Hunting is in a spot of bother

[paddy555]

Sorry, I only read the last bit of the thread.
I wonder if NPs own the common land?

this is who owns Dartmoor. (In between the moorland are of course the privately owned farms and farmland)
https://whoownsengland.org/2021/03/22/who-owns-dartmoor/

ETA many of those privately owned farms are actually owned by the duchy and tenanted.

 

[paddy555]

See this is an interesting one - my local hunt usually has its opening meet at a NT property literally a stone's throw from the kennels. Despite the wishes of the family who live on site/own the land, the NT still said no.

presumably the NT own the farm which is tenanted to the family. If that is the case will be up to the NT as landowners. It is the opposite in some areas where the farmers don't want the hunt but the landlord does.

 

[teapot]

presumably the NT own the farm which is tenanted to the family. If that is the case will be up to the NT as landowners. It is the opposite in some areas where the farmers don't want the hunt but the landlord does.

Not a farm, a rather well known house and estate. The NT merely manage the house for the general public, while the family live in one of the wings.

 

[palo1]

Well I don’t think it is by my understanding, NT farms are tenanted so the landowner, the Trust, gets to say what happens.
No different to a large estate having tenant farmers and them having to abide by the landowners rules.

deleted - just read @teapot's last post which clarified.

 

[Clodagh]

this is who owns Dartmoor. (In between the moorland are of course the privately owned farms and farmland)
https://whoownsengland.org/2021/03/22/who-owns-dartmoor/

ETA many of those privately owned farms are actually owned by the duchy and tenanted.

Well I can’t see Charles wanting to ban hunting. That’s interesting, though, thank you.

 

[Tiddlypom]

Well I can’t see Charles wanting to ban hunting. That’s interesting, though, thank you.

Indeed, but you'd hope that he would be proactive in insisting that only strictly legal hunting takes place on Duchy land. It is rightly getting much harder for landowners to turn a blind eye to illegal hunting taking place on their land and pretending that its nothing to do with them.

The message from all landowners should be shape up, hunt legally or shove off. Which is just what my local sporting estate, with its numerous tenanted farms all with sporting rights retained by the estate, did. It's nowhere near as big as the Duchy estate, but it's pretty big beans and well known hereabouts.

It is much less hassle for the landowner just to ban all trail hunting on their land altogether, though, like the NT, rather than to trust a dubious hunt access to not flout the law.

 

[palo1]

It is also interesting that at the end of October the NT stated that their position on trailhunting was that 'Making it illegal is a matter for the government' (that does not prevent them from refusing to issue licences though of course) - also that the trust were satisfied that trail hunting caused no more trouble than any other legal activity on their land.

They have now clarified that they will still allow some 'ceremonial meets' (Ie I guess some meets to take place but then move off NT land to trail hunt elsewhere) as well as that they must allow trail hunts access via PROWs to cross their land. That is going to work well then isn't it?! What a mess.

This is what the Lake District NP Authority have to say on understanding the management of trail hunting:-

We issue licences for activities taking place on common land owned by the Lake District National Park Authority. This is a blank trail hunting licence for the 2020-2021 season.
The Lake District National Park Authority (LDNPA) does not have any overall power or responsibility to manage this activity on land owned by others in the National Park.
Several fell packs have traditionally used areas of Common Land that is now owned by the LDNPA (amounting to about 4 per cent of land in the National Park) and this use has continued under licence from us.
We issue licences for a wide variety of activities on our land and those issued to the fell packs are designed to enable them to maintain their traditional activity within the law, whilst minimising inconvenience to other users of the land.

 

[palo1]

Indeed, but you'd hope that he would be proactive in insisting that only strictly legal hunting takes place on Duchy land. It is rightly getting much harder for landowners to turn a blind eye to illegal hunting taking place on their land and pretending that its nothing to do with them.

The message from all landowners should be shape up, hunt legally or shove off. Which is just what my local sporting estate, with its numerous tenanted farms all with sporting rights retained by the estate, did. It's nowhere near as big as the Duchy estate, but it's pretty big beans and well known hereabouts.

It is much less hassle for the landowner just to ban all trail hunting on their land altogether, though, like the NT, rather than to trust a dubious hunt access to flout the law.

Well yes, telling hunts to sort themselves out is the sensible thing to do. Except where landowners themselves do not want trail hunting but want fox hunting or will tolerate it for whatever reason they may have. I have no idea how many landowners take that position in fact but I suspect that some do at least. I know that people will feel outraged by this but the reality of the Hunting Act is that some people who hunted traditionally pre-ban never saw any evidence that hunting foxes with hounds was in fact inhumane and the Act itself is so dire that, as we know, that has allowed exemptions to the law and for every single allegation of illegal hunting requiring to be contested by both sides. It is dire in so many ways.

 

[ycbm]

What a mess.

I agree. What I can't guage from any of your responses on this or other hunting threads is whether you accept that the mess is of trail hunting's own making.
.

 

[ycbm]

the Act.... is so dire that, as we know, that has allowed exemptions to the law and for every single allegation of illegal hunting requiring to be contested by both sides. It [the situation] is dire in so many ways.

The situation is dire because people chose to use leaway in the law, which was meant to ensure that honest accidents weren't criminalised, to carry on wholesale activities which they knew full well were in contravention of the law.
.

 

[paddy555]

s but the reality of the Hunting Act is that some people who hunted traditionally pre-ban never saw any evidence that hunting foxes with hounds was in fact inhumane

but why did they have to? It comes across as we didn't see any problem with our activity before, we still don't so it doesn't really apply to us. That is the attitude that your posts are putting across to me. And yes the Act is dire.

 

[paddy555]

Indeed, but you'd hope that he would be proactive in insisting that only strictly legal hunting takes place on Duchy land. It is rightly getting much harder for landowners to turn a blind eye to illegal hunting taking place on their land and pretending that its nothing to do with them.

T.

Really? I would doubt he has the slightest interest and I know of one occasion when it didn't on a duchy farm.
Both Charles and Camilla hunted before the ban.

 

[Tiddlypom]

Really? I would doubt he has the slightest interest and I know of one occasion when it didn't on a duchy farm.
Both Charles and Camilla hunted before the ban.

I know they hunted (a lot, especially Camilla), and I imagine that both would prefer that fox hunting was still legal.

I'm sure that Prince Charles is still closely following the travails of hunting. In his position as heir to the throne he can't be seen to be facilitating or complicit in allowing illegal activities to take place on land he owns. The question is to the extent that he will step in and make sure that all parties are clear on that.

He could shrug his shoulders and leave it to his local estate managers to sort out, but he seems to be pretty hands in other respects on re the ethos that the Duchy estate management follows, so that would be out of character.

 

[Fred66]

Not that I advocate this but the refrain that is frequently heard from hunt saboteurs when told that they are trespassing is “trespass is a civil matter”, I wonder whether they will be so comfortable with that response if hunts start giving it ? ?

 

[palo1]

I agree. What I can't guage from any of your responses on this or other hunting threads is whether you accept that the mess is of trail hunting's own making.
.

The mess is of trail hunting's making yes, that of the MFHA and within the context of the Hunting Act which has been universally acknowledged as unworkable. I cannot lay the blame for this at the feet of ordinary people and hunts who have wanted to and have done their best to work within the law and support what is legal.

 

[ycbm]

I don't agree that the law is universally described as unworkable. It's crystal clear what the law intends. "Difficult to obtain proof beyond reasonable doubt" applies to many laws. It doesn't make those laws wrong.

I agree with you that ordinary people who trail hunt are not responsible for the difficulty trail hunting is in, but I don't think that is true of ordinary hunts. The organisers of ordinary hunts knew full well what other hunts were doing, but allowed themselves to continue under the management of some of the very people who they knew were doing it. That falure to speak out and to break away is, possibly going to be the downfall of trail hunting. I hope not, it isn't too late, but I don't hear of any of the necessary changes happening.
.

 

[palo1]

I don't agree that the law is universally described as unworkable. It's crystal clear what the law intends. "Difficult to obtain proof beyond reasonable doubt" applies to many laws. It doesn't make those laws wrong.

I agree with you that ordinary people who trail hunt are not responsible for the difficulty trail hunting is in, but I don't think that is true of ordinary hunts. The organisers of ordinary hunts knew full well what other hunts were doing, but allowed themselves to continue under the management of some of the very people who they knew were doing it. That falure to speak out and to break away is, possibly going to be the downfall of trail hunting. I hope not, it isn't too late, but I don't hear of any of the necessary changes happening.
.

I think you have not understood the way that hunting is/has been 'managed' if you like. It has never really been the case that hunts which are individual and often highly individual entities 'come together'; there is no real mechanism for ordinary hunts to 'speak out' or to break away unless they turn 'pirate'. I have no idea how any hunt would decide that it could go solo or set up a breakaway organisation. That would remove them from any engagement with a wider community, the various forms of support that provides and also wouldn't allow for the recording of hound breeding, drafting of hounds and access to hound shows/hound judging which is very very important to huntsmen. Hounds and the formally recognised breeding and achievement of hounds on the flags or in the field are absolutely the core of hunting in formal sense. There would be very, very few huntsmen or masters that would banish themselves from that.

I have heard people say that a particular issue is very historic - that under the control of the highly esteemed Ronnie Wallace, hunt staff were somewhat cowed as he ruled with a rod of iron, albeit in a way that many admired in hunting terms. This weakened any dissent from hunts and left the door open for poor, unchallenged decision making and governance which, coupled with the Hunting Act brings us to where we are. I don't actually know anyone that doesn't want real change, good governance, discipline and due diligence in place in hunting. Both old and new hunters can see that the MFHA are not dealing with the situation that hunting is in. There are ongoing efforts to make change happen and I hope and am somewhat optimistic that we will see those changes.

As for the law - I have never heard anyone say it is useful or decent in legislative terms.

 

[ycbm]

So many excuses, Palo. Trail hunting is going to die if it keeps making so many excuses. As someone who wants to trail hunt in future it's incredibly frustrating to sit and watch.

As for the law - I have never heard anyone say it is useful or decent in legislative terms

You've heard lots of people on this forum but you aren't listening.
.

 

[palo1]

So many excuses, Palo. Trail hunting is going to die if it keeps making so many excuses. As someone who wants to trail hunt in future it's incredibly frustrating to sit and watch.




You've heard lots of people on this forum but you aren't listening.
.

@ycbm - Those are not excuses but reasons for why the governance of hunting has been found so wanting. There are usually structural reasons for problems and failings in any setting - I was just explaining what I understand of those and I can't see how you can say they are excuses. I have not heard anyone say here that the Hunting Act is fit for purpose - the antis continually express how poor it is and how they want it revisited by Parliament. Yet it was what they wanted and lobbied for originally.

 

[ycbm]

You baffle me Palo, I admit. You give the recording the breeding of fox hounds as a reason why trail hunters sat by and watched while illegal hunting continued, putting trail hunting at terrible risk, then quibble about it being called an excuse.

You have heard many people on here express approval of the recent convictions for inciting illegal hunting and previous convictions for illegal hunting and yet you say that nobody says the law is useful.

The law would have been sufficiently fit for purpose if there had not been a widespread and very determined conspiracy to flout it.

I'm so frustrated that you can't see that if your views are widespread at leadership level in trail hunting (and I think they are) that you will lose your sport altogether

 

[palo1]

You baffle me Palo, I admit. You give the recording the breeding of fox hounds as a reason why trail hunters sat by and watched while illegal hunting continued, putting trail hunting at terrible risk, then quibble about it being called an excuse.

You have heard many people on here express approval of the recent convictions for inciting illegal hunting and previous convictions for illegal hunting and yet you say that nobody says the law is useful.

The law would have been sufficiently fit for purpose if there had not been a widespread and very determined conspiracy to flout it.

I'm so frustrated that you can't see that if your views are widespread at leadership level in trail hunting (and I think they are) that you will lose your sport altogether

Yes, I too am baffled @ycbm that you insist on a level of disingenousness that is just unhelpful and pointless in a real discussion. I have not said that hound breeding is the reason for problems in hunting. I have said that the existing structures of hunting have not allowed for real grass roots dissent and disatisfaction to be brought to bear on the leadership. I have said that as hound breeding is so important to hunters they would NOT want to step outside the existing framework of hunting management and form a different hunting set up. You are conflating the things I have written.

I am not going to bother answering you about the Hunting Act tbh as I am quite sure you are aware of it's problems for both anti-hunters and pro-hunters. I just think you are being 'awkward'. But feel free...

 

[The Fuzzy Furry]

Yes, I too am baffled @ycbm that you insist on a level of disingenousness that is just unhelpful and pointless in a real discussion. I have not said that hound breeding is the reason for problems in hunting. I have said that the existing structures of hunting have not allowed for real grass roots dissent and disatisfaction to be brought to bear on the leadership. I have said that as hound breeding is so important to hunters they would NOT want to step outside the existing framework of hunting management and form a different hunting set up. You are conflating the things I have written.

I am not going to bother answering you about the Hunting Act tbh as I am quite sure you are aware of it's problems for both anti-hunters and pro-hunters. I just think you are being 'awkward' tbh!! But feel free...

Reading the above posts, I completely agree with you palo1. Awkward is an apt word, dogged on labouring points that apparently you are responsible for......
I only wandered back here to see what new fuss was happening. Seems same 3 or 4 with same agenda again, so I'll pootle back off again as to my mind, there is nothing one can say that wont have each and every bone picked and thrown back.....

 

[palo1]

The situation is dire because people chose to use leaway in the law, which was meant to ensure that honest accidents weren't criminalised, to carry on wholesale activities which they knew full well were in contravention of the law.
.

Gawd, I really don't want to do this but you know, the 'leeway' in the law you mention was there because there was a level of pragmatism and lack of conviction about a whole range of hunting issues in drafting the Hunting Act that totally 'enabled' people to interpret it as licence to continue hunting and in fact it IS still legal under exemptions for a fox to be hunted. The act only scraped it's way into legislation via the Parliament Act and because of these exemptions. In relation to other laws this is sometimes called 'Constructive ambiguity' as it allows both parties to feel that they have not 'lost'. The Hunting Act however has not resolved any level of conflict over the issue - antis continually assert that the law allows for the breaking of it, pro hunters assert that the law puts them in jeopardy depending on any particular interpretation of legal activity. You should read what those involved in drafting and getting the HA over the line have to say about it.

 

[ycbm]

I am not being disingenuous. I am genuinely baffled that you don't see why or how I have drawn the conclusions that I have from what you write. I am baffled that you can't see that the current problems are a result of hunts around the country seeking to use the weakness of the law to continue an activity which they know full well is illegal. I am baffled that you don't believe that the conviction from the webinars is a safe one (though I accept that you respect the decision by the court).

You are absolutely right, in the face of all that bafflement, there is simply no point in anyone continuing to discuss hunting.

I can only sit helplessly and hope that trail hunting survives in this area long enough for me to get some days on Joe. With the current attitudes at the top, that seems increasingly unlikely.
.

 

[Upthecreek]

I am not being disingenuous. I am genuinely baffled that you don't see why or how I have drawn the conclusions that I have from what you write. I am baffled that you can't see that the current problems are a result of hunts around the country seeking to use the weakness of the law to continue an activity which they know full well is illegal. I am baffled that you don't believe that the conviction from the webinars is a safe one (though I accept that you respect the decision by the court).

You are absolutely right, in the face of all that bafflement, there is simply no point in anyone continuing to discuss hunting.

I can only sit helplessly and hope that trail hunting survives in this area long enough for me to get some days on Joe. With the current attitudes at the top, that seems increasingly unlikely.
.

Why are you are so desperate to trail hunt?

 

[Fellewell]

Prepare to be astonished as antis don’t actually give a fig about red or black or green or tweed coats ….it’s all about the fox and the cruelly killing of animals, the public will be equally disgusted.

I have a real problem with laws and decisions that are made as a result of bullying and coercion. Even the NT admitted that they were very concerned about their reputation having quickly realised that AR will stop at nothing to wreck a reputation. Time and time again companies have had to bow to the will of people who call themselves animal rights campaigners but have shown that they are quite willing to harm/kill an animal in their pursuit of attention.

I can remember when thousands of mink were released into the very place they would do most damage, thereby decimating local wildlife including several species already endangered. The local minkhound packs immediately offered their help but it was post-ban and they were refused. Another example of how PR decisions are made to the detriment of local wildlife.

I am sick of the AR lie that it is 'all about the fox'. I am seeing fewer foxes year on year in my area. Foxes are still hunted all year round by different methods and far more frequently.

Perhaps I should acknowledge the efforts of campaigners who released 10 urban foxes onto an Exmoor farm a few years back. The farmer shot dead 8 foxes in one field but not before thirty-three of his lambs had been killed in just one night. As a member of the public I was pretty disgusted by that.

 

[ycbm]

Why are you are so desperate to trail hunt?

Desperate is not the right word, keen is a better one to describe how I feel. For exactly the same reason most people trail hunt, that riding cross country, over land and fences there isn't normally any access to, in the company of others, is great fun and I'd like to do some more of it before I'm too old.
.

 

[Upthecreek]

Desperate is not the right word, keen is a better one to describe how I feel. For exactly the same reason most people trail hunt, that riding cross country, over land and fences there isn't normally any access to, in the company of others, is great fun and I'd like to do some more of it before I'm too old.
.

I feel the same, but I decided long ago that I didn’t want to be associated with them and I would feel like a hypocrite to do it for the fun of it when I know they are breaking the rules. I guess it depends on the reputations of your local hunts, but I could not participate in it when I know they are not hunting within the law.

 

[ycbm]

I feel the same, but I decided long ago that I didn’t want to be associated with them and I would feel like a hypocrite to do it for the fun of it when I know they are breaking the rules. I guess it depends on the reputations of your local hunts, but I could not participate in it when I know they are not hunting within the law.

Me neither, it's why I haven't been for years since the drag hunts shut down, I trust Tiddleypom though, if she says they are definitely hunting with the law now in my area.
.

 

[palo1]

Me neither, it's why I haven't been for years since the drag hunts shut down, I trust Tiddleypom though, if she says they are definitely hunting with the law now in my area.
.

Deleted.