Hunting is in a spot of bother

[suestowford]

There was some talk earlier about sabbing happening with bloodhound packs. I have wondered if this happens because they don't know what it means when a bloodhound pack says they hunt the Clean Boot. I am old and can remember seeing bloodhounds being used by the Police to hunt out suspects. I haven't seen that for years, and I wonder if people don't know why these hounds are different to fox hounds. Maybe some work by the bloodhound packs to promote this difference would get the sabs to leave them alone?

 

[Upthecreek]

Any posters who are meat eaters should think about how an animal has lived instead of how it died. Personally I would rather eat a partridge or a pheasant that has spent it’s life free before being shot in it’s natural environment than chicken mass produced and confined to the indoors before being killed by being hung upside-down on metal shackles by their legs and then stunned using an electrified water-bath stunning system before they are killed. The animals are then killed by automated knife cut to the throat and subsequent bleeding.

The fact one has been killed by shooters for sport and one hasn’t is completely irrelevant to me. They both end up in the food chain. It’s the life they had before they got there that I care about.

 

[palo1]

Out of interest what scent do you lay? If you know?

The reason i ask is because i have done scent work with my spaniel before and we teach them to scent a particular scent, gun oil or Cloves.

Last time I enquired we use a shot fox; they are very easily made available to us and we often see piles of dead foxes that have been shot in these parts. I am quite certain that the smell of decaying/decayed fox is absolutely different as far as a hound is concerned to the scent of live fox. And for anyone who is interested I have seen hounds, more than once, completely ignore a live fox very close by.

 

[Miss_Millie]

Any posters who are meat eaters should think about how an animal has lived instead of how it died. Personally I would rather eat a partridge or a pheasant that has spent it’s life free before being shot in it’s natural environment than chicken mass produced and confined to the indoors before being killed by being hung upside-down on metal shackles by their legs and then stunned using an electrified water-bath stunning system before they are killed. The animals are then killed by automated knife cut to the throat and subsequent bleeding.

The fact one has been killed by shooters for sport and one hasn’t is completely irrelevant to me. They both end up in the food chain. It’s the life they had before they got there that I care about.

I partly agree with this (I don't eat meat myself for the above reasons), however the commercialisation of shooting is very damaging for wildlife and nature.

It's not just the animals that are shot to eat which suffer. A large percentage of birds released onto estates are intensively farmed in Europe and shipped over here, so they don't lead a very nice life before they're killed in the open. Birds of prey are also illegally killed to reduce predation, as are ground mammals using snares etc. Moorlands are burned for grouse shooting, which releases carbon and kills biodiversity.

So shooting is arguably rather damaging for wildlife, at least in this day an age of human overpopulation and the 6th mass extinction. Maybe a few hundred years ago it wasn't so bad.

 

[TGM]

There was some talk earlier about sabbing happening with bloodhound packs. I have wondered if this happens because they don't know what it means when a bloodhound pack says they hunt the Clean Boot. I am old and can remember seeing bloodhounds being used by the Police to hunt out suspects. I haven't seen that for years, and I wonder if people don't know why these hounds are different to fox hounds. Maybe some work by the bloodhound packs to promote this difference would get the sabs to leave them alone?

My husband is a master of one of the largest bloodhound packs in the UK and they have never (to my knowledge) been sabbed in all the time my family has been hunting with them (which is about 12 years). As I understand it, the organised sab groups are quite aware that bloodhound packs hunt legally. That is certainly the case in our neck of the woods (SE England) any way. They do get occasional abuse from passers-by who don't understand the difference between bloodhounds and foxhounds though. The general tactic is to explain the following:

* The hounds are bloodhounds not foxhounds (and look quite different) and have never been used for hunting foxes
* The pack never hunted foxes even before the hunting ban was introduced, so why would they start now
* All meets are listed on their website and Facebook page and anyone is welcome to come and watch to see everything is legal

If people are still not convinced, we often invite them to come and be a runner with the quarry so they can see first hand that there is no fox hunting going on!

 

[palo1]

This thread really depresses me.

A thread started to highlight problems with trail hunting that ALWAYS swings back to a defence of fox hunting.

As long as the hunting fraternity keep looping back to how unfair the ban is, the problems with illegal fox hunting by trail hunts will never be addressed.

@Southerncomfort - these statements are true. I am happy to hunt within the law as are the vast majority of hunting people I know but the fact that the law/ban is absolutely seen as unfair, undemocratic, illogical, unworkable and destructive cannot be ignored. The Act did not have a full reading in Parliament as it was widely understood to have been likely to have stopped there due to lack of consensus. It can't therefore be seen as the will of the people. Use of the Parliament Act is extraordinary in that situation and that has been very widely recognised and accepted. The legislators of the Act have clearly stated that it is an appalling and unfair piece of legislation; only last year Daniel Greenberg explained his feelings about this. Even Tony Blair has openly expressed regret about the act. The compromises and accomodations made to get it over the line even with the Parliament Act being invoked absolutely represented the lack of surety about the essential logic of the act. Everyone knew that at the time and a specific community of people felt extraordinarily wronged and misrepresented by that process.

The unintended consequences of the Act continue to reverberate unfortunately. The issue of hunting continues to be divisive - because it is not a settled or accepted premise underpinning the law. There continues to be a community that feel utterly betrayed by the Hunting Act. However you feel about it you should understand those facts. I am not justifying illegal hunting. I am providing the context for illegal hunting, in a similar way that we are able to contextualise other crimes for example due to social deprivation etc.

 

[CanteringCarrot]

Any posters who are meat eaters should think about how an animal has lived instead of how it died. Personally I would rather eat a partridge or a pheasant that has spent it’s life free before being shot in it’s natural environment than chicken mass produced and confined to the indoors before being killed by being hung upside-down on metal shackles by their legs and then stunned using an electrified water-bath stunning system before they are killed. The animals are then killed by automated knife cut to the throat and subsequent bleeding.

The fact one has been killed by shooters for sport and one hasn’t is completely irrelevant to me. They both end up in the food chain. It’s the life they had before they got there that I care about.

It is possible to think of how it lived and how it died though. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

I, personally, don't have an issue with shooting an animal as a way to kill it for human consumption. I'd prefer shooting over other methods in most cases.

I've eaten meat on and off over the years, and when we do eat meat in our house, it's from 2 local organic farms. I can literally go there and see how they live, and how they're slaughtered, plus ask any other questions about the meat. This, to me, is acceptable and a decent alternative to wild game. I've accepted deer meat from a hunter before and would've accepted boar meat from the hunting done near the yard, if I ate that type of meat.

My personal issue is killing for nothing and killing just for killings sake and taking joy in it. Fortunately that's not super common, but does exist. There are people in this world who are on a huge power trip when it comes to hunting. I get it, it feeds your inner predator, but some take it too far. Many/most don't, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about those that do and how we feel about it.


Regardless of how one may feel about fox hunting, it is illegal. Why this still fails to be accepted is the head scratcher, and no one has really entertained my questions in a previous post or the view point of how much the public should have to put up with, it's possible I missed it though. I also don't care what xyz is doing, what the cats are eating, or whatever else (I mean, I do, but not in this context). What someone else is doing doesn't justify, excuse, or necessarily explain what you're doing.

 

[palo1]

It is possible to think of how it lived and how it died though. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

I, personally, don't have an issue with shooting an animal as a way to kill it for human consumption. I'd prefer shooting over other methods in most cases.

I've eaten meat on and off over the years, and when we do eat meat in our house, it's from 2 local organic farms. I can literally go there and see how they live, and how they're slaughtered, plus ask any other questions about the meat. This, to me, is acceptable and a decent alternative to wild game. I've accepted deer meat from a hunter before and would've accepted boar meat from the hunting done near the yard, if I ate that type of meat.

My personal issue is killing for nothing and killing just for killings sake and taking joy in it. Fortunately that's not super common, but does exist. There are people in this world who are on a huge power trip when it comes to hunting. I get it, it feeds your inner predator, but some take it too far. Many/most don't, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about those that do and how we feel about it.


Regardless of how one may feel about fox hunting, it is illegal. Why this still fails to be accepted is the head scratcher, and no one has really entertained my questions in a previous post or the view point of how much the public should have to put up with, it's possible I missed it though. I also don't care what xyz is doing, what the cats are eating, or whatever else (I mean, I do, but not in this context). What someone else is doing doesn't justify, excuse, or necessarily explain what you're doing.

I have tried to provide some context in the previous post.

 

[CanteringCarrot]

I have tried to provide some context in the previous post.

Yes, and quite frankly I have no response to that at the moment and may have to do further research.

Edit: I do appreciate your explanation and the context though.

 

[Koweyka]

Warwickshire hunt have just killed again at a children’s meet.

 

[Dizzy socks]

To be honest, on the shoots I have attended, I haven’t seen anything that I would consider respectful, or even a recognition that these animals are sentient. This is on grouse, pheasant and duck shoots.

Palo, you say that the pack you follow can distinguish live fox from dead fox - does that not then make it even harder to argue that foxes killed by ‘trail’ hunts are accidental?

 

[Tiddlypom]

The community that apparently feels so betrayed by the Hunting Act can hardly have been taken by surprise by it. It actually allows them much more freedom to continue riding out with hounds than they might have feared. This still isn't enough for many, though, so in their petulant strop and blatant ignoring of the law they are going to bring about a complete, total and permanent stoppage.

Everyone knew that hunting would get banned eventually even when I had my first day out with a foxhound pack nearly 50 years ago. There's been plenty of time to get used to the idea. The ban came in far later than I was expecting it to.

 

[Sandstone1]

Warwickshire hunt have just killed again at a children’s meet.

I have had to come back to this thread to ask the pro hunters here particularly Palo1 what they think about this? The warwickshire have killed 2 foxes and a deer in the last few days. What do you think is going on. Are they trail hunting? How does this make you feel? A fox killed in front of children... I will be very interested to see any replies. I dont expect to get any sensible replies by the way. Would just like to know how you can justify... I am guessing its yet another accident. About time the warwickshire got themselves under control dont you think.......

 

[palo1]

Yes, and quite frankly I have no response to that at the moment and may have to do further research.

Edit: I do appreciate your explanation and the context though.

Please do research the context of the Act.

The following are interesting.

The Parliament Act: (from the Independent Newspaper):

THE PARLIAMENT ACT AT WORK

The Parliament Act was first passed in 1911 to ensure governments could set a budget, after peers rejected the 1909 Finance Bill, David Lloyd George's so-called people's budget, which provided pensions and health insurance for the poor.

The 1911 Act was used just three times, twice over the Government of Ireland Act, then for the Welsh Church Act of 1914. It was used once more in 1949 to bring in the current Parliament Act after the Lords rejected plans to nationalise the steel industry.

Since then, it has only been used three times: for the War Crimes Act 1991 allowing Nazis accused of murder to be prosecuted; the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999, bringing in a list system for candidates; and the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 which set the age of consent for homosexual acts at 16.

The Act states that a Bill thrown out by peers can be forced through a year and a day after being reintroduced into the Commons. The process which led to passage yesterday started a year ago. (referring to the Hunting Act which had been rejected by the Lords during the normal democratic process).

This is also clear and helpful: https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/parliamentacts/

What Daniel Greenberg has had to say about the Hunting Act ( cropped but available in full from Daniel Greenberg's website):-

I was the drafter not only of the Hunting Act 2004 but of all the Government Bills that preceded it over a period of some years, and I well remember being struck by the fact that of all the legislation in which I had been involved since joining the Parliamentary Counsel Office, including Bills on matters medical, constitutional, social, fiscal and criminal, the first project in relation to which I felt seriously troubled from a moral perspective was over such an outwardly trivial matter in some respects as hunting.

From its earliest antecedents it was always clear that the Hunting Bill was not a measure aimed at advancing the public policy of animal welfare; at its best it was about morality (and of course to some it was not even that, but simply a piece of thinly disguised class warfare). The clearest proof that this was never a measure aimed at improving animal welfare is that nothing in the construction of the legislation tends towards its effective enforceability as a matter of animal welfare.

Instead of an effective measure, therefore, the Act and the Bills for it were largely an exercise in what it has now become fashionable to describe as “virtue signalling” by persons who happened to draw their line in the sand of morality in one place in connection with animals, and many of whom would doubtless be incensed if a fortuitous majority of vegetarians in the House of Commons on another occasion sought to outlaw all those whose personal line in the sand stopped short of refraining from eating meat.

An exercise in intolerance, at a time when diversity and cultural sensitivity are meant to be more socially cherished and legally protected than at any other time in the history of the United Kingdom, indeed possibly in the history of the world. But diversity is a difficult ideal, that requires to be nurtured with great care.

I note in passing that it is interesting that it was on this moral or ethical issue of hunting that the House of Commons chose to dispense with the House of Lords and pass the Hunting Act 2004 under the Parliament Act 1911. Being still not entirely composed of career politicians, the House of Lords is arguably more able than the House of Commons to reflect the diversity of the country. Arguably, it is precisely on a measure such as the Hunting Act that the relative diversity of ethical approaches found in the Lords might have been helpful; and it is revealing that the measure could be passed only by dispensing with their counsel.

So how does this age of unparalleled wealth of equality law come to be known also as a social media age in which bullying, harassment and other forms and expressions of intolerance have flourished as never before? Of course, the availability and anonymity of technology has something to do with this, but I think there is a more fundamental and troubling connection.

The law of hunting is in my opinion a significant example of an issue where an ephemeral majority in the House of Commons sought to enforce and perpetuate its own opinion on a moral issue without caring whether or not the balance struck by the legislation corresponded to the consensual morality of the country as a whole. It was an attempt by one side of a moral argument to coerce the other into submission. On that basis it was unlikely to be a success on any level, and it has not proved so. Sadly, it leaves unresolved some genuinely important practical issues of animal welfare, and it has widened the gulf between opposing views rather than creating a mechanism for them to explore and refine common ground.


Tony Blair's view (from the Farmer's Weekly September 2010 but available in his memoir and other places)

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair said introducing legislation to ban fox hunting was one of the measures he most regrets from his time in power.


In his memoir, A Journey, Mr Blair said he deliberately sabotaged the 2004 Hunting Act to ensure there were enough loopholes to allow hunting to continue.
Describing the act as a “masterly British compromise”, Mr Blair said it left people able to hunt foxes “provided certain steps were taken to avoid cruelty when the fox was killed.
He also told then-Home Office minister Hazel Blears to steer police away from enforcing the law.
In the book, published on Wednesday (1 September), Mr Blair said he had not realised how passionate the hunting community was about the ban, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of hunt supporters marching through London in 2002.

Mr Blair said he also had a bet with Prince Charles that fox hunting would continue, “He thought the ban was absurd and raised the issue with me in a slightly pained way''
“The wager was that after I left office, people would still be hunting.”
The former Prime Minister said he initially agreed to a ban without properly understanding the issue.

Prime Minister David Cameron has described the law as a “farce” and said MPs would have the chance to vote on a parliamentary motion later in the year on whether to hold a free vote on the ban.


The Burns Enquiry, as the key 'scientific' evidence used was unable to make useful conclusions either to support or reject Hunting with Hounds. On the one hand Burns reported to the chamber ''“Naturally, people ask whether we were simply implying that hunting is cruel but in true Sir Humphrey style were not prepared to say so clearly. The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty.” On the other also saying that the use of shotguns, particularly in daylight 'is preferable to hunting from a welfare perspective' at the same time as recognising that (in the event of a ban on hunting with hounds)
'...it is possible that the welfare of foxes in upland areas could be affected adversely, unless dogs could be used, at least to flush foxes from cover'.

The most recent Bonomy Review has been equally equivocal about the issue but recognised that both pest control and animal welfare could be adversely affected by a reduction on the number of hounds used for fox pest control.


These things do not justify breaking the law but they certainly help to explain the position that we are in now. Probably the greatest anger of hunting people is toward Tony Blair. You can see why when you read what he admits about it...

 

[palo1]

To be honest, on the shoots I have attended, I haven’t seen anything that I would consider respectful, or even a recognition that these animals are sentient. This is on grouse, pheasant and duck shoots.

Palo, you say that the pack you follow can distinguish live fox from dead fox - does that not then make it even harder to argue that foxes killed by ‘trail’ hunts are accidental?

I never said it didn't!

 

[Upthecreek]

I partly agree with this (I don't eat meat myself for the above reasons), however the commercialisation of shooting is very damaging for wildlife and nature.

It's not just the animals that are shot to eat which suffer. A large percentage of birds released onto estates are intensively farmed in Europe and shipped over here, so they don't lead a very nice life before they're killed in the open. Birds of prey are also illegally killed to reduce predation, as are ground mammals using snares etc. Moorlands are burned for grouse shooting, which releases carbon and kills biodiversity.

So shooting is arguably rather damaging for wildlife, at least in this day an age of human overpopulation and the 6th mass extinction. Maybe a few hundred years ago it wasn't so bad.

I agree with much of what you say. However I would say that there is a lot of conservation work and habitat management done for shooting that is also beneficial to other wildlife and would not take place otherwise. There does need to be legal control of ground mammals so that other wildlife can flourish.

 

[palo1]

I have had to come back to this thread to ask the pro hunters here particularly Palo1 what they think about this? The warwickshire have killed 2 foxes and a deer in the last few days. What do you think is going on. Are they trail hunting? How does this make you feel? A fox killed in front of children... I will be very interested to see any replies. I dont expect to get any sensible replies by the way. Would just like to know how you can justify... I am guessing its yet another accident. About time the warwickshire got themselves under control dont you think.......

I have never excused bad behaviour or deliberate breaking of the law. Where offences have been committed then arrests and prosecution should follow. I have never hunted with the Warwickshire but they certainly have an appalling reputation; they absolutely need to deal with this, with the involvement of the police if that is appropriate.

I think you want me to condone this behaviour tbh but that is not where I am at.

 

[Sandstone1]

Palo1, instead of googling and copy and pasting endless reports which any of us can do by the way, why do you not just answer direct real life questions? See my questions regarding the Warwickshire hunts activities. Whats your opinion on what they get up to? Killing a fox right in front of children. How does that make you feel?

 

[Sandstone1]

I have never excused bad behaviour or deliberate breaking of the law. Where offences have been committed then arrests and prosecution should follow. I have never hunted with the Warwickshire but they certainly have an appalling reputation; they absolutely need to deal with this, with the involvement of the police if that is appropriate.

I think you want me to condone this behaviour tbh but that is not where I am at.

But how does it really make you feel? Happy, sad, angry, pleased? They are clearly not trail hunting are they?

 

[palo1]

Palo1, instead of googling and copy and pasting endless reports which any of us can do by the way, why do you not just answer direct real life questions? See my questions regarding the Warwickshire hunts activities. Whats your opinion on what they get up to? Killing a fox right in front of children. How does that make you feel?

I have just answered you. I have used documents from other sources exactly because they are not personal to me and my view. The are evidence that my view is not entirely singular. That is kind of a normal practice in discussion and debate.

 

[ycbm]

I have never excused bad behaviour or deliberate breaking of the law. Where offences have been committed then arrests and prosecution should follow. I have never hunted with the Warwickshire but they certainly have an appalling reputation; they absolutely need to deal with this, with the involvement of the police if that is appropriate.

If trail hunting wants to survive, it is trail hunting that has to deal with this. The future of trail hunting depends on distancing itself from this activity, but I'm guessing that your master and theirs probably still belong to the same organisation, the organisation that still insists that the conviction following the webinars is unjustified.
.

 

[palo1]

But how does it really make you feel? Happy, sad, angry, pleased? They are clearly not trail hunting are they?

I am hugely frustrated that hunting is being brought into disrepute but I haven't seen the detail of what is claimed so I can't possibly express specific emotions. I am frustrated too that I feel frequently and pointedly held responsible, by some posters on here, for every problem in hunting. It doesn't really make me inclined to sympathy to those posters more generally.

 

[Sandstone1]

I have just answered you. I have used documents from other sources exactly because they are not personal to me and my view. The are evidence that my view is not entirely singular. That is kind of a normal practice in discussion and debate.

Yes but they are not your actual thoughts and feelings are they? They are someone elses. Why not give a opinion of your own for once? Not someone elses.

 

[Koweyka]

I have had to come back to this thread to ask the pro hunters here particularly Palo1 what they think about this? The warwickshire have killed 2 foxes and a deer in the last few days. What do you think is going on. Are they trail hunting? How does this make you feel? A fox killed in front of children... I will be very interested to see any replies. I dont expect to get any sensible replies by the way. Would just like to know how you can justify... I am guessing its yet another accident. About time the warwickshire got themselves under control dont you think.......

I can’t understand how this pack is allowed to leave the kennels, why aren’t the MFHA stepping in now and holding an enquiry.
I am an adult and I am left shaken and upset every time a kill happens, there is a child watching in that photo, it’s disgusting

 

[Dizzy socks]

I never said it didn't!

That’s fair - sorry if I’m putting words in your mouth. I’m aware that you don’t represent all pro hunt people, so perhaps I should’ve directed that more generally.

It just seems that there’s even less credit to be given to hunts who argue that they couldn’t stop hounds killing a fox, that instead they must’ve actively trained and encouraged them to.

 

[minesadouble]

The Blair stuff is interesting and something I had never read before.
It backs up a story I heard from a member of hunt staff who hunted TBs constituency at the time of the ban who reckoned that Blair himself told him that the ban happened as a 'tit for tat' move to appease the far left in retaliation for the coal miners experience under Thatcher.

 

[Sandstone1]

I am hugely frustrated that hunting is being brought into disrepute but I haven't seen the detail of what is claimed so I can't possibly express specific emotions. I am frustrated too that I feel frequently and pointedly held responsible, by some posters on here, for every problem in hunting. It doesn't really make me inclined to sympathy to those posters more generally.

I am not asking for your sympathy. I do not want it any more than I want any more of your copy and pasting. I was simply asking for your feelings on the matter of the Warwickshire hunt killing for the third time in a week. Does it upset you, or does it make you happy? Guess I wont get my answers as I knew I would not

 

[Sandstone1]

I can’t understand how this pack is allowed to leave the kennels, why aren’t the MFHA stepping in now and holding an enquiry.
I am an adult and I am left shaken and upset every time a kill happens, there is a child watching in that photo, it’s disgusting

I completely agree with you but they seem to be a law un to themselves.

 

[ycbm]

Of course the ban was political and brought in as a vote grabber.

But it worked as a vote grabber because the majority of people in the UK are against the idea of using the killing of animals to create entertainment.
.

 

[palo1]

Yes but they are not your actual thoughts and feelings are they? They are someone elses. Why not give a opinion of your own for once? Not someone elses.

I have made my own thoughts so clear so many times on this and other threads about hunting @Sandstone. Your pointed insistence on my 'personal' response to something that I have not seen is...intrusive and somehow aggressive.