add other than to reinforce the fact that none of the Members of the Cottesmore Hunt were involved.

The Master of Foxhounds Association has independently set up an Inquiry to investigate the circumstances into this matter, on which they will report in due course. This is clearly a very sensetive issue at this time and we would ask those reading this please to respect that. Many thanks".

 

[ester]

curiouser

 

[Pointless1]

Again from TiHUK, the following statement re the incident from the Cottesmore Hunt.

"IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COTTESMORE HUNT"

"Some of you may be aware of reports relating to Hounds and Horses being seen in the vicinity of Burley on the Hill on the 18th March This Message is to make clear that despite the location none of the Cottesmore Hunt Staff, their Hounds or horses were among those present and that the Masters had no prior knowledge of the event whatsoever.

As a result a number of reports received the matter was looked into and was dealt with between the relevant Masters when our views were made known. We have nothing further to add other than to reinforce the fact that none of the Members of the Cottesmore Hunt were involved.

The Master of Foxhounds Association has independently set up an Inquiry to investigate the circumstances into this matter, on which they will report in due course. This is clearly a very sensetive issue at this time and we would ask those reading this please to respect that. Many thanks".

isn't that a bit contradictory? Masters spoken to and delt with by respective masters but no hunt staff involved?

 

[Annagain]

isn't that a bit contradictory? Masters spoken to and delt with by respective masters but no hunt staff involved?

From that, I take it that those who were out weren't on their patch but on the Cottesmore's so the Masters of the Cottesmore spoke to the Masters of whichever hunt they were from and 'made their views known' (i.e. gave them a b0!!0((ing - or had a laugh about it, you decide) The Cottesmore are saying their staff weren't involved, not necessarily no staff of any hunt.

 

[ester]

yes, that's what I think it's not the best written statement though. 'Dealt with' makes it sound like they've addressed the problem whereas really they just found out the problem was elsewhere (but still hunt with hounds as MFHA involved)

 

[Wishfilly]

Even if they were on hound exercise I'm not sure there is any provision for having more than 2 people out at a time? Unless there is something under animal welfare? That you can have as many people as you need to control your animals during exercise?

If they're working (as in employed by the hunt) then I think they would be allowed as many people as they like. Restrictions only really apply to leisure activities.

But the statements sound pretty odd.

 

[palo1]

Jim Barrington, formerly head of LACs comment today:-

In all the debates that took place in the Scottish Parliament and later at Westminster over the future of hunting with dogs, there was one obvious aspect of these deliberations that was missing. An absent piece of the puzzle from every debate in these chambers and indeed every other discussion on the subject that has occurred elsewhere whether it be in a front room, a pub, school, college, university or on radio or television.
It’s an omission that all these arguments revolve around and yet finding that missing piece would resolve this dispute once and for all. There are opinions about it, exaggerations about it, pseudo-science about it, absolutely certain claims from people and groups opposed to hunting about it and probably many members of the public and media who feel they are clear about it.
But none of this provides the definitive answer to what is lacking here: sound evidence that proves the hunting of a wild animal with dogs is fundamentally cruel.
There was of course the Bateson study on hunting deer with hounds, but that was research into an entirely new field, the conclusions of which were later revised when other scientists examined the data. Even Professor Bateson himself said that anyone claiming such new research was incontrovertible was “scientifically illiterate”.
Those opposed to hunting have always claimed there is a considerable amount of evidence against hunting with dogs, evidence that never seems to materialise. At the same time, they describe the process in the most graphic terms. Public opinion polls refer to hunting as ‘setting dogs on wild animals to fight or kill them’. Well, no surprise why they get the results they want when hunting is depicted in such a way to a public that’s largely detached from the practice and ignorant of the process.
Never in such polls are the consequences of banning hunting explained, just as questions about the predator/prey relationship are avoided. Pollsters and those who commission them would say how could such detailed questions be framed? And that’s the point; such dodgy polls are a means to gather numbers, not inform. But more importantly, why do polls appear to some to be the basis for law-making when the most central piece of evidence is missing?
Looked at from the dog’s point of view, those opposed to hunting, in particular the LACS, can hardly be regarded as dog-friendly. The Hunting Act itself attempts to curb natural canine instincts and anti-hunt propaganda produced accuses hounds of spreading disease, rioting and trespassing, killing pets and disturbing wildlife. Yes, dogs can be misused, but so can the gun and every other means of control.
Anti-hunting groups turned logic on its head by relying on theologian Professor Andrew Linzey during the Portcullis House Hearings, prior to the Hunting Act. Allowing domestic cats to roam and kill small wild birds and mammals – as they do in considerable numbers, far higher than all hunts put together - is justifiable, as Linzey claims he is “not morally responsible for the activity of my cats”. Yet dogs are targeted by these very same people, their argument relying on humans being in control of hunting dogs, forgetting this must equally apply to cat owners who choose to let their pets out into gardens.
Another odd thing is that those who advocate rewilding, some of whom are LACS supporters, are calling for exactly the same process to occur, but this time without any human involvement, highlighting that the welfare of the hunted animals is not their true focus or concern.
The fact is, dogs hunt naturally just as their wild cousins do and no science has ever shown that to be fundamentally cruel. If you are in favour of rewilding, you cannot in principle be against hunting with hounds.
The Hunting Act, far from being an animal welfare law, is simply a very anti-dog piece of legislation.
.

 

[shortstuff99]

Dogs in the UK have never been part of the natural ecosystem or a predator of foxes, his whole argument is therefore ridiculous.

 

[Koweyka]

Oh for gods sake give it a rest, people would probably have more respect for you though probably not if you just came out and admitted publicly that you actually like hunting foxes or deer or hares.

After being banned for so many years why hasn’t the kill instinct been bred out of hunting hounds ? How many generations further on from the hounds hunting pre ban ? And as for comparing cats hunting to fox hunting ....you will probably be suggesting hunting hounds hunt and kill cats .....oh wait MINI!

 

[Clodagh]

After being banned for so many years why hasn’t the kill instinct been bred out of hunting hounds ? !

Why do labradors still carry things in their mouths? Why do lurchers run after things? Why do terriers dog holes? Breeding something for many hundreds of generations to do one thing doesn't just become un done. They need training not to hunt, but you aren't going to breed it out of them any time soon.

 

[Koweyka]

So if that’s the case why encourage that breeding by using fox scent to lay the trail ?

 

[ycbm]

Jim Barrington, formerly head of LACs
The Hunting Act, far from being an animal welfare law, is simply a very anti-dog piece of legislation.
.

???

???

 

[ycbm]

Dogs in the UK have never been part of the natural ecosystem or a predator of foxes, his whole argument is therefore ridiculous.

Quite.

 

[palo1]

Dogs in the UK have never been part of the natural ecosystem or a predator of foxes, his whole argument is therefore ridiculous.

Um, wolves were in fact an important part of the UK and European ecosystem for a very long time, with wolves hanging on in Scotland until the 18th century. Before their extinction in the UK and since, packs of hounds of varying types have also existed formally through hunting packs and informally via packs of feral dogs which, during the 19th century, caused considerable concern about rabies outbreaks. Canines have been very much part of our ecosystem, the fox being only one kind. The reason ecologists and environmental rewilders would like to see the return of wolves is because of that.

 

[palo1]

Oh for gods sake give it a rest, people would probably have more respect for you though probably not if you just came out and admitted publicly that you actually like hunting foxes or deer or hares.

After being banned for so many years why hasn’t the kill instinct been bred out of hunting hounds ? How many generations further on from the hounds hunting pre ban ? And as for comparing cats hunting to fox hunting ....you will probably be suggesting hunting hounds hunt and kill cats .....oh wait MINI!

I know you are sick of someone coming back with a counter-argument to your viewpoint, which is never actually validated by real facts or anything other than slightly inane, simulated 'outrage' but you have totally ignored elements of the article, simply to take a pop at me and to make statements about me that you simply cannot know are accurate (namely that I want, personally, to hunt deer, fox, hare). I don't know about stag hunting and I have never hunted hare either; but I have hunted fox when that was legal and I still believe that foxes on the whole were better off under that system. I do not recognise much of the anti-hunt narrative about what hunting foxes was actually like so we are in totally different places in that sense and we would never agree on that aspect of the debate though I believe we both want what is best for wildlife and for nature. That may not be the same as what is best for each and every animal. The law currently favours individual animal welfare over that of an ecosystem or a species and I personally believe that this is damaging to wildlife on a wider and individual level; individual animals cannot thrive where their species and ecosystem has been degraded but that is a slightly separate argument.

I have hunted fox in the past and seen many hunts with a huge variety of outcomes and yes,with the death of foxes under a pack of hounds. That is not what I am involved with now that fox hunting is banned but it doesn't mean that I don't sincerely believe that system was better in a number of ways. (Can I also recommend that you listen to the BBC Sounds 'The Jump' from 24th March which is fascinating in terms of hunting from a completely different perspective; definately food for thought).

You haven't responded to Barrington's statement that even Bateson who provided what was felt to be influential data and conclusions in support of the anti-hunting movement, about hunting, later revised his opinions quite conclusively - asserting that these earlier conclusions and those that followed in their wake were 'scientifically illiterate'. How do you respond to that? What evidence are you aware of that demonstrates that hunting with dogs,which is practiced in many countries in different ways and has a long and proven history of 'balance' with wildlife, is cruel? (or crueller than any natural hunt that a predator may engage in with a natural quarry - eg lions and zebra, wild dogs and buffalo, wolves and reindeer/caribou etc) Or difficult or damaging in environmental terms?

Are you aware of any evidence ?(other than your own emotional response to watching one animal kill another which I know is very uncomfortable and can be hugely distressing to empathic human witnesses) Do you suspect that film crews that bring us documentaries about the natural world actually secretly enjoy watching animals predating on each other? Is is morally 'difficult' for you to justify us watching this kind of thing or are you able to put that to one side because human beings,which are very much part of the natural world, have no particular part to play in those specific interactions? Where does that comfort/discomfort boundary lie? Do you think that our closest living relatives in primates perhaps should not hunt other animals as part of ritualised territorial or cultural activity? How 'disconnected' or 'different' do you think that human beings should be in this sense? I am interested to know as it is a very important philosophical perspective to take in relation to nature and our interaction with the natural world.

How do you respond also to the idea that those people that have cats that allow them to roam, knowing that they will kill wildlife, even though they could be contained, are no different to people with dogs allowing them to kill wildlife, or indeed packs of hounds?

In relation to the death of Mini; the loss of control of hounds was dire - I have never argued otherwise. I am not sure why you think I might support the hunting of cats but hey, a lot of what you say is just emotive tripe.

How do you respond to the total contradiction in law, practice and our culture around the poisoning and hunting of rats with dogs? If anti-hunting is about animal welfare and is working against animal cruelty why is there no statement about the control of rats from any anti-hunt organisation? I believe that the best way to deal with rats is with a group of terriers; that is infinitely preferable to me than poisoning, trapping, gassing, flooding etc etc. Rats are highly social, sentient animals with huge intelligence but are conveniently ignored by the anti-hunt lobby even when these are animals which can be legally hunted by a pack of dogs. I wonder why anti-hunt protestors don't make anything of this - can you explain that? Perhaps it is because this is recognised to be the best, most humane method of dealing with this particular 'vermin'; to deal with them on their own ground, with their natural resources and facilities in tact and in relation to a predator that they are hugely well adapted to deal with. But wait, that sounds like hunting....

 

[ycbm]

How do you respond also to the idea that those people that have cats that allow them to roam, knowing that they will kill wildlife, even though they could be contained, are no different to people with dogs allowing them to kill wildlife, or indeed packs of hounds?

You've mentioned this several times now as if you think you have some kind of slam dunk defence of fox hunting because people keep pet cats. I've ignored it up to now, but here we go.

I respond to that by saying that I do not make an appointment with fifty or a hundred of my friends to follow our cats on horseback, causing considerable irritation to others who live and keep animals in the area, so that we can enjoy watching their skill in killing wildlife.

I respond to that by pointing out that the law requires me to control a dog when it does not currently require me to control a cat. And that it is entirely possible to exercise a dog under control where that is not possible for a cat. I can't, for example, climb a wooden fence 2 metres high with my cats on a lead and my cats won't retrieve a ball for intense exercise.

In the case of "farm cats" like my own i respond by saying that they are essential vermin control, a job which I can only otherwise do effectively with noxious chemicals which would put other scavenging wildlife at risk, either from the poisoned bait or from poisoned carcasses.

I respond to that by assuring you that I take no pleasure whatsoever in watching the skill with which my cats hunt, and that whenever I see it, I frustrate their attempts to kill their prey, I do not train them to do it, far less encourage them and enjoy the spectacle.
.

 

[Quigleyandme]

A member of the Quorn dressed as for hunting and took a couple of hounds to a friend’s house to wish him a happy birthday. His friend lives in the Cottesmore country. It was ill-considered. He has been suspended. Nobody was hunting anything. I don’t usually comment on this thread because it gets too emotive and shrill for me but I think Palo1 debates very well.

 

[Wishfilly]

There are ecological arguments for and against controlling fox numbers. It's true that foxes lack their natural competitors in the form of wolves- but replacing these with packs of dogs isn't a viable solution. Foxes also play a vital role in controlling rabbit numbers. It's worth bearing in mind that rabbits are actually an invasive species in the UK, and have a huge impact ecologically and financially (on farmers etc.), far more so than foxes do. Reducing fox numbers means rabbits can be basically without predators, which is not good for the ecosystem or the countryside more generally.

In terms of hunting, all the (peer reviewed) evidence I've seen suggests that it is not effective at controlling fox numbers and causes additional damage to ecosystems, although this is sometimes mitigated by the hunt doing other countryside management work.

If fox numbers need to be managed in a particular area, then targetted, humane culling is the best strategy. And there are huge areas of the UK where this is not needed at all (most often it's needed in urban areas where hunts can't operate).

A lot of the ecological arguments made by hunts are not backed up by any of the evidence that I've seen.

Many trail hunts also inconvenience the wider community in some way, and some are downright dangerous. And some of them think they are above the law, too.

 

[shortstuff99]

Um, wolves were in fact an important part of the UK and European ecosystem for a very long time, with wolves hanging on in Scotland until the 18th century. Before their extinction in the UK and since, packs of hounds of varying types have also existed formally through hunting packs and informally via packs of feral dogs which, during the 19th century, caused considerable concern about rabies outbreaks. Canines have been very much part of our ecosystem, the fox being only one kind. The reason ecologists and environmental rewilders would like to see the return of wolves is because of that.

Feral dogs and wolves hunt in very, very different ways.

 

[palo1]

You've mentioned this several times now as if you think you have some kind of slam dunk defence of fox hunting because people keep pet cats. I've ignored it up to now, but here we go.

I respond to that by saying that I do not make an appointment with fifty or a hundred of my friends to follow our cats on horseback, causing considerable irritation to others who live and keep animals in the area, so that we can enjoy watching their skill in killing wildlife.

I respond to that by pointing out that the law requires me to control a dog when it does not currently require me to control a cat. And that it is entirely possible to exercise a dog under control where that is not possible for a cat. I can't, for example, climb a wooden fence 2 metres high with my cats on a lead and my cats won't retrieve a ball for intense exercise.

In the case of "farm cats" like my own i respond by saying that they are essential vermin control, a job which I can only otherwise do effectively with noxious chemicals which would put other scavenging wildlife at risk, either from the poisoned bait or from poisoned carcasses.

I respond to that by assuring you that I take no pleasure whatsoever in watching the skill with which my cats hunt, and that whenever I see it, I frustrate their attempts to kill their prey, I do not train them to do it, far less encourage them and enjoy the spectacle.
.

No, I don't think I have a 'slam dunk defence..' in relation to the keeping of cats @ycbm and my comments weren't particularly pointed at you at all. I am not sure why you would ignore a relevant part of the discussion in any case but you are addressing that now! Is it not astonishingly illogical it is for one person or group to assert that one domesticated or semi-domesticated animal within the reasonable control of a person killing a wild animal is wrong but another similar animal doing it is fine? You haven't either answered any of the questions about rats...except that you infer that cats doing essential vermin control is fine.

Whether or not you take pleasure in your cat's skill is immaterial to the outcome for the animal that the cat is hunting. I think you are objecting to the presence of witnesses to a hunt - that isn't really related to hunting at all actually. In relation to the hunting act you do accept that the killing of wild animals by farm cats is 'essential vermin control' - so the hunting of one animal by another for that purpose is acceptable. I would agree with that but I can't agree that you are unable to control your cat. I would not keep a cat indoors but I don't keep a cat at all because I can't justify either that or the damage that a cat allowed to simply roam freely as their nature tends to demand, does to the local birdlife/small reptiles/small mammals etc. That is just my position.

You say that the law doesn't require you to control your cat; this is true. But I have always understood your position on hunting matters to be a moral one and not simply a legal one. I wonder how you might feel if the law required you to control your cat so that it was not able to kill other animals? I wonder if you can be absolutely certain that your cat wouldn't/hasn't attacked someone else's animals? How would you feel if your cat killed someone's pet? Last week a feral cat killed one of my daughter's bantams. We witnessed it but couldn't get to the poor chook in time to save her. We know who that feral cat belongs to so we could, if we chose, decide to talk to them about it and ask them to try to keep that cat away/under some control. I accept that this would be difficult tbh.

I think, with the farm cats, that you are saying that cats hunting rats and mice are performing essential vermin control which is preferable to the use of noxious chemicals; I certainly agree with you on that. You don't take exception to one animal, maintained fairly loosely by people, predating on other animals and actually more or less without any control or particular focus on that animal's welfare or its behaviour around any other animals. I think that is a very tricky position to take for someone who also wants to take an anti-hunting position.

You also say that you don't train your cats to hunt and don't take pleasure in their natural behaviour. Earlier in this thread though you have said that you encourage your cat to enact it's natural instincts by playing with a laser pen - the cat can chase and hunt the light; that is undoubtedly a form of 'training' or 'encouragement' and I am sure that your cat gets considerable natural fulfillment out of that play. I personally don't think that is wrong at all and is a great way to admire the skill and athleticism of a puss-cat but it will, without doubt hone your cat's hunting skills and naturally keep awake it's desire to hunt things. I think the issue is that we see cats and other pets as 'innocent' and largely don't question their nature or our engagement with them. If you feel really strongly about hunting and wildlife perhaps you should think about this though...

 

[palo1]

Feral dogs and wolves hunt in very, very different ways.

Yes, that is true but I think I was just answering your point about canines in the British ecosystem.

 

[shortstuff99]

Yes, that is true but I think I was just answering your point about canines in the British ecosystem.

Your point was hound being a part of the ecosystem, they are not and wild canids don't hunt or interact with the ecosystem the way hounds do.

I can't see any basis for an ecological argument for hounds.

 

[palo1]

There are ecological arguments for and against controlling fox numbers. It's true that foxes lack their natural competitors in the form of wolves- but replacing these with packs of dogs isn't a viable solution. Foxes also play a vital role in controlling rabbit numbers. It's worth bearing in mind that rabbits are actually an invasive species in the UK, and have a huge impact ecologically and financially (on farmers etc.), far more so than foxes do. Reducing fox numbers means rabbits can be basically without predators, which is not good for the ecosystem or the countryside more generally.

In terms of hunting, all the (peer reviewed) evidence I've seen suggests that it is not effective at controlling fox numbers and causes additional damage to ecosystems, although this is sometimes mitigated by the hunt doing other countryside management work.

If fox numbers need to be managed in a particular area, then targetted, humane culling is the best strategy. And there are huge areas of the UK where this is not needed at all (most often it's needed in urban areas where hunts can't operate).

A lot of the ecological arguments made by hunts are not backed up by any of the evidence that I've seen.

Many trail hunts also inconvenience the wider community in some way, and some are downright dangerous. And some of them think they are above the law, too.

Your point was hound being a part of the ecosystem, they are not and wild canids don't hunt or interact with the ecosystem the way hounds do.

I can't see any basis for an ecological argument for hounds.

Ok - that is fair enough and for sure there is no real consensus on what role a pack of hounds may have or the impact, good or bad. That is significant though in itself and there is other and emerging evidence around the potential impact that a pack of hounds may have as well as a whole raft of thinking about what impact packs of hounds (not just here in the UK but also much further afield) have had in the past - particularly in light of new knowledge and thinking about ecosystems and how we might need to move forward to address the dire decline in the health of nature. It is far, far more complex than the arguments that anti hunters tend to put forward. How ironic it will be if we remove a 'system' that has been tried and tested for nearly 1000 years here in Britain and replace that with hugely contentious rewilded predators in order to restore a version of the natural order. I would say I am generally in favour of rewilding in fact but can see that it will be massively difficult for farming communities to accept some of the furthest reaches of that thinking - a pack of hounds which disrupt all sorts of natural processes in a reasonably managed and 'healthy' way is potentially far, far more acceptable and likely to succeed though I get that people find this very odd. I am also part of that farming community and we have stock that could be vulnerable to those kinds of predators so I do sympathise with some of the concerns raised. I am certainly not the only person to see this. I know some posters think I am clearly bonkers for my view on hunting but I haven't arrived at that view in total isolation of facts, reading and discussion in a pretty wide range of settings.

 

[ycbm]

No, I don't think I have a 'slam dunk defence..' in relation to the keeping of cats @ycbm and my comments weren't particularly pointed at you at all. I am not sure why you would ignore a relevant part of the discussion in any case but you are addressing that now! Is it not astonishingly illogical it is for one person or group to assert that one domesticated or semi-domesticated animal within the reasonable control of a person killing a wild animal is wrong but another similar animal doing it is fine? You haven't either answered any of the questions about rats...except that you infer that cats doing essential vermin control is fine.

Whether or not you take pleasure in your cat's skill is immaterial to the outcome for the animal that the cat is hunting. I think you are objecting to the presence of witnesses to a hunt - that isn't really related to hunting at all actually. In relation to the hunting act you do accept that the killing of wild animals by farm cats is 'essential vermin control' - so the hunting of one animal by another for that purpose is acceptable. I would agree with that but I can't agree that you are unable to control your cat. I would not keep a cat indoors but I don't keep a cat at all because I can't justify either that or the damage that a cat allowed to simply roam freely as their nature tends to demand, does to the local birdlife/small reptiles/small mammals etc. That is just my position.

You say that the law doesn't require you to control your cat; this is true. But I have always understood your position on hunting matters to be a moral one and not simply a legal one. I wonder how you might feel if the law required you to control your cat so that it was not able to kill other animals? I wonder if you can be absolutely certain that your cat wouldn't/hasn't attacked someone else's animals? How would you feel if your cat killed someone's pet? Last week a feral cat killed one of my daughter's bantams. We witnessed it but couldn't get to the poor chook in time to save her. We know who that feral cat belongs to so we could, if we chose, decide to talk to them about it and ask them to try to keep that cat away/under some control. I accept that this would be difficult tbh.

I think, with the farm cats, that you are saying that cats hunting rats and mice are performing essential vermin control which is preferable to the use of noxious chemicals; I certainly agree with you on that. You don't take exception to one animal, maintained fairly loosely by people, predating on other animals and actually more or less without any control or particular focus on that animal's welfare or its behaviour around any other animals. I think that is a very tricky position to take for someone who also wants to take an anti-hunting position.

You also say that you don't train your cats to hunt and don't take pleasure in their natural behaviour. Earlier in this thread though you have said that you encourage your cat to enact it's natural instincts by playing with a laser pen - the cat can chase and hunt the light; that is undoubtedly a form of 'training' or 'encouragement' and I am sure that your cat gets considerable natural fulfillment out of that play. I personally don't think that is wrong at all and is a great way to admire the skill and athleticism of a puss-cat but it will, without doubt hone your cat's hunting skills and naturally keep awake it's desire to hunt things. I think the issue is that we see cats and other pets as 'innocent' and largely don't question their nature or our engagement with them. If you feel really strongly about hunting and wildlife perhaps you should think about this though...

Your continued attempt to link organised hunting of fox with hounds followed by a group of riders on horse back with pet cat owning is doing nothing but reinforce people's negative opinion of supporters of a repeal of the hunting act.

There is no connection.
.

 

[ester]

A member of the Quorn dressed as for hunting and took a couple of hounds to a friend’s house to wish him a happy birthday. His friend lives in the Cottesmore country. It was ill-considered. He has been suspended. Nobody was hunting anything. I don’t usually comment on this thread because it gets too emotive and shrill for me but I think Palo1 debates very well.

doh! (but thanks for posting the extra info!)