- Joined
- 27 August 2020
- Messages
- 663
I agree, I think that hunting needs a re-brand and to make its stance on illegal fox hunting extremely clear. I think this is what it will take to save the sport now, after several years of really bad press.
Hunting is in a spot of bother
- Thread starter Tiddlypom
- Start date
This is something a lot of anti’s ask tbh, we were concerned that muzzles would be caught on the undergrowth they are invariably put through when looking for a fox or whether there would be issues with them panting when they need to cool down.
- Joined
- 5 May 2015
- Messages
- 528
Agree with you on every point and thank you for clearly acknowledging the bad behaviour of some hunt sabs. However I don't agree with your last point as my own experience has taught me something quite different, but that is a different topic entirely.
When you consider the absolute conditions you are talking about; the law which the anti-hunt pressed so hard for, the law the Parliament Act had to be invoked for in order to pass it, the law that the legislators and the prime minister of the time admitted was not about animal welfare, the law that allowed for fox hunting to continue albeit 'through the back door' if you like; the law that has no support due to it's unworkability or enforcement, the pressure on police forces to deal with all manner of other things which impact more people more severely; the law that allows for legal exemptions that are sneaky, ill-conceived and designed to trap both hunters and anti-hunters into an constant cycle of accusation, claim and counter claim, do you really feel you have the high moral ground or that it is so 'shocking' that there has been abuse of the law?
Apart from your very personal view about hunting, how do you think the hunting community, after nearly 700 years of hunting with hounds was suddenly going to abandon their attitudes, customs and ideologies under those conditions and because a group that they were deeply and fundamentally opposed to, told them to? I understand your commitment to animal welfare but can you look outside your own views and see how things look from a very different perspective without those judgements? If not, then you are missing a trick in terms of trying to make change - it is an absolute essential tenet of negotiation to understand, truly understand, the viewpoints and experiences of your opponents.
The Head of the MFHA being convicted is probably a good thing - though the trap was laid for him in the passing of the act and the refusal of hunters to keep firmly on the right side of an almost impossibly thin line in terms of the Act. Enacting change upon a community rarely ends well (see my post about the Faroe Islands earlier) but forcing us (and I mean both hunters and anti-hunters, the police, the CPS) to interpret and work according to that act is not the fault of hunters. Appalling behaviour should be dealt with, as should any instance of animal cruelty on all sides and the law exists for that even outside the Hunting Act. Any change in the use of scent for trail hunting would help to clarify things for some people - though I think personally that is a bit of a red herring and again, very, very difficult to enforce. That change will not cause a lot of issues for a lot of hunts @Koweyka because in spite of your constant rhetoric many hunts are safely and successfully hunting within the law now. Btw, beggar all hunts will be buying fox urine (though some might) so please do not think that hunting is contributing to fox farming; as far as I know, more hunts use dead shot fox or the huntsman's own urine (cheap and accessible) as Drag hunts have done for years.
On an entirely personal note I have to say that I would like to have seen anti hunt protestors do more to support fox populations and habitats to replace those lost with the Hunting Act. I think so much more could and should have been done by a community who asserted they wanted to save foxes and improve the conditions of life for foxes than has ever been done. I think the anti hunt movement should have made the most of the Act to carry out research about the impact of that on Foxes. That hasn't been done of course and I think it is because they preferred fund raising for the masking up and confrontation than fund raising for research, habitat preservation or working with landowners and other agencies to that end.
I don't like seeing the shot dead foxes (often 6 or 7 at a time) and feel sadness and anger that an animal that was, somewhat by chance, revered and supported by a community in this country because of it's association with hunting, to have been reduced and brought low in the way it has. I lay part of the blame for that, for the decline in fox numbers, for it's loss of viable country, for it's loss of status in our culture , for the poor health of many urban foxes (and their being dumped in the countryside only to starve or be attacked by other foxes) at the hands of the anti-hunt movement who have used a baseline of sentimentality and the blunt, un-specified and sometimes appallingly anthropomorphic instrument of 'cruelty' to base their wider campaign on. The association of the anti-hunt movement with other organisations that base their work entirely on human assumptions about what is good for animals is pretty undisputed, though I get that you will say I am also trying to assert what is 'good' for animals. I guess I hope that I don't base that judgement on just one requisite of 'cruelty'. That is important of course but I think in the wider environmental sense there are definitely difficulties and issues in the relationship between animal welfare and environmental gains. I don't want, and never have wanted to return to some pre-industrial fantasised landscape but it is absolutely vital that we use what we know, without prejudice or sentimentality, to support nature, our environment and the health of all our species of animals. The Hunting Act and all the ground won and lost by both parties seems pretty irrelevant to that more important task to me.
Apart from your very personal view about hunting, how do you think the hunting community, after nearly 700 years of hunting with hounds was suddenly going to abandon their attitudes, customs and ideologies under those conditions and because a group that they were deeply and fundamentally opposed to, told them to? I understand your commitment to animal welfare but can you look outside your own views and see how things look from a very different perspective without those judgements? If not, then you are missing a trick in terms of trying to make change - it is an absolute essential tenet of negotiation to understand, truly understand, the viewpoints and experiences of your opponents.
The Head of the MFHA being convicted is probably a good thing - though the trap was laid for him in the passing of the act and the refusal of hunters to keep firmly on the right side of an almost impossibly thin line in terms of the Act. Enacting change upon a community rarely ends well (see my post about the Faroe Islands earlier) but forcing us (and I mean both hunters and anti-hunters, the police, the CPS) to interpret and work according to that act is not the fault of hunters. Appalling behaviour should be dealt with, as should any instance of animal cruelty on all sides and the law exists for that even outside the Hunting Act. Any change in the use of scent for trail hunting would help to clarify things for some people - though I think personally that is a bit of a red herring and again, very, very difficult to enforce. That change will not cause a lot of issues for a lot of hunts @Koweyka because in spite of your constant rhetoric many hunts are safely and successfully hunting within the law now. Btw, beggar all hunts will be buying fox urine (though some might) so please do not think that hunting is contributing to fox farming; as far as I know, more hunts use dead shot fox or the huntsman's own urine (cheap and accessible) as Drag hunts have done for years.
On an entirely personal note I have to say that I would like to have seen anti hunt protestors do more to support fox populations and habitats to replace those lost with the Hunting Act. I think so much more could and should have been done by a community who asserted they wanted to save foxes and improve the conditions of life for foxes than has ever been done. I think the anti hunt movement should have made the most of the Act to carry out research about the impact of that on Foxes. That hasn't been done of course and I think it is because they preferred fund raising for the masking up and confrontation than fund raising for research, habitat preservation or working with landowners and other agencies to that end.
I don't like seeing the shot dead foxes (often 6 or 7 at a time) and feel sadness and anger that an animal that was, somewhat by chance, revered and supported by a community in this country because of it's association with hunting, to have been reduced and brought low in the way it has. I lay part of the blame for that, for the decline in fox numbers, for it's loss of viable country, for it's loss of status in our culture , for the poor health of many urban foxes (and their being dumped in the countryside only to starve or be attacked by other foxes) at the hands of the anti-hunt movement who have used a baseline of sentimentality and the blunt, un-specified and sometimes appallingly anthropomorphic instrument of 'cruelty' to base their wider campaign on. The association of the anti-hunt movement with other organisations that base their work entirely on human assumptions about what is good for animals is pretty undisputed, though I get that you will say I am also trying to assert what is 'good' for animals. I guess I hope that I don't base that judgement on just one requisite of 'cruelty'. That is important of course but I think in the wider environmental sense there are definitely difficulties and issues in the relationship between animal welfare and environmental gains. I don't want, and never have wanted to return to some pre-industrial fantasised landscape but it is absolutely vital that we use what we know, without prejudice or sentimentality, to support nature, our environment and the health of all our species of animals. The Hunting Act and all the ground won and lost by both parties seems pretty irrelevant to that more important task to me.
- Joined
- 16 July 2010
- Messages
- 6,414
Maybe the hunt you go out with does trail hunt, but sadly there are many that do not, I have no doubt that there are sabs that behave badly as there are hunters. Hunts like the Warwickshire and others are clearly spoiling trail hunting for the hunts that do hunt within the law. The fact is in this day and age with drones, mobile phones and cameras the law breakers can not and will not get away with it.
Yes yes you have said all of that before and you have been answered and you ignore the answers so forgive me for not going through it all point by point.
What I will say is because something has happened for 700 years does not make it right, by your logic burning at the stake, children in chimneys, bear baiting should not be frowned upon as they took place for an extended time, there is the great quote “tradition is peer pressure by dead people” this is true of hunting.
Moral high ground …. Well I have never killed an animal for fun or “sport” or supported or taken part in any organisation that harms or has the potential to harm a living sentient creature, so yes I believe I have the moral high ground when it comes to animal welfare over anyone who sets out to hurt, chase and terrify and kill a living creature.
I try to see from the other side, in fact I have had many discussions with hunters over the years, I have been able to understand their point of view, I don’t agree with it, but I know I have made them change their views and in some cases their ways.
Then I watch the attached video of the Warwickshire killing this tiny little deer yesterday, I watched him struggle in the mud trying to escape before his throat was ripped out and hounds trotted off with his flesh in their jaws and it’s reminded me just how vile hunting is and I hope the Warwickshire hurry the demise of trail hunting.
For all the Blood/Drag packs you should be worried because the theory amongst the antis is ….when trail hunting ends and it will, all those involved in trail will move to blood and drag packs and why should we believe that they have changed their ways and not set out to corrupt and hunt fox or deer or hares or pet cats. The trail hunts will and are dragging you down with them
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...HQ_7WnafVOSs8MUzjMA6fUGKtHfK25t1FyomReLo4BEuU
What I will say is because something has happened for 700 years does not make it right, by your logic burning at the stake, children in chimneys, bear baiting should not be frowned upon as they took place for an extended time, there is the great quote “tradition is peer pressure by dead people” this is true of hunting.
Moral high ground …. Well I have never killed an animal for fun or “sport” or supported or taken part in any organisation that harms or has the potential to harm a living sentient creature, so yes I believe I have the moral high ground when it comes to animal welfare over anyone who sets out to hurt, chase and terrify and kill a living creature.
I try to see from the other side, in fact I have had many discussions with hunters over the years, I have been able to understand their point of view, I don’t agree with it, but I know I have made them change their views and in some cases their ways.
Then I watch the attached video of the Warwickshire killing this tiny little deer yesterday, I watched him struggle in the mud trying to escape before his throat was ripped out and hounds trotted off with his flesh in their jaws and it’s reminded me just how vile hunting is and I hope the Warwickshire hurry the demise of trail hunting.
For all the Blood/Drag packs you should be worried because the theory amongst the antis is ….when trail hunting ends and it will, all those involved in trail will move to blood and drag packs and why should we believe that they have changed their ways and not set out to corrupt and hunt fox or deer or hares or pet cats. The trail hunts will and are dragging you down with them
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...HQ_7WnafVOSs8MUzjMA6fUGKtHfK25t1FyomReLo4BEuU
- Joined
- 16 July 2010
- Messages
- 6,414
Completely agree with everything you have said and also can not be bothered to reply once again to Palo1s reams of waffle.
- Joined
- 16 July 2010
- Messages
- 6,414
Could I ask a polite question of the pro hunters and or people who trail hunt please? In the case of a accidental kill happening does the hunt have a legal requirement to inform the Police what has happened? I was under the impression that they do but am not 100% sure.
Not so far as I am aware. It wouldn’t actually be necessary as otherwise every dog that caught a squirrel would be reported?
I hope they do if they kill a pet but I don’t know if it’s a requirement. Do you have to inform the police if you run over a cat or dog? I don’t know.
And I’m not even qualified as although I am pro hunt I stopped after the ban.
I hope they do if they kill a pet but I don’t know if it’s a requirement. Do you have to inform the police if you run over a cat or dog? I don’t know.
And I’m not even qualified as although I am pro hunt I stopped after the ban.
The law changed, that's what, so old style fox hunting is illegal, and has been since the Hunting Act 2004 came into force. What's so hard to comprehend about that 🤷♀️?
So some people weren't happy, and would rather that the old ways continued?
Tough. Deal with it. It's well past time to move on.
So some people weren't happy, and would rather that the old ways continued?
Tough. Deal with it. It's well past time to move on.
@Koweyka ''Then I watch the attached video of the Warwickshire killing this tiny little deer yesterday, I watched him struggle in the mud trying to escape before his throat was ripped out and hounds trotted off with his flesh in their jaws and it’s reminded me just how vile hunting is and I hope the Warwickshire hurry the demise of trail hunting.''
The Warwickshire are certainly doing a great deal to bring hunting down - I agree. As a fox hound pack there is no way those hounds should have rioted on that deer, with or without the huntsman nearby. That is dire management and control no doubt about it. Appalling. I don't think it constitutes an offence under the law unless there is evidence that the huntsman deliberately encouraged hounds in that situation. As a fox hound pack that would be 'odd'. There is no situation in which that should have happened but I still don't think it is illegal or would 'have' to be reported. Deer have few rights under the law except that of ownership.
The Warwickshire are certainly doing a great deal to bring hunting down - I agree. As a fox hound pack there is no way those hounds should have rioted on that deer, with or without the huntsman nearby. That is dire management and control no doubt about it. Appalling. I don't think it constitutes an offence under the law unless there is evidence that the huntsman deliberately encouraged hounds in that situation. As a fox hound pack that would be 'odd'. There is no situation in which that should have happened but I still don't think it is illegal or would 'have' to be reported. Deer have few rights under the law except that of ownership.
- Joined
- 16 July 2010
- Messages
- 6,414
Thank you, I see your point but I thought any more than two dogs could be classed as a pack.
- Joined
- 16 July 2010
- Messages
- 6,414
Would the law on having dogs dangerously out of control not apply here? If I had my pet dogs rampaging around the countryside out of control I would be in trouble would I not? Even more so given the amount of hounds that were out of control? whats more out of sight?
I don't really understand this argument at all. Have fox numbers actually declined? I had a quick google and couldn't find any evidence of that, other than the Breeding Bird Survey from a few years ago. But that is tricky to interpret without more data. Are red fox populations declining or are they moving or changing their habits? In fact, most sources I found suggested it is very hard to know as there is no other official data and no-one is really surveying fox numbers. And if fox numbers are actually declining, find me some evidence that this is actually because of the hunting ban and not because of habitat loss, intensive farming and the ever increasing number of cars on our roads.
I also don't understand the argument that antis are somehow to blame for farmers now shooting loads of foxes. Several posters on this thread keep saying that pre-ban landowners/ farmers were apparently happy to have foxes on their land and be part of the wonderful tradition of hunting, but now they apparently need to shoot bazillions of them. I'm sorry, but something doesn't add up for me here. According to several posters on this thread the hunt was mainly picking off the old/ sick/ weak foxes, leaving alone the healthy ones. So how was that really helping the farmers/ landowners? Why were they happy to welcome/ cultivate these healthy fox populations on their land whereas now apparently they have to shoot them all? If farmers and landowners are going around completely eradicating the fox population (which pro-hunt posters keep telling us the hunts absolutely would not have done/ been in favour of) then there is only one group responsible for that (and it's not the antis!). But I'm not sure we're getting anything other than vague, anecdotal evidence that this is actually the case.
Also, where is the evidence that urban foxes are less healthy? I live in an urban area and we have a lot of foxes, and as far as I can tell they look sleek and healthy. I see lots in the very rural area where I keep my horses too, especially late evening/ early morning in the summer. I don't see evidence of the fox population "brought low" where I live; in fact, there is rarely a day that goes by without me seeing at least one healthy-looking fox going about it's business. I know this is anecdotal, but then so is your above post palo, so...
I also don't understand the argument that antis are somehow to blame for farmers now shooting loads of foxes. Several posters on this thread keep saying that pre-ban landowners/ farmers were apparently happy to have foxes on their land and be part of the wonderful tradition of hunting, but now they apparently need to shoot bazillions of them. I'm sorry, but something doesn't add up for me here. According to several posters on this thread the hunt was mainly picking off the old/ sick/ weak foxes, leaving alone the healthy ones. So how was that really helping the farmers/ landowners? Why were they happy to welcome/ cultivate these healthy fox populations on their land whereas now apparently they have to shoot them all? If farmers and landowners are going around completely eradicating the fox population (which pro-hunt posters keep telling us the hunts absolutely would not have done/ been in favour of) then there is only one group responsible for that (and it's not the antis!). But I'm not sure we're getting anything other than vague, anecdotal evidence that this is actually the case.
Also, where is the evidence that urban foxes are less healthy? I live in an urban area and we have a lot of foxes, and as far as I can tell they look sleek and healthy. I see lots in the very rural area where I keep my horses too, especially late evening/ early morning in the summer. I don't see evidence of the fox population "brought low" where I live; in fact, there is rarely a day that goes by without me seeing at least one healthy-looking fox going about it's business. I know this is anecdotal, but then so is your above post palo, so...
- Joined
- 16 July 2010
- Messages
- 6,414
May be then that needs to change? If reporting each and every accidental kill was a requirement then maybe packs would be more careful.
I think the issue here would be that accidents with a pack of hounds are exempt under the Hunting Act. It can only be a hunting offence if there is evidence that the huntsman deliberately, and with intent, controlled hounds in such a way as to hunt and kill that deer. Whilst the video might show the most appalling lack of control and discipline those are not offences under the Hunting Act and hounds are treated differently in law to dogs. In fact if anyone's dogs took down a deer whilst not under the owner's immediate control there would be no offence committed, neither under the Hunting Act nor any other legislation. You would have to prove an offence under Animal Welfare laws and that is notoriously difficult I think.
The issue with reporting each and every time a dog killed wildlife would be that the police would end up ignoring all those reports tbh. People would make vexatious claims about others etc. Livestock has more protection than wildlife. Or cats. It would also make the owners of dogs that chase squirrels, rats or rabbits on the wrong side of the law. That may be appropriate but it would require serious legislative change to achieve that and I don't think that is realistic or probably, for the vast majority of people, desirable. It would also mean that what is currently termed humane pest control of rats (with dogs) would become illegal so there would be unintended consequences to that and of course it would instantly outlaw shooting by default which would be extremely difficult to achieve I think.
The issue with reporting each and every time a dog killed wildlife would be that the police would end up ignoring all those reports tbh. People would make vexatious claims about others etc. Livestock has more protection than wildlife. Or cats. It would also make the owners of dogs that chase squirrels, rats or rabbits on the wrong side of the law. That may be appropriate but it would require serious legislative change to achieve that and I don't think that is realistic or probably, for the vast majority of people, desirable. It would also mean that what is currently termed humane pest control of rats (with dogs) would become illegal so there would be unintended consequences to that and of course it would instantly outlaw shooting by default which would be extremely difficult to achieve I think.
- Joined
- 16 July 2010
- Messages
- 6,414
So by that rule then any hunt can go out and say they "Killed by accident"? The law is a ass.
- Joined
- 16 July 2010
- Messages
- 6,414
I do mean packs of hounds reporting a kill by the way. Not everytime someones pet dog kills a rabbit for example.
If all packs had a legal responsibility to report every kill then you might see things change for the better. The law as it stands makes it far to easy to bend the rules. I know that packs of hounds are different to pet dogs by the way otherwise the huntsman would have to carry poo bags and pick up after the hounds which does not happen even when they shit in churchyards!
If all packs had a legal responsibility to report every kill then you might see things change for the better. The law as it stands makes it far to easy to bend the rules. I know that packs of hounds are different to pet dogs by the way otherwise the huntsman would have to carry poo bags and pick up after the hounds which does not happen even when they shit in churchyards!
At last!! Yes, the law enables all manner of things. There are both exemptions and accidents in a number of settings that are entirely 'legitimate'. As @Koweyka has acknowledged, it is extraordinarily difficult to achieve certainty at any particular point that an offence under the Hunting Act has or has not been committed. The bloke stabbing a fox with a fork is nothing to do with the Hunting Act thankfully but can be prosecuted under Animal Welfare laws.
All manner of deeply offensive and unpleasant behaviour - such as chucking a dead fox at a pack of hounds in front of sabs with the intention of taunting them etc may well be disgusting and immoral but it isn't illegal.
All manner of deeply offensive and unpleasant behaviour - such as chucking a dead fox at a pack of hounds in front of sabs with the intention of taunting them etc may well be disgusting and immoral but it isn't illegal.
But of course it does as that is what the legislators and the Act enabled. It would not have been possible for the Act to get through Parliament at all if it hadn't allowed for those loopholes. They were there because of the lack of consensus and scientific evidence needed to create a watertight act.
- Joined
- 16 July 2010
- Messages
- 6,414
I am glad we finally agree then that illegal hunting does go on.
I am surprised that you were not aware of this.
ETA - To be honest for someone who is so anti-hunting I am quite shocked that you are not familiar with the Hunting Act and it's many inadequacies. It seems pretty important to me that if you are going to campaign or protest about something that you understand it.
ETA - To be honest for someone who is so anti-hunting I am quite shocked that you are not familiar with the Hunting Act and it's many inadequacies. It seems pretty important to me that if you are going to campaign or protest about something that you understand it.
Last edited:
Yes I didn’t include that. As Palo has said the law was so badly worded as it was very contentious, it ended up being virtually meaningless. It’s intention is clear but as has been shown actually getting successful prosecutions to clarify it has been almost impossible.
- Joined
- 16 July 2010
- Messages
- 6,414
So if they kill "by accident" its ok? So by taking hounds to places well known to have foxes there is a good chance that hounds will find a scent and kill?
- Joined
- 16 July 2010
- Messages
- 6,414
I was aware. I was making a point!