Hunting is in a spot of bother

[palo1]

Drag hunting hounds still follow a scent, its great watching them work to find the lines. The runner is usually very fit, picks up and puts down the scent which is dragged behind, over fences too, interesting to watch when going over streams etc to see hounds working to pick up the scent trail again.
Big difference is that the master will often likely know the routes, so the field can whizz round fields, take wider lines on open common land - and find all the hedges, fences etc whilst watching hounds work a little further away.

Yes I have been drag hunting on a number of occasions. Every drag pack presumably has their own style. In my experience the trail laid is very simple - designed to keep hounds running and to keep the field moving - usually at speed over decent going and plenty of jumps. I haven't seen particularly complex trails laid tbh though I would like to go out with a pack that presented more challenging trailing. Bloodhounding is good fun too though.

 

[ycbm]

So presumably the dog killed the lamb out of instinct? Thus acting on instinct, regardless of training.

The lamb was standing on the trail, I really can't blame the dog in this instance it was entirely the fault of whoever decided to lay a trail through a field full of sheep with lambs at foot in March. The dog did not run riot.
.

 

[Koweyka]

I hadn't heard about this and have no idea why 18 perfectly healthy hounds would be killed; that is so far outside any experience or understanding I have of hunting practices. Hounds are killed/culled/euthanased for a variety of reasons; do you know why those hounds were killed? Had those hounds rioted or did they have some contagious and potentially dangerous illness (ie to cattle or sheep - neospora perhaps?)

Whilst that is utterly dire, it is not usual. Hounds ARE killed for sure but not before their time unless there is a good reason; unmanageable aggression, illness or behaviour that can't be managed within the infrastructure and a number DO return to their puppy walkers. I had a retired hound for 12 years; she didn't enjoy trail hunting so I had her at home. She was blooming awkward and would NOT have made a great pet for anyone who didn't understand her background. She wasn't especially bothered about being part of a pack (she would have been a better hound if she had been!) but never really 'cared' about house-training, was the most appalling thief, selectively deaf, rather territorial about where she chose to lie down and with the stamina of a blooming endurance animal...We adored her and entirely tolerated her foibles but they really would not be for most people wanting a pet.

They hadn’t done anything wrong, perfectly healthy, great condition, never rioted, beautiful temperaments but they just didn’t fit in with the plans of this particular huntsman, let’s say he DIDN’T want to trail and these hounds did. It’s a disgrace, I sincerely hope in the near future he is named and shamed and shunned.

 

[The Fuzzy Furry]

Yes I have been drag hunting on a number of occasions. Every drag pack presumably has their own style. In my experience the trail laid is very simple - designed to keep hounds running and to keep the field moving - usually at speed over decent going and plenty of jumps. I haven't seen particularly complex trails laid tbh though I would like to go out with a pack that presented more challenging trailing. Bloodhounding is good fun too though.

I find the onward bound direct trails are weekends, more elaborate lines during the week.
My most local drag pack used to take errant fox hounds as a 'last ditch' attempt to get them working, but this stopped well over 20 years ago, They have bred their own ever since

 

[Gallop_Away]

Drag hunts use fox hounds and have no problems stopping them from chasing foxes or deer. It's about training and how the trail is laid. I have seen a lamb killed but it was a bad decision to lay a tail through a field with lambs in it.
.

Well put!

This is why it is so important to have a master with excellent control and skills with their hounds.
I can not recall ever seeing either of the packs I hunt with have hounds harm another animal/pet/livestock etc. Thats not to say they never veered off the trail. It happens. But this is where our whips and hunt master show superb skill and recall and regather hounds.
Also as ycbm points out above you also need to use common sense where you lay your trails.
All this involves a great deal of work but I personally think its very much worth the effort.

 

[CrunchieBoi]

That is such a misrepresentation of the truth...Would you also suggest that no-one should be breeding sheep dogs or other working dogs as they too are 'culled' before the end of their natural lifespan?

I personally differentiate between hounds bred for trail hunting (a hobby) and working dogs doing some form of essential job to be honest. Also the gun dogs and sheepdogs I know were all looked after until old age.

 

[ycbm]

That is such a misrepresentation of the truth...Would you also suggest that no-one should be breeding sheep dogs or other working dogs as they too are 'culled' before the end of their natural lifespan?

I know a few of shepherds and I don't know any that cull their dogs, they just retire them.
.

 

[Miss_Millie]

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-10-25...l-wildlife-crime-unit-membership-under-review

In the news today...

'Former Dyfed Powys Police Chief Inspector Phil Davies has been suspended as a member of the UK Priority Delivery Groups (PDGs) for wildlife crime after a judge drew attention to words he used in an online hunting webinar.'

 

[palo1]

That may be a good thing.

 

[palo1]

I know a few of shepherds and I don't know any that cull their dogs, they just retire them.
.

Equally, I know of shepherds that cull their old dogs. Sometimes because the dog is miserable being left at home when it is too old to work, sometimes because they need medical treatment that can't be afforded, sometimes because with perhaps 7 or 8 dogs the space in kennels is needed for working dogs.

In any case culling hounds or dogs is not illegal nor the issue in question. People have healthy animals killed or euthanased for many reasons and doing that or not can both be contentious. A lot of people don't like to support the Dogs Trust for example because of their stance that they never put a healthy dog down. For some people that isn't considered appropriate if the dog spends the rest of it's life confined in a rescue centre. If we are going to consider the morality of killing animals then we are in the territory of ethical veganism which is an entirely other discussion.

 

[palo1]

I personally differentiate between hounds bred for trail hunting (a hobby) and working dogs doing some form of essential job to be honest. Also the gun dogs and sheepdogs I know were all looked after until old age.

Well the definition of 'essential' is entirely subjective. An ethical vegan would not accept that any dog's 'work' was esssential in fact but possibly always exploitative. Your values and judgements are not necessarily universal and for a trail huntsman who has tied accomodation, his hounds are absolutely essential to his livelihood and possibly that of his family in exactly the same way as a shepherd or gamekeepers dogs are.

 

[palo1]

The lamb was standing on the trail, I really can't blame the dog in this instance it was entirely the fault of whoever decided to lay a trail through a field full of sheep with lambs at foot in March. The dog did not run riot.
.

Well if it killed a lamb it was rioting! Most hounds under a decent huntsman (including my old retired girl) don't look twice at sheep even if the sheep are standing in their path. An attack on livestock, wherever that livestock is, is riot and must be taken extremely seriously.

 

[ycbm]

Well if it killed a lamb it was rioting!

I didn't realise you were there.
.

 

[palo1]

I didn't realise you were there.
.

I wasn't - I've never seen a hound kill a sheep or lamb. Sorry, have I got the wrong end of the stick in relation to your post?!

 

[CrunchieBoi]

Well the definition of 'essential' is entirely subjective. An ethical vegan would not accept that any dog's 'work' was esssential in fact but possibly always exploitative. Your values and judgements are not necessarily universal and for a trail huntsman who has tied accomodation, his hounds are absolutely essential to his livelihood and possibly that of his family in exactly the same way as a shepherd or gamekeepers dogs are.

At no point did I claim my views were universal, in fact I even used the phrase "I personally..."

There's little point in me continuing the discussion with you because there's nothing positive you can tell me about the activity known as "trail hunting". As far as I'm concerned, it's just been proved to be what I'd always suspected it to be.

Having a nosey on pro-hunting Facebook groups reveal an awful lot of folk commenting along the lines that heads should be kept down until this latest scandal blows over and ultimately carry on as normal.

 

[palo1]

At no point did I claim my views were universal, in fact I even used the phrase "I personally..."

There's little point in me continuing the discussion with you because there's nothing positive you can tell me about the activity known as "trail hunting". As far as I'm concerned, it's just been proved to be what I'd always suspected it to be.

Having a nosey on pro-hubting Facebook groups reveal an awful lot of folk commenting along the lines that heads should be kept down until this latest scandal blows over and ultimately carry on as normal.

That is fair enough - I think I feel similarly that positions on both sides of the debate are polarised and 'set' in emotional and philosophical concrete. It is difficult to actually achieve a discussion. The tropes around hunters and antis are so incredibly established that I don't really know when or how there can be a dialogue with any integrity. I loathe these threads in honesty.

If you were in the middle of a storm, largely or entirely NOT of your making and felt that you didn't know how to address issues or wanting to engage with the other side, what would you do? Most people's natural response is, indeed, to keep their head down. Please believe me when I say that all of the grass roots hunters that I know, huntsmen and other hunt staff never wanted their lifestyle to be brought into disrepute, never wanted to face the barrage of attention on them and just want to work in the best way they can under a law that is appalling whichever side you sit on. People like me who are prepared to endlessly take the stick for supporting hunting are not so many; because it is so difficult to communicate and we are constantly told we are lying, ignorant, deluded, cruel, bloodthirsty etc (just on this thread actually!). That isn't a good day out tbh, even when you are not being physically or verbally abused, harrassed etc. I know that anti-hunters also loathe the way they are portrayed often. There is a reality of violence, aggression, intimidation and other deeply anti-social and unpleasant stuff there too but there are indeed hunt monitors and those who want to see the end of all hunting (including drag hunting) who are kind, reasonable, decent people working within established boundaries of legal access and campaigning.

I believe that honest, respectful debate and discussion are the only way to move forward but I don't ask anyone else to take that position; you do what works best for you. I want to put my view and experience forward and thankfully live somewhere that is entirely possible.

 

[palo1]

I am still wondering how anti hunters here respond to Daniel Greenberg's words; I think it is really telling that literally not a single poster has been able to respond to his assertions around intolerance...

 

[palo1]

Wow, that was an unnecessarily patronising and unhelpful response, AA .

Hunting shooting itself in the foot again.

As I've posted before, I fully agree with this view. Back in the days of legal hunting the countryside in general, and the fox population in particular, were better managed simply to provide the best sport.

Many might despise the motives for this, but it is true.

But we are where we are, and fox hunting has been banned since the Hunting Act of 2004...

'Hunting shooting itself in the foot again.'

I do wonder sometimes @Tiddlypom if you ever re-read your own posts... I have known you to be incredibly patronising and dismissive so I think this is a case of 'Pot, meet Kettle...' I don't think @AdorableAlice meant to be at all patronising but was simply stating that if someone was unaware of how hunting impacted on land management then it demonstrated a lack of knowledge that isn't particularly helpful in this debate. Also, to be honest, there is so much information available on the subject from both sides that anyone who is genuinely interested in the issues, rather than just stating their view without being informed, or just having a pop would have probably been aware of them. I am not suggesting that @Indy just wanted to have a pop btw; it is just an observation.

 

[Dizzy socks]

I am still wondering how anti hunters here respond to Daniel Greenberg's words; I think it is really telling that literally not a single poster has been able to respond to his assertions around intolerance...

Okay - I’ll bite. I’ve been trying not get involved in this thread, because I don’t think it’s especially productive, but here are my thoughts having read what you’ve quoted. I’m not sure why you think it’s of such relevance - I also agree the Act is badly drafted, but this thread has now gone beyond a discussion of the rights and wrongs of hunting, and into the more nuanced questions of whether trail hunting can/should survive.

While it may be arguable that hunting may have been cultural significant, and that activities deemed culturally significant have value, this is not of ultimate importance - if it were, we’d still have cockfights.

Sometimes, certain values must be prioritised over others - and I think that animal welfare should triumph over historical enjoyment/culture. I don’t think you’d disagree with this assertion?

Ultimately, we’re back at the age-old question of whether fox hunting is cruel, and we are no further on. If you think it isn’t, then yes there is an argument for its preservation, but if you think it is, then preventing animal cruelty should triumph.

I don’t think the comparison to vegetarians is effective - while only a small proportion may have campaigned against hunting, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a majority who do consider hunting cruel. I have a fairly diverse group of friends (I like to think!), grew up in the country and now live in the city, and can’t think of a single person who supports fox hunting (and yes, it’s a discussion I’ve had often. I felt more ambivalent before I researched further in recent years).

Protest is *necessary* to enact change - look at the civil rights protests. Certain things are deemed sufficiently intolerable that leave and leave alone cannot be allowed, nor can ‘we have always done it this way’. Perceptions change, things which were permissible at one time will not always be.

I still think the comparison to hate crime isn’t appropriate and is perhaps offensive - protected groups are protected for a reason, and hunting in no way meets these standards.

 

[ester]

It's always nice if people can respond to questions though

 

[Tiddlypom]

I don't think @AdorableAlice meant to be at all patronising but was simply stating that if someone was unaware of how hunting impacted on land management then it demonstrated a lack of knowledge that isn't particularly helpful in this debate.

An opportunity was lost to put forward the benefit of hunting, and there are some.

Hunting does, or rather it did when it was legal, have many positive aspects re land management to facilitate the sport.

Instead, a politely worded enquiry was rebuffed ?‍.

 

[palo1]

An opportunity was lost to put forward the benefit of hunting, and there are some.

Hunting does, or rather it did when it was legal, have many positive aspects re land management to facilitate the sport.

Instead, a politely worded enquiry was rebuffed ?‍.

 

[Tiddlypom]

And on a positive note for hunting, my local pack is now issuing meet cards again! Hurray! A very good PR move to reinstate them .

The meet card is just like the old ones, except understandably only the name of the village or locality where the meet is to be held is given, rather than the name of the farm/pub whatever. That's no problem.

It means that I can work out, like I always used to do, on which days the hunt is almost certain to be here, might be here, or won't be here. Then I can plan how best to manage my animals on those days. As long I have good notice, I have no problem with the hunt being here.

The most recent meet card that I have from before this is from the 2017/18 season, so it's been a long gap.

 

[Tiddlypom]

Hunting has been right up in the news lately, and not in a good way, has it.

No discussions here at admin's order request, please, of the latest issue from last weekend.

However, a very pertinent comment was put on the pro hunt This is Hunting UK FB page, which attracted 22 likes. Has the Countryside Alliance gone to ground?

'By the way, but is the Countryside Alliance actually representing the hunting community anymore? Their silence is deafening!'

 

[Rowreach]

Hunting has been right up in the news lately, and not in a good way, has it.

No discussions here at admin's order request, please, of the latest issue from last weekend.

However, a very pertinent comment was put on the pro hunt This is Hunting UK FB page, which attracted 22 likes. Has the Countryside Alliance gone to ground?

'By the way, but is the Countryside Alliance actually representing the hunting community anymore? Their silence is deafening!'

They commented fully on the National Trust vote.

 

[Tiddlypom]

One out of three major recent adverse issues for hunting, then?

They did give a fair bit of publicity to the then upcoming National Trust vote and tbf, the result.

Did I miss them commenting on the Mark Hankinson verdict? Can't see anything on the website or their FB page, but maybe I'm not looking hard enough.

 

[AShetlandBitMeOnce]

Reviving yet another thread that had fizzled out but came across this video and thought that it was showing exactly the standard of obedience and control the public should expect from a hunt and their pack..

(Sorry, I don’t think I can embed the media clip so you’ll have to click on the link if you can) ETA: think I managed it

 

[Tiddlypom]

Yes, that clip is being lauded by pro hunt as showing outstanding hound control, but it simply shows how hounds can be correctly trained to ignore distractions and to not riot, as long as the work is put in.

It's what all packs should be like all the time, and not a cause of great self congratulation that on this occasion a pack was filmed under tight control and ignoring a deer. That should be normal, expected everyday practice ?‍.

If hunt staff don't put the work in and don't have the respect and attention of the hounds, which is all too common, then they have no business taking hounds out in public.

Remember the video of the High Peak hounds rioting onto the calf? That should never have happened, but it did.

 

[Koweyka]

Yes it’s quite remarkable but certainly not the norm….

https://www.keeptheban.uk/post/deer...UGVG7BzpfIeyOE7--nU1ieTiV9OZxXDKzKM-U6hip71Bw

 

[Koweyka]