Hunting is in a spot of bother

[Sandstone1]

Now I would argue it was you that was the blind one.[/Q
Really? so illegal fox hunting is not going on? They all happily trail hunt?? They do not hunt foxes and nicely follow a trail each time? Get real.

 

[Koweyka]

I get the frustration with the violence and abuse from both sides I really do but anyone who says that this 'conflict' is about animal welfare is frankly deluded. The vast majority of even Hunting Act offences are not related to trail hunting but are related to poaching etc. Those statistics are available from the Ministry of Justice and are clear for anyone to view. (I have posted them previously). That means absolutely without doubt that animal welfare issues which are pressing, serious and prosecutable/actionable are entirely other to anything related to hunting. Why on earth anyone would think otherwise is literally beyond me. It is not the fault of trail hunts that the law is appalling and doesn't work for anyone.

It is standard practice for sabs and antis to spread misinformation, provide 'edited' evidence and speculation as well as complain about the police, about police bias, about lack of will to address hunting issues but no one ever accepts that there are so much more serious and important things for tax payers money to be spent on, related to animal welfare, wildlife and a whole range of other things including puppy farming, environmental pollution etc etc. Vigilantism and attempts to prevent trail hunt meets in town centres on Boxing Day are utterly anti-social and do not represent any kind of liberal, democratic process. The fact that people from all walks of life including vets, politicians, environmentalists (even those pesky rewilders!), artists, scientists, teachers, all political parties and all manner of other social groupings are seen to support hunting should tell anti-hunters something that they have been deaf to for as long as the anti-hunt movement has existed. Antis need to re-consider the reason people support hunting. (and not just trot out the usual 'psychopathic, sadistic, bloodthirsty inbred perverts line...it's old hat!!) The culture wars in the countryside are NOT about animal welfare. Doxxing and harrassing the hosts for trail hunt meets are despicable as are the lies and misinformation spread by some antis. I support the right of anyone to protest but the anti-hunt/sab lobby are well beyond what is acceptable in a democratic country. God forbid that these same extremists ever take on a more mainstream issue...

I am curious, you are mentioning vets, politicians, teachers supporting hunting what demographic are you suggesting makes up the anti movement?

 

[Sandstone1]

@Sandstone, I am not blind. When I was a university student I would have identified quite strongly as an anti and had friends who were active sabs. I never took the HSA coin because I didn't want to get involved in any physical conflict but I lived in a house with 2 very active (probably still now!) sabs (also, more rarely for that era, they were ethical vegans too) who were very happy to be paid £20 a day for sabbing and had true conviction about the rightness and necessity of their action. I saw their horror, the emotional distress they experienced and I felt then (pre-ban) that there was no need at all for hunting. Post university and several other events, as a member of a rural community I saw a different set of ideas which I was quite happy to examine. I followed the hunt as a matter of 'neutral' interest - not having much money for one thing and being interested in horses! I have truly seen both sides of the issue. I have chosen to take the position I have after a lifetime's involvement and interest in wildlife, conservation and hunting issues which I have explored as fully as I can from both UK positions as well as a range of other cultural and moral/philosophical points of view. I am not stupid, blind or cruel. I am not ignorant about what 'message' the anti-hunt lobby want to spread but I fundamentally disagree with that lobby for a number of reasons.

I think it is important to respect how other people feel and to try to understand their viewpoint. I have done my best to see this issue from several sets of shoes. I am not sure that many antis have.

As I have said before I have been hunting pre ban and live where the local hunt very openly hunts foxes. I have seen both sides but the fact is hunting is illegal and has been for many years so why are they getting away with it?

 

[AmyMay]

I am curious, you are mentioning vets, politicians, teachers supporting hunting what demographic are you suggesting makes up the anti movement?

All professions on both sides.

 

[palo1]

I am curious, you are mentioning vets, politicians, teachers supporting hunting what demographic are you suggesting makes up the anti movement?

The same folk, but just with a different opinion of course!

 

[palo1]

As I have said before I have been hunting pre ban and live where the local hunt very openly hunts foxes. I have seen both sides but the fact is hunting is illegal and has been for many years so why are they getting away with it?

Is your issue one of legality, animal welfare or something else?

 

[Sandstone1]

Now I would argue it was you that was the blind one.

I just typed a long reply and some how lost it. Cant be bothered to waste my time re typing it but if you think fox hunting is not going on you must be blind.

 

[Koweyka]

I think you will find that fox hunting is already banned and the hunts themselves often trespass.

We were made agents of the land at our hunt yesterday by a landowner desperate to get them off his land after the hunt has repeatedly trespassed over the season even though they were warned off after they killed a fox on it a few years ago.

 

[paddy555]

Just because someone holds an official role potentially of influence does not automatically mean that their actions are sanctioned. It is how the hunt responds that matters.

my post 1675 refers. I still cannot find the hunts response to the pitchfork incident. Tried googling but not there. Can you help please? As you say it is how the hunt responds that matters.

 

[Sandstone1]

Is your issue one of legality, animal welfare or something else?

Both actually, Why is it that something thats been illegal for years be allowed to continue and why is it thought ok to kill wildlife in a barbaric way? Plus cause distress to so may other animals and people in doing so.

 

[Koweyka]

The same folk, but just with a different opinion of course!

This is what you said ….

The fact that people from all walks of life including vets, politicians, environmentalists (even those pesky rewilders!), artists, scientists, teachers, all political parties and all manner of other social groupings are seen to support hunting should tell anti-hunters something that they have been deaf to for as long as the anti-hunt movement has existed.

So the fact we have the same demographic of people in our “ranks” does that also tell all the “deaf” pro hunters something if they all oppose it ?

 

[Fred66]

I think you will find that fox hunting is already banned and the hunts themselves often trespass.

I am fully aware fox hunting with a pack of hounds is against the law, I am not aware that I have disputed this.

The hunt I follow spends a lot of time walking the country to ensure that trails laid are on land we have access to and rarely go on land they are not welcome on.

However they certainly don’t deliberately trespass, they don’t refuse to leave when asked, they don’t go out dressed in black with faces obscured, and they don’t threaten the owners or their guests.

The level of threat and violence is escalating and personally I think this is unacceptable.

 

[palo1]

This is what you said ….

The fact that people from all walks of life including vets, politicians, environmentalists (even those pesky rewilders!), artists, scientists, teachers, all political parties and all manner of other social groupings are seen to support hunting should tell anti-hunters something that they have been deaf to for as long as the anti-hunt movement has existed.

So the fact we have the same demographic of people in our “ranks” does that also tell all the “deaf” pro hunters something if they all oppose it ?

Well my experience of hunt supporters is that they do understand the issues that the anti hunt lobby are pressing but they entirely disagree. The anti-hunt lobby makes an absolute speciality of yelling at every opportunity that they do not understand the perspective of pro-hunters. There is considerable difference in those two positions.

ETA - I believe the reason that the anti-hunt lobby take their position is because as soon as they engaged with the real issues around hunting and their campaign, they know they would find themselves in a weak position. I regularly read sab reports and tbh they are utter fantasy; about what they think has or is happening, about the people involved and about the issues but I understand that this will probably enrage you. Sorry about that - I am just saying what I think.

 

[ycbm]

The hunt I follow spends a lot of time walking the country to ensure that trails laid are on land we have access to and rarely go on land they are not welcome on.

Do you realise how what you wrote there sounds?

Why are they ever on land they are not welcome on?
.

 

[palo1]

We were made agents of the land at our hunt yesterday by a landowner desperate to get them off his land after the hunt has repeatedly trespassed over the season even though they were warned off after they killed a fox on it a few years ago.

Erm, I could 'make' anyone an agent of my land, for any reason...this tells us nothing other than a landowner supports a group of sabs. It might be a landowner of 40,000 acres or 4 acres but a large landowner is likely to already have an effective land agent. If not, that agent should be sacked!!

 

[Fred66]

Do you realise how what you wrote there sounds?

Why are they ever on land they are not welcome on?
.

Yes I am aware of what I wrote, when laying a trail a number of factors are in play and occasionally hounds lose the trail they are meant to be on and some might stray onto adjacent land. Accidents do happen but as I say it very rarely happens.

Sometimes the landowners have no objection to the land being quietly crossed but don’t want full hunting, other landowners don’t want you on at all. We would certainly never cross land on horse that we are not welcome on (unless it is a bridleway).

 

[palo1]

Do you realise how what you wrote there sounds?

Why are they ever on land they are not welcome on?
.

It can happen by mistake where ground from several landowners is mixed; one or two hounds can cross a fenceline whilst still on a trail (scent can be high and drifting). Usually the best answer is for huntsman or whip to get off their horse and retrieve hounds on foot - ours do this so that they can apologise to the landowner if need be.

 

[palo1]

Do you realise how what you wrote there sounds?

Why are they ever on land they are not welcome on?
.

As an aside, I don't want cats on my yard - my neighbour's cat regularly trespasses so he/she is regularly on land where she/he is not welcome. I like cats but I like my songbirds too so I prefer not to have a cat on my yard/in my garden where the birds are vulnerable.

Animals don't always know where they are supposed to be....

 

[ycbm]

Not in my area there were not I saw a mass of support ( my area includes malpas ) and a fabulous turn out. Countryside traditions live on. https://fb.watch/aaD7X8dOmo/

Do you hunt with the Wynnstay, if you hunt Malpas?

I'm reliably, (I think), informed that the Wynnstay don't even try to hide that they are hunting fox. So if you hunt with them does that mean you know that you are fox hunting?
.

 

[ycbm]

As an aside, I don't want cats on my yard - my neighbour's cat regularly trespasses so he/she is regularly on land where she/he is not welcome. I like cats but I like my songbirds too so I prefer not to have a cat on my yard/in my garden where the birds are vulnerable.

Animals don't always know where they are supposed to be....

And we're right back round again to the same old argument Palo.

Lay your scent stronger and not smelling of fox and they'll know where they are supposed to be.
.

 

[palo1]

And we're right back round again to the same old argument Palo.

Last your scent stronger and not smelling of fox and they'll know where they are supposed to be.
.

Well ok, but shouldn't that mean that cat owners should keep their cats in too? So that wildlife is safeguarded from people who are aware that their animal might trespass or cause distress or kill another animal?

 

[Koweyka]

Erm, I could 'make' anyone an agent of my land, for any reason...this tells us nothing other than a landowner supports a group of sabs. It might be a landowner of 40,000 acres or 4 acres but a large landowner is likely to already have an effective land agent. If not, that agent should be sacked!!

It tells you that the landowner does not want hunts tresspassing on his land and the size of the acreage is utterly irrelevant, what an arrogant attitude you just portrayed, hunts don’t care where they go during the pursuit of a fox and if the landowner does not want the hunt on his land then that decision should be respected and if he felt we could help protect his land then you should be respectful of that decision instead of being derogatory.

 

[ycbm]

Well ok, but shouldn't that mean that cat owners should keep their cats in too? So that wildlife is safeguarded from people who are aware that their animal might trespass or cause distress or kill another animal?

Cats are irrelevant to this discussion as you well know.
.

 

[Sandstone1]

Yes I am aware of what I wrote, when laying a trail a number of factors are in play and occasionally hounds lose the trail they are meant to be on and some might stray onto adjacent land. Accidents do happen but as I say it very rarely happens.

Sometimes the landowners have no objection to the land being quietly crossed but don’t want full hunting, other landowners don’t want you on at all. We would certainly never cross land on horse that we are not welcome on (unless it is a bridleway).

Ok, how would you feel if I said something like this.. When walking my dogs I mostly stick to footpaths and rarely let them chase sheep! How would that go down I wonder!

 

[Sandstone1]

@Sandstone, I am not blind. When I was a university student I would have identified quite strongly as an anti and had friends who were active sabs. I never took the HSA coin because I didn't want to get involved in any physical conflict but I lived in a house with 2 very active (probably still now!) sabs (also, more rarely for that era, they were ethical vegans too) who were very happy to be paid £20 a day for sabbing and had true conviction about the rightness and necessity of their action. I saw their horror, the emotional distress they experienced and I felt then (pre-ban) that there was no need at all for hunting. Post university and several other events, as a member of a rural community I saw a different set of ideas which I was quite happy to examine. I followed the hunt as a matter of 'neutral' interest - not having much money for one thing and being interested in horses! I have truly seen both sides of the issue. I have chosen to take the position I have after a lifetime's involvement and interest in wildlife, conservation and hunting issues which I have explored as fully as I can from both UK positions as well as a range of other cultural and moral/philosophical points of view. I am not stupid, blind or cruel. I am not ignorant about what 'message' the anti-hunt lobby want to spread but I fundamentally disagree with that lobby for a number of reasons.

I think it is important to respect how other people feel and to try to understand their viewpoint. I have done my best to see this issue from several sets of shoes. I am not sure that many antis have.

And yet you still do not answer my questions..

 

[Sandstone1]

Deleted

 

[palo1]

It tells you that the landowner does not want hunts tresspassing on his land and the size of the acreage is utterly irrelevant, what an arrogant attitude you just portrayed, hunts don’t care where they go during the pursuit of a fox and if the landowner does not want the hunt on his land then that decision should be respected and if he felt we could help protect his land then you should be respectful of that decision instead of being derogatory.

My breath is truly taken...you have asked me, who is invariably polite and respectful in this discussion, not to be 'derogatory'!!?? After some of the insults you have hurled previously! I have nowhere suggested anything other than making someone a land agent to help deal with the hunt indicates that the landowner doesn't want the hunt; you are totally misrepresenting what I wrote.

 

[palo1]

Cats are irrelevant to this discussion as you well know.
.

Well they are not if we are talking about killing wildlife and being where they are not wanted. You know that too but it is inconvenient for you, a cat owner, to take that on.

 

[palo1]

And yet you still do not answer my questions..

The statement 'You are so blind' is not a question...

 

[lannerch]

Do you hunt with the Wynnstay, if you hunt Malpas?

I'm reliably, (I think), informed that the Wynnstay don't even try to hide that they are hunting fox. So if you hunt with them does that mean you know that you are fox hunting?
.

Where did I say I hunt?