Hunting is in a spot of bother

[Tiddlypom]

Damning words from the presiding judge as he delivered the verdict.

At Westminster court Deputy Chief Magistrate Tan Ikram said "I am sure that the defendant through his words was giving advice on how to illegally hunt with dogs."

In my judgement he was clearly encouraging the mirage of trail laying to act as cover for illegal hunting," he added.

Mr Hankinson was fined £1,000 along with a contribution of £2,500 towards legal costs.

Mark Hankinson: Top huntsman guilty of encouraging illegal fox hunting https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58654916

ETA

On Friday Deputy Chief Magistrate Tan Ikram concluded: "Mr Hankinson's advice that trail laying needed to be "plausible" was only necessary if it was a "sham and a fiction""

"It wasn't just bad language as he suggested, there was a clear and common thread throughout the two separate webinars."

"A specific aggravating factor was that you were speaking to large number of people. Your words potentially had an impact throughout the whole country."

 

[paddy555]

thanks for updating

 

[Sandstone1]

Good result but should have been a much stiffer fine.

 

[ycbm]

It is good to see trail hunting recognised as an illegal activity. Will those who claimed otherwise continue to take part, even knowing they are breaking the law?

Trail hunting is not and never has been an illegal activity.

It is up to hunting now to stop pretending that it hunts trails while actually hunting fox.

The first thing to do is to stop using fox scent.
.

 

[CrunchieBoi]

Trail hunting is not and never has been an illegal activity.

Don't agree, even before the webinars it was pretty clear that the majority of hunts labelling themselves as "trail" hunts were only really interested in carrying on as they did pre-ban. The webinars have pretty much confirmed the aim of the game. The fact covert filming frequently seems to catch out hunt staff kind of blows the idea there was any widespread interest in adapting practices out the water as well.

The use of fox scent, as you say, demonstrates a pretty obvious intent and should never have been permitted.

 

[ycbm]

Don't agree, even before the webinars it was pretty clear that the majority of hunts labelling themselves as "trail" hunts were only really interested in carrying on as they did pre-ban. The webinars have pretty much confirmed the aim of the game. The fact covert filming frequently seems to catch out hunt staff kind of blows the idea there was any widespread interest in adapting practices out the water as well.

The use of fox scent, as you say, demonstrates a pretty obvious intent and should never have been permitted.

They were not trail hunting, only saying that they were. By definition if they had been trail hunting, they would not have been doing anything illegal.

Trail hunting is legal.
.

 

[CrunchieBoi]

They were not trail hunting, only saying that they were. By definition if they had been trail hunting, they would not have been doing anything illegal.

Trail hunting is legal.
.

The problem for trail hunting is that there has been no condemnation of the illegal activity (which for me, was clearly being carried out by the majority) by either the good hunts or, for that matter, anyone connected to hunting (CA and so on). People will be only too happy to tar any hunt going under the name of "trail" hunt with that particular brush now.

When you consider that the webinars have now had their purpose officially judged as a means of advising hunt staff on the best way of breaking the law and were delivered by the head honcho of trail hunting to a sizeable following, it's very hard to disagree.

 

[palo1]

Statement from the MFHA (The Hunting Office) in response to the verdict, below. I would hope that a review will involve a full range of stakeholders and be seen to have a new sense of integrity and openness.

 

[paddy555]

Statement from the MFHA (The Hunting Office) in response to the verdict, below. I would hope that a review will involve a full range of stakeholders and be seen to have a new sense of integrity and openness.
Nothing will change. A couple of weeks time there will be more footage from somewhere of a hunt hunting a fox. Total waste of time.

but who is setting up the review? from that it sound like the MFH assoc. The same body who are hugely disappointed and considering an appeal. The ones who, per the judge.

n my judgement he was clearly encouraging the mirage of trail laying to act as cover for illegal hunting," he added.

 

[CrunchieBoi]

Statement from the MFHA (The Hunting Office) in response to the verdict, below. I would hope that a review will involve a full range of stakeholders and be seen to have a new sense of integrity and openness.

So... offering to mark their own homework.

 

[Tiddlypom]

'Lawful trail hunting activities'.

Good grief ?.

Not a chance. You (the MFHA) have just been thoroughly, very publicly and legally busted.

 

[Steerpike]

Reassurances to all stakeholders and land owners, surely he should be saying the general public as it is them that the hunting community have to convince that they are all squeaky clean and hunting within the law?

 

[palo1]

Reassurances to all stakeholders and land owners, surely he should be saying the general public as it is them that the hunting community have to convince that they are all squeaky clean and hunting within the law?

I would hope that 'stakeholders' does include the general public, some of whom will definitely not be supportive but the process of review really needs to be without the MFHA as @paddy555 and others have said because the MFHA, even with a new bod in charge (Andrew Osborne), have not exactly come out of this looking as if they are capable of decent (or any) governance and due diligence.

For me, a review and a clear and robust disciplinary proceedure put in place by an external body would be the best outcome as that might help to change the current narrative of all trail hunting to be illegal fox hunting under cover. That is absolutely not the case as other posters on here have asserted (as well as myself). The worst outcome would be that monitoring by vigilantes where there can be no trust or discussion possible on either side, continues to be the public 'face' of any governance of hunting. The minister and government have made it clear that there is no intention to amend the law in this parliament so I would hope there is time for the hunting community to sort out the rot.

 

[palo1]

'Lawful trail hunting activities'.

Good grief ?.

Not a chance. You (the MFHA) have just been thoroughly, very publicly and legally busted.

But there are hunts that are hunting lawfully - even the sabs accept that.

 

[Lady Jane]

How do you know if a hunt is following the rules? My friend hunted several times with a hunt a couple of years ago and never saw any untoward activity? The sabs were out every time and on one occassion pulled someone off their horse who then required an ambulance and the police were involved

 

[Tiddlypom]

But there are hunts that are hunting lawfully - even the sabs accept that.

Yes, but all hunts have claimed to be hunting lawfully all along, haven't they, when many very evidently haven't. The MFHA even helpfully provided the smokescreen guidelines to enable illegal hunting to take place.

No one will trust anything pro hunt say, Palo. Hunting should have dealt with this much sooner. You (as in pro hunt) are a laughing stock.

 

[palo1]

Yes, but all hunts have claimed to be hunting lawfully all along, haven't they, when many very evidently haven't. The MFHA even helpfully provided the smokescreen guidelines to enable illegal hunting to take place.

No one will trust anything pro hunt say, Palo. Hunting should have dealt with this much sooner. You're a laughing stock.

Thanks for that @Tiddlypom. I am not sure if that is meant personally but...

You cannot possibly know that 'many very evidently haven't' been hunting lawfully. The Hunting Act is so appalling that it makes it extraordinarily difficult to prove legal or illegal hunting and that has been an issue for years. A great many people enjoy legal trail hunting but of course sabs and antis just ignore that, even when they monitor hunts and either have to give up because there is nothing for them to see that is worth 'exposing' or where the law is so clearly followed that it is a waste of sabs time. There are, too, trust issues around sabs and their evidence gathering and claims of illegality in trail hunting. Please don't pretend there are not.

Incidentally, today, very sadly saw the murder of an anti-hunt MP, David Amess, who I knew and worked alongside as well as briefly working alongside Michael Foster (responsible for bringing the original Hunting Act private members bill to parliament). I was involved in animal welfare research in a number of directions and communicated with a huge range of people about those issues, including across the spectrum of views around hunting. Those discussions were invariably respectful and personally polite. That didn't mean they lacked clarity, power or conviction. It saddens and depresses me that here, where people have much in common through their interest in horses, dogs and related activities that that isn't always the case. Polarising debate just isn't helpful and leads to all sorts of difficult places for those involved.

 

[Crazy_cat_lady]

Guilty, just as us “anti’s” have known all along …..Trail Hunting is a lie and always has been. A smokescreen for hunting and killing foxes, everyone who participates in hunting knew what was going on and let it happen. You are all just as guilty.

Hunting should now be banned full stop.

As someone who has witnessed the brutal killing of many many foxes over the years at the jaws of the trail hunts, well you have finally been exposed as the wildlife criminals you are.

Agree, its time to ban it completely that way there can be no "slip ups" or "accidents" including them killing peoples cats, which is unforgivable

There's no reason for it to take place so just ban it. Unfortunately it never will be.

The "fine" is probably laughable to him, they should have stuck animal cruelty on as well as that's what it is.

Laughable the MFH are considering an appeal and will be the ones doing the review. Says it all really and makes me suspect he's the tip of the iceberg. It should be an independent panel doing the review. It should also include the public for all we know if the landowners were pro, they could be complicit. Animal welfare organisations should be included too

 

[Tiddlypom]

That is absolutely not the case as other posters on here have asserted (as well as myself).

I'm one of those, but the fairly recent transition of my local pack from blatant fox hunting to legal trail hunting was painful for all concerned. It only happened because after protracted sab and monitor attention a major local sporting landowner was going to ban the hunt from all its land, inc many tenanted farms, because it was fed up of the negative effect the bad publicity (from the antis) was having on its other business interests.

The master who had been assuring me that they were legally trail hunting all along threw their toys out of the pram and declared they were hanging up their boots, as they couldn't see the point in continuing if the pack switched from fox to trail hunting .

ETA I've edited my previous post to make it clear that it is pro hunt in general who are now a laughing stock, not you personally, Palo .

 

[L&M]

As a hunting fanatic, I am actually also pleased with the outcome, and agree the fine should have been bigger.

He has put hunting into even more disrepute and jeopardised the future of hunts that do actually follow a trail (mine being one).

Bloody idiot and just hope that finally all packs are made to tow the line, so that our wonderful sport and hounds still have a purpose, but going forward in a more civilised and legal manner.

 

[palo1]

As a hunting fanatic, I am actually also pleased with the outcome, and agree the fine should have been bigger.

He has put hunting into even more disrepute and jeopardised the future of hunts that do actually follow a trail (mine being one).

Bloody idiot and just hope that finally all packs are made to tow the line, so that our wonderful sport and hounds still have a purpose, but going forward in a more civilised and legal manner.

It is genuinely lovely to hear of someone describe themselves as a 'hunting fanatic' in relation to the sport of trail hunting and following hounds - a breath of fresh air!! That has really cheered me up

 

[TTK]

So the judge called BS on the hunt. Good. My local hunt were digging out cubs in a spinney above my fields last week, bold as brass. Trail hunting my aunt fanny.

 

[L&M]

It is genuinely lovely to hear of someone describe themselves as a 'hunting fanatic' in relation to the sport of trail hunting and following hounds - a breath of fresh air!! That has really cheered me up

My pleasure! This is the wake up call hunting needs, and just hope it is not too late........

 

[palo1]

So the judge called BS on the hunt. Good. My local hunt were digging out cubs in a spinney above my fields last week, bold as brass. Trail hunting my aunt fanny.

I think you should check the law on this before identifying any activity as illegal. There are exemptions that are entirely lawful that mean that foxes can be destroyed/dug out with one dog. It is not something that everyone is comfortable with but the law is what it is and a big part of the situation that both sides find themselves in now is because of that.

 

[TTK]

Palo, a gang of terrier men and a reasonable size pack are not 1 dog. I have followed for years, I know what I am seeing. Don’t try to defend the indefensible.

 

[Miss_Millie]

I'm so pleased with this outcome. I hope it will make people think twice before illegally hunting in the future. This does not reflect well on trail hunting, at all.

 

[palo1]

Palo, a gang of terrier men and a reasonable size pack are not 1 dog. I have followed for years, I know what I am seeing. Don’t try to defend the indefensible.

I am not trying to defend the indefensible!! I was responding to your post just to say that digging out a fox per se (however unpalatable that may be) is not necessarily illegal. I don't know what you have seen.

 

[paddy555]

It is genuinely lovely to hear of someone describe themselves as a 'hunting fanatic' in relation to the sport of trail hunting and following hounds - a breath of fresh air!! That has really cheered me up

so if trail hunting is so wonderful why doesn't everyone do it?

 

[meleeka]

£1000 fine is disappointing.

 

[palo1]

so if trail hunting is so wonderful why doesn't everyone do it?

For the life of me I don't know!! Well, not everyone feels confident to ride across country possibly at speed or over tricky terrain and obstacles. Not everyone enjoys watching hounds following a scent especially not in cold and/or utterly miserable weather/horizontal rain. Not everyone has the patience to sit quietly to wait until hounds can find a line to follow - that can be quite dull if you are not interested in the way hounds work. Not everyone knows a mate or friend that is involved in trail hunting so may not feel confident to give it a go and the myths of trail-hunting entirely outside the scope of what the antis say can make it seem daunting. Not everyone has a horse that can listen and/or be safe to ride in the open in company. Not everyone has transport or wants to use their horse time for riding in the winter when they may want to rest their horses/train for a certain discipline. Not everyone wants to do any particular activity for all sorts of reasons.

I know what anti hunters say about the reasons not to go trail hunting so no need to repeat all those, there are other logistical and equestrian reasons too. If you look at a great many of our most respected equestrians they have enjoyed and appreciated hunting for their horses and their own sakes. It is a thing. In spite of all the vitriol and the mess that has been reported a huge number of people involved with horses and all sorts of other people still enjoy and support trail hunting and every one of them has their own reason and take on that. I do often wonder how antis by-pass the very many 'normal', 'reasonable' people who trail hunt but they do because it would be ridiculous to assert that everybody involved in trail hunting is a sick, bloodthirsty, sadist who is also mentally disturbed and happy to break the law! It makes a total nonsense of the vets, doctors, nurses, farriers, teachers, farmers, labourers, plumbers, artists, policemen and women, teenagers (who really do know their own minds), etc that enjoy going out with hounds. But hey, I have said this before and there probably isn't a need to repeat that on this forum where there is a really polarised debate on the issue.

Edited to add a bit about law breaking...