Hunting is in a spot of bother

[Gallop_Away]

Although I have no issue with genuine trail hunting, im not sure it can go on. Firstly farmers in lots of cases only allow the hunt on their land to control foxes. If that is fully and completely stopped I cant see that many landowners are going to want the disruption and damage caused by trail hunting. The upset and stress caused by the hunt to livestock plus the damage to land is considerable. Problems with hunts trespassing and even killing pets plus the increasing lack of land due to increased housing etc will bring the end to all hunting.

I understand what you are saying and I'm not suggesting it will be in anyway easy but I think it is possible. Our hunt has an excellent relationship with our land owners as does the drag pack I have hunted with. The land owners have just as much love for hunting and watching hounds work as we do.
It takes effort and communication but masters from both hunts are superb at maintaining this relationship and won't put up with any nonsense from anyone out of respect for our land owners.
The issue of killing of pets is awful and one that should be utterly condemned. It is no excuse for hounds not to be able to be recalled at a split second. Again I have witnessed the amazing work our master puts in with his hounds. This is clearly something hunting needs to address and show the public.
We have a great deal of work to do clearly.

 

[ycbm]

That is not what I have said at all. We are all free to interpret things the way we want but my words are clear I think; the interpretation is yours.

Your words are clear as day to me Palo.

You do not believe that the Chairman of the MFA was guilty of encouraging the illegal hunting of fox.

How you continue to hold that point of view, having read the judgement, astounds me.

It is that kind of attitude which will kill hunting Palo, you are bringing about your own demise.

 

[ycbm]

As I wrote on the shooting hounds thread, if hunting is ever to have a place in this modern world it needs to change with the times.
For those of us who trail hunt legally this verdict is incredibly disappointing as we have been let down massively and thrown under the bus with the illegal hunts in the eyes of the public.
We all now need to stick together to turn things around and prove that we can follow the law. We also need to condemn illegal hunting as LOUDLY as possible.
Palo has put the beauty of trail hunting across so well in their previous posts. It can still have a place in this world but things need to change for that to happen. I hope this will be the wakeup call hunting needs!

Excellent post. This is what is needed if I am ever going to be able to hunt Joe. And I really want to.
.

 

[CrunchieBoi]

No matter how people dress it up, they use fox scent because they want to hunt fox.

This is the long and short of it for me as well. The hunting act will never be repealed so there is no valid reason to continue to use fox scent to lay trails. It just confirms that everyone is hoping for an "accident" to take place.

If hunts hadn't been so opposed to progression, there wouldn't be a pack alive today that wasn't trained to follow an artificial scent.

 

[palo1]

No matter how people dress it up, they use fox scent because they want to hunt fox.

ETA. ... still hunt fox.

Your words are clear as day to me Palo.

You do not believe that the Chairman of the a MFA was guilty of encouraging the illegal hunting of fox.

How you continue to hold that point of view, having read the judgement, astounds me.

It is that kind of attitude which will kill hunting Palo, you are bringing about your own demise.

View attachment 81168

Well thank you for that! If you are going to be so blunt I will return the favour...When will you accept that your viewpoint on hunting is not the only one? When will you accept that people who trail hunt understand and care about the issues and pay close attention to and discuss the nuance and detail of everything in the public eye and on the hunting field? When will you accept that people, like myself, who live in a contemporary society doing ordinary jobs alongside other ordinary people who may have different views, do think about both the moral/ethical issues as well as the way that the wider public might view that activity? I have far too much to lose personally and professionally to engage in activities that are illegal or will compromise me in any other way. When will you accept that you are not, in fact, an expert on the realities of trail hunting in spite of having very strong opinons on the subject?

I do care passionately about the future of hounds and absolutely want to see real, credible improvements in the existing system which clearly does not work. I want to support trail hunting, not bring about it's demise; have you considered that? Have you considered that I try to communicate my views as openly and clearly as I can and that I have no interest, no possible reason to hide my head in the sand or to make statements that will bring me personal grief? Perhaps you feel I am simply stupid.

I do understand the context of the webinars, I know and understand some of the people attending as well as some of the people presenting and discussing on those webinars. Why MH said the things he did which have brought those webinars to court I have no idea; he is VERY aware of the law and his position at that time in relation to the law. It is far worse than 'unfortunate' and I certainly don't want to gloss over what was said and how it has been interpreted in spite of knowing many trail hunters that are committed to hunting within the law. I understand the judgement made against MH and have not dismissed that. I have agreed with other posters that there must be improvements that demonstrate far more effectively that legal trail hunting is entirely possible.

Sometimes your attitude toward my posts on trail hunting feels really personal. That is not pleasant and I hope I try to avoid that approach myself but I really wanted to reply to you in the same spirit.

 

[skinnydipper]

I believe that the reason fo

The part of your post addressed to me is missing.

I am not sure what you were about to say to explain the reason for using fox scent but if dogs can be trained to identify when a person is in the prodromal phase of a seizure, can detect cancer in urine, identify and alert a diabetic to a hyperglycaemic attack and locate a cadaver under water, then surely hounds can be trained to track a scent other than fox.

 

[palo1]

The part of your post addressed to me is missing.

I am not sure what you were about to say to explain the reason for using fox scent but if dogs can be trained to detect when a person is in the prodromal phase of a seizure, can identify and alert a diabetic to a hyperglycaemic attack and locate a cadaver under water, then surely hounds can be trained to track a scent other than fox.

Sorry - I don't really know what that bit of text was doing there which is why I just removed it. I think it was part of another post or earlier edit but I didn't deliberately try to respond to this post. I did reply to the idea of scent based training earlier in fact.

 

[ester]

I understand the judgement made against MH and have not dismissed that. I have agreed with other posters that there must be improvements that demonstrate far more effectively that legal trail hunting is entirely possible.
.

Are you confident on the basis of the MFHA statement that they are going to make those improvements? They've just never come across as keen to do so to me, and to me that statement confirms that remains the case so I'm curious if you read it differently.

 

[ycbm]

I understand the judgement made against MH and have not dismissed that.

But you have. You don't actually agree that the verdict was the correct one, it's clear from what you wrote above that is the case.

Will you make an unequivocal statement that you accept that the Chairman of the organisation which controls your sport was giving advice to hunts how to evade the law and hunt fox?
.

 

[palo1]

Are you confident on the basis of the MFHA statement that they are going to make those improvements? They've just never come across as keen to do so to me, and to me that statement confirms that remains the case so I'm curious if you read it differently.

I am frustrated that the MFHA want to go through an appeal process - personally I think it would be much better if they progressed to improvement actions. I don't know why an appeal might be considered the best course of action tbh but I don't know what Richard Lissack QC does so his advice to the MFHA may be pertinent. Or not!

I would like to see an action plan for hunting days as well as a clear disciplinary code and severe penalties for bringing hunting into disrepute that is absolutely clear to everyone and adhered to. That needs to be transparent for the general public. The MFHA do have a great deal in place already with regard to code of conduct for hunting days, reporting procedures but it is opaque and clearly not well communicated to the general public and it looks as if there is no real solid procedure for dealing with hunting related incidents. I don't know why. I am not sure whether the current MFHA can do that - they haven't responded to issues in the best and most pro-active way in the last couple of years and although there is a new team in place there now I don't know if they can turn things around sufficiently.

Hunts must have clear evidence of trail hunting for every day they go out; that is already the Hunting Office's position but the reality of that hasn't been effective enough. Hunts are starting to use drones now to help with that as somehow that is more interesting for people to do than try to record lots of different positions (huntsman & whips for example) using headcams etc. Last time a hunt used a drone to record their day (a week or so ago I think), the sabs present objected mightily and threatened civil action for invasion of privacy even though the hunt drone had the landowner's permission. Drone wars are not particularly appealing but that is one way that hunts could record their day but there are also issues with that. It was interesting that the antis/sabs were so vehement about it too...

It hasn't been sufficient to have identified trail layers (I recorded 2 or 3 every time I was doing thiis last season as part of the Covid protocol) - somehow the laying of trails and the subsequent hunting of trails have to be proven I guess. Some hunts will find that easier than others. When I was recording our trail layers for Covid reasons I had to only keep that paperwork for 3 weeks for GDPR reasons - after that it had to be destroyed which would not have been very handy if I had subsequently been asked to produce that for any enquiry. I have never met a trail layer that wouldn't have been entirely happy to be questioned about their activities and I guess they could use a GPS watch or something like that to record trails. I am not sure technology is the answer. The use of scent is a question the MFHA should deal with but again, after allegations of illegal hunting have been made how can it be proven that the 'right' scent has been used? The scent used on that day could be easily 'faked' or simply disappear on the ground. How on earth can that be policed? I don't accept that all trail hunts are hunting illegally at all and I don't accept that there is a universal culture of acceptance of illegality in hunting - in fact, I know there isn't. One of the issues is that much of hunting process has been developed through custom and practice rather than with a set of tick box procedures though increasingly kennel management is like that. Hound breeding has always been incredibly well documented at least but that isn't the issue in question.

I don't really want to contribute more to this thread tbh as there is little ground to be gained here but one of the key issues is that you need a particular sort of person leading an organisation to accept publicly that things haven't been done in the best way and then either resign or demonstrate that change really is afoot. There has been an increase in grass roots hunters wanting this change and seeing it as eminently possible but the MFHA? Who knows.

ETA: on the private hunting groups on social media there is a really strong consensus that an absolute minority of hunting is illegal; there is outrage and a real sense of injustice about what the public perception is thanks to this current debacle. I don't think I have seen anything really that clarifies whether MHs word encouraged anyone to hunt illegally as the overwhelming viiew is that people have been following the law and where they haven't there has always been real anger that this endangers all hunting. I know what I say won't be convincing for some people but I wanted to say it anyway.

 

[paddy555]

I would like to see an action plan for hunting days as well as a clear disciplinary code and severe penalties for bringing hunting into disrepute that is absolutely clear to everyone and adhered to. That needs to be transparent for the general public.


There has been an increase in grass roots hunters wanting this change and seeing it as eminently possible but the MFHA? Who knows.

what would be really helpful for the general public, the likes of me who have to put up with hunting, would be knowing when and where the meet was going to be held well in advance. Having just come back from riding I luckily heard them and was able to find a way home. If you have nothing to hide let people know, if you want to go behind closed doors because you are flouting the rules then keep it as quiet as possible.

secondly nothing will change. The MFHA have no wish for it to change. "We in our ivory towers". This is how it has always been done. I expect they said the same about bear baiting at one time.
If they have wanted change there would have been an immediate apology and how the situation was going to be rectified. What we got was their huge disappointment and now can we have an appeal to get out of it. Beggars belief.

 

[Sandstone1]

Pro hunters can argue til the cows come home, anyone who lives near to or sees what local hunts get up too knows full well that they do often purposely hunt foxes. They dont let people know when they are meeting anymore to try and avoid sabs so they can get on with doing their thing in peace. In the most part trail hunting IS a smokescreen for fox hunting. IF they have nothing to hide why do it in secret??
Why do they need terrier men if they are trail hunting? why do they need birds of prey?
What it needs is for a few people to go to jail for it.

 

[Tiddlypom]

Well, pro hunt will always declare that it is a tiny minority who break the law, and that 'they' are hunting legally ?‍. Doesn't make it true.

The master who kept trying to assure me that my local pack was indeed trail hunting, when it was clearly still fox hunting as always, was lying through their teeth.

As long as pro hunt stay in such denial, and do not realise that at the very least they must commit to a time line to stop laying 'trails' with fox scent, they continue to hurtle ever more rapidly to a total ban.

A couple of news reports. There was also an item about the trial result on the BBC 6pm TV news, despite there being so much coverage of the terrible death of Sir David Amess. The beeb are much less likely to report on stuff negative to hunting than ITV.

https://fb.watch/8GuyVQDJTq/ng

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...KxbslZeVyDEQSuzbPaT7aXqVz-5Mpe0ZIBZpGbBDCXGu4

ETA And then this weird statement by the pro hunt This is Hunting UK FB group.

Mark Hankinson the Director of the Master of Foxhounds Association was this afternoon found guilty of the charges brought against him.

This is Hunting UK is well aware of the implications of the outcome and how the Hunting Act, however unjustly introduced, has to be respected.

The time has come to now begin a serious campaign to tackle the Hunting Act and its anomalies with the aim of bringing back public respect.

This should and must be done alongside proper engagement with the public.

Erm, where's the bit condemning the illegal actions? Wtf does 'The time has come to now begin a serious campaign to tackle the Hunting Act and its anomalies with the aim of bringing back public respect.' even mean?

 

[Ambers Echo]

As far as I can tell, it means: the Act is rubbish and should be repealed. He is guilty in the eyes of the law but we have no issues with what he did. While this IS the law, we ought to grudgingly respect it if caught, while ignoring it as far as possible behind closed doors. And while working to overturn it. We need a PR campaign on why fox hunting is fine.

They won't condemn him for doing what he did because they don't see anything wrong with hunting foxes with hounds. And abolition of the Act is the aim, not cleaning up trail hutning.

Which confirms what lots of people believe - that trail hunting was always a cover for ongoing illegal hunting.

Hunting is doomed.

 

[Ambers Echo]

I was pleased when the ban came in because I felt that it opened up hunting to people like me who would never have hunted when the aim was to chase and kill a fox. Maybe foxes do need to be culled but I would always view the culling of any animal as a necessary evil not a fun day out or a sport.

But Palo's description of hunting is also wonderful and I would love to do it. Such a shame that the hunting world just can't seem to see that there are so many possibilities within trail hunting. They just want it to be like it always was and that clinging to the past will destroy the possibility of a differeny kind if hunting in the future, that rerains a lot of what made it so special. It's so blinkered and such a shame.

 

[Sanversera]

they are obviously hunting foxes. only drag hunting should be allowed , not trail hunting

 

[paddy555]

Wtf does 'The time has come to now begin a serious campaign to tackle the Hunting Act and its anomalies with the aim of bringing back public respect.' even mean?

it simply means that now, in the fullness of time, after many years of consideration after the 2004 act and in due course, when we finally and eventually get around to it, depending on how many more times we get caught out of course we will start to give the matter some thought, a very long and serious thought process which will buy even more time.

The final 6 words mean we don't give a f**ck about the public but finally we are starting to have to realise that the pesky public do exist, not that they know anything about hunting nor indeed should they.

I am not sure why they think there must be proper engagement with the public, all the public I know would be quite happy with a total ban, full stop, I'm sure most don't see a difference between fox hunting, drag, trail hunting or any other sort of hunting. In that they are in total agreement with the MFHA who also don't see a difference between fox and trail hunting.

 

[ycbm]

Will you make an unequivocal statement that you accept that the Chairman of the organisation which controls your sport was giving advice to hunts how to evade the law and hunt fox?
.

After 4 hours , during which you have posted, I will take your silence as a "no", Palo.

You believe that a man who says that the purpose of laying a trail is to ensure that the hunt is covered by insurance was not giving advice how to hunt fox illegally.

There is no future for your sport if as many people as you seem to suggest believe the same, and neither should there be.
.

 

[palo1]

This is Hunting UK have been pressing for disciplinary action to be much more serious for illegal hunting for years as well as working to support trail layers and to promote good practice. They are certainly not huge fans of the MFHA! They are one group that is really only interested in promoting legal hunting and I understand the highlighted sentence above to mean that this organisation wants amendment of the Hunting Act to make hunting with public confidence possible. You see what you want to see but it is always good to challenge that with alternative views.

 

[palo1]

After 4 hours , during which you have posted, I will take your silence as a "no", Palo.

You believe that a man who says that the purpose of laying a trail is to ensure that the hunt is covered by insurance was not giving advice how to hunt fox illegally.

There is no future for your sport if as many people as you seem to suggest believe the same, and neither should there be.
.

@ycbm you can think whatever you like - you are clearly incapable of considering an alternative viewpoint.

 

[ycbm]

@ycbm you can think whatever you like - you are clearly incapable of considering an alternative viewpoint.

There is no "alternative viewpoint". I am asking you to state a yes or no answer to a yes or no question which you have so far used every "qualified agreement" trick in the book to avoid doing.

Do you believe that the man convicted was guilty of telling people how to evade the law and hunt illegally?

Yes or No.

 

[Miss_Millie]

It shouldn't be a matter of whether or not someone thinks he was guilty, he was blatantly guilty, he literally told people to use hunting as a smokescreen, and anyone who believes otherwise is in serious denial.

 

[palo1]

For the record I don't think MH was telling people how to evade the law - he was telling people how to evade sabs. His QC pointed out that MH had spent years adhering to the letter of the law and checking that others did the same. He was absolutely aware of every facet of the Hunting Act. The way that he discussed the subject which was the entire raison d'etre of the webinars - how to deal with sabs, is dire. I have no idea why he communicated in that way. BUT the judge has convicted him so it doesn't matter what I think. The fact is that he has been convicted and as a result I think the MFHA needs an entirely new team and a new approach.

 

[palo1]

It shouldn't be a matter of whether or not someone thinks he was guilty, he was blatantly guilty, he literally told people to use hunting as a smokescreen, and anyone who believes otherwise is in serious denial.

No he didn't. He told people to create a smokescreen to prevent sabs disrupting hunting activities.

 

[Tiddlypom]

Oh dear ?.

Deluded.

I've corrected your post for you.

No he didn't. He told people to create a smokescreen to prevent sabs disrupting illegal hunting activities.

 

[ycbm]

I have no idea why he communicated in that way.

My answer to that would be that it was because, unlike you, he is in an area where illegal hunting is/was widespread, he believed that the webinars were being listened to only by people within hunting who collude with illegal hunting whether their own hunt does it or not (if only by their silence on the issue) and he fully intended to give advice on how to hunt illegally in the presence of sabs.

It's unusual to be represented by a barrister rather than a solicitor in a Magistrates Court. It's exceptionally unusual to be represented by a Queen's Council, the highest paid lawyers in the Criminal Court system who would normally only be seen in Crown Court. And if a QC could not get "reasonable doubt" into the mind of a District Judge who is lower down the legal heirarchy than himself, my own opinion is that the verdict is a safe one.

I genuinely respect your passion for your sport and your level of knowledge about it, Palo. But your ability to believe that the webinars were innocent in spite of what you know was said and then not understand why it was said is perplexing, to say the least. I hope the sport survives but with the reaction from the top so far I'm not holding my breath.
.

 

[L&M]

As I wrote on the shooting hounds thread, if hunting is ever to have a place in this modern world it needs to change with the times.
For those of us who trail hunt legally this verdict is incredibly disappointing as we have been let down massively and thrown under the bus with the illegal hunts in the eyes of the public.
We all now need to stick together to turn things around and prove that we can follow the law. We also need to condemn illegal hunting as LOUDLY as possible.
Palo has put the beauty of trail hunting across so well in their previous posts. It can still have a place in this world but things need to change for that to happen. I hope this will be the wakeup call hunting needs!

With you 110%......

 

[Sanversera]

I sat on the fence re fox hunting for many years eventually deciding to be pro hunting, only after the ban did I actually attend meets,had good times, made friends, good social scene after realising that our local Hunt was flouting the law I became disenchanted, especially at the digging out of badgers and putting them in sacks,at least one terrier man was presecuted I believe,it went on for years. I am completely disgusted by the whole thing and am now anti hunting. Hunts had a chance to keep going,but they shot thereselvese in the foot, I recently voted against letting them hunt on N T land, something I thought I would never do. Time for a proper total ban.

 

[ycbm]

I sat on the fence re fox hunting for many years

I thought we were supposed to jump them ?

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

 

[Sanversera]

I thought we were supposed to jump them ?

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

ROFL ??????