Hunting is in a spot of bother

[milliepops]

still trying to get you to admit to being a bloodthirsty fox murderer palo, after 75 pages!

 

[Sandstone1]

If you understand the Act as well as the exemptions why do you need to ask this? If you are making a point about morality then that is entirely separate to matters of legality.

Its more about making a point of how hunts try to get round killing foxes. The Warwickshire for instance does not appear to lay trails and constantly takes hounds to places well know to have foxes so by default its not unlikely they will find a fox.
This is where evidence of laying a trail needs to be brought in.

 

[palo1]

still trying to get you to admit to being a bloodthirsty fox murderer palo, after 75 pages!

Well yes, that probably would help a few folk out tbh!! I prefer the truth and I am quite happy to represent my true views, opinions and experience cos honesty is the best policy!

 

[Sandstone1]

still trying to get you to admit to being a bloodthirsty fox murderer palo, after 75 pages!

Well, if hunts do not lay trails and if they do they use fox sent to do so and take hounds to known areas where foxes are likely to be found what would your estimate of whats likely to happen be?

 

[Sandstone1]

Well yes, that probably would help a few folk out tbh!! I prefer the truth and I am quite happy to represent my true views, opinions and experience cos honesty is the best policy!

So you honestly know that foxes are likely to be found and hunted? I rest my case.

 

[palo1]

Its more about making a point of how hunts try to get round killing foxes. The Warwickshire for instance does not appear to lay trails and constantly takes hounds to places well know to have foxes so by default its not unlikely they will find a fox.
This is where evidence of laying a trail needs to be brought in.

Yes I get the point thanks - in fact some hunts will try to 'get round' the law but that is because there are those exemptions and absolute loopholes/gaps/anomalies which make those 'get rounds' legal/are classed as a legal exemption. They are there because the Hunting Act could not have been brought in without those. Whatever you think about that, a lot of what you think (and possibly should be) illegal is not.

 

[milliepops]

Well, if hunts do not lay trails and if they do they use fox sent to do so and take hounds to known areas where foxes are likely to be found what would your estimate of whats likely to happen be?

this doesn't make any sense. a few on this thread seem to be trying to get palo to admit to more or less being responsible for all illegal hunting related fox deaths (and probably a fair few legal ones too) when all along she has said she supports legal trail hunting only.
Why should she personally answer to events that she has already condemned? I don't get that way of thinking.

I think i'm pretty patient palo but you have some extraordinary reserves

 

[Sandstone1]

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.

Oh. I understand it all right. I am making a point which seems to go over your head.

 

[palo1]

Well, if hunts do not lay trails and if they do they use fox sent to do so and take hounds to known areas where foxes are likely to be found what would your estimate of whats likely to happen be?

That is conjecture and those things are not illegal. That is why we are in the trouble that we are. One lot of people wanted a watertight act to prevent all and any way of allowing any traditional hunting activity, including the killling of foxes whilst the other could not see that as legitimate (I am talking parliamentarians, committees and legislators not hunters and anti-hunt protestors). The parliamentary process even in the Commons could not be convinced that trails had to be proven and it is essentially impossible to have hounds in the UK countryside without the likelihood of encountering foxes. Except possibly in parts of Essex it would seem where they have to make artificial earths for them. I don't think that is illegal either! Whilst you might wish that parliament and the Act were better and more in tune with your own view, they are not and the law is what it is. The lack of consensus and conviction at the time of drafting and bringing the Act into law has had many reverberations.

 

[Sandstone1]

this doesn't make any sense. a few on this thread seem to be trying to get palo to admit to more or less being responsible for all illegal hunting related fox deaths (and probably a fair few legal ones too) when all along she has said she supports legal trail hunting only.
Why should she personally answer to events that she has already condemned? I don't get that way of thinking.

I think i'm pretty patient palo but you have some extraordinary reserves

I am not and never have said that Palo1 is responsible for all illegal hunting. It is clear she supports fox hunting though from her many, many answers and her many copies of reports etc. Yes, the law makes mistakes all too likely but some hunts know this or why would they take hounds to known areas for example along side main roads etc. We will never agree on this and its a complete waste of time so I need to go and do something more productive.

 

[palo1]

this doesn't make any sense. a few on this thread seem to be trying to get palo to admit to more or less being responsible for all illegal hunting related fox deaths (and probably a fair few legal ones too) when all along she has said she supports legal trail hunting only.
Why should she personally answer to events that she has already condemned? I don't get that way of thinking.

I think i'm pretty patient palo but you have some extraordinary reserves

Yes, I think I am patient and tolerant too - well I hope so. At least my absolute trojan effort to explain my viewpoint is entertaining just a few regular posters...Not expecting any kind of 'result' tbh though I am pleased that some posters are finally understanding the Hunting Act and it's stupidities.

 

[Sandstone1]

still trying to get you to admit to being a bloodthirsty fox murderer palo, after 75 pages!

IF the cap fits and all that

 

[YorksG]

IF the cap fits and all that

What a mature and well reasoned response!

 

[milliepops]

That is conjecture and those things are not illegal. That is why we are in the trouble that we are. One lot of people wanted a watertight act to prevent all and any way of allowing any traditional hunting activity, including the killling of foxes whilst the other could not see that as legitimate (I am talking parliamentarians, committees and legislators not hunters and anti-hunt protestors). The parliamentary process even in the Commons could not be convinced that trails had to be proven and it is essentially impossible to have hounds in the UK countryside without the likelihood of encountering foxes. Except possibly in parts of Essex it would seem where they have to make artificial earths for them. I don't think that is illegal either! Whilst you might wish that parliament and the Act were better and more in tune with your own view, they are not and the law is what it is. The lack of consensus and conviction at the time of drafting and bringing the Act into law has had many reverberations.

i did my dissertation on the hunting act. I have pushed it all out of my head over the years. this thread is reminding me why!!

 

[palo1]

So you honestly know that foxes are likely to be found and hunted? I rest my case.

What? I know that the law makes it possible for hounds to be where foxes are likely to be. I know that the law does not require 'proof' of trail laying (though that is wise in case of contention of course). After that, it is virtually impossible for anyone to 'know' exactly what may or may not happen in advance of it actually happening.

 

[Sandstone1]

Yes, I think I am patient and tolerant too - well I hope so. At least my absolute trojan effort to explain my viewpoint is entertaining just a few regular posters...Not expecting any kind of 'result' tbh though I am pleased that some posters are finally understanding the Hunting Act and it's stupidities.

I am aware of the hunting act and how hunts bend the rules, thanks all the same. You have not educated me if thats what you like to think.

 

[palo1]

IF the cap fits and all that

That is a pretty offensive thing to say and imply @Sandstone. I hope I have treated posters with more respect than this in spite of my difference of opinion on some things.

 

[Koweyka]

That is conjecture and those things are not illegal. That is why we are in the trouble that we are. One lot of people wanted a watertight act to prevent all and any way of allowing any traditional hunting activity, including the killling of foxes whilst the other could not see that as legitimate (I am talking parliamentarians, committees and legislators not hunters and anti-hunt protestors). The parliamentary process even in the Commons could not be convinced that trails had to be proven and it is essentially impossible to have hounds in the UK countryside without the likelihood of encountering foxes. Except possibly in parts of Essex it would seem where they have to make artificial earths for them. I don't think that is illegal either! Whilst you might wish that parliament and the Act were better and more in tune with your own view, they are not and the law is what it is. The lack of consensus and conviction at the time of drafting and bringing the Act into law has had many reverberations.

But this is the problem, hunts are putting hounds in areas very likely containing foxes and foxes are killed, laying trails of fox urine into coverts and copses and undergrowth, is so dangerous to wildlife, the hunt says sorry it was an accident and proving intent is practically impossible which is why we want the recklessness clause added, please don’t start the what if’s three dogs chase a squirrel nonsense because it needs to be clear how it should be applied. Then these hunts wonder why they get sabbed when they are laying trails ….
#smokescreen

 

[palo1]

I am aware of the hunting act and how hunts bend the rules, thanks all the same. You have not educated me if thats what you like to think.

The problem is that the 'rules' are not 'bent' - they expressly allow for a completely different outcome to the spirit and intention of the Act. The Hunting Act depends on huntsmen, in part, following the spirit and not the letter of the law. You will, of course, know that.

 

[Sandstone1]

What? I know that the law makes it possible for hounds to be where foxes are likely to be. I know that the law does not require 'proof' of trail laying (though that is wise in case of contention of course). After that, it is virtually impossible for anyone to 'know' exactly what may or may not happen in advance of it actually happening.

SO if you dont lay a trail and take hounds to where foxes are likely to be and hounds find and hunt a fox where is the control of a huntsman to call hounds off a trail? If he does not have control he shouldnt be hunting them, if he lets them hunt on hes breaking the law.

 

[Sandstone1]

But this is the problem, hunts are putting hounds in areas very likely containing foxes and foxes are killed, laying trails of fox urine into coverts and copses and undergrowth, is so dangerous to wildlife, the hunt says sorry it was an accident and proving intent is practically impossible which is why we want the recklessness clause added, please don’t start the what if’s three dogs chase a squirrel nonsense because it needs to be clear how it should be applied. Then these hunts wonder why they get sabbed when they are laying trails ….
#smokescreen

Exactly....

 

[Gallop_Away]

IF the cap fits and all that

Rude and totally unnecessary!

 

[Sandstone1]

The problem is that the 'rules' are not 'bent' - they expressly allow for a completely different outcome to the spirit and intention of the Act. The Hunting Act depends on huntsmen, in part, following the spirit and not the letter of the law. You will, of course, know that.

They do not follow the law at all they take hounds expressly to areas they know they are likely to find...They either dont lay a trail at all or use fox scent. They do encourage hounds on to the scent and they hunt them on..
This is why sabs have to disrupt hunts.

 

[Sandstone1]

Rude and totally unnecessary!

Really? but true. If you think thats rude you should see me when I really try

 

[Tiddlypom]

Re artificial earths. They were common pre ban. They were put in to encourage foxes to the more poorly foxed parts of a hunt country.

A farmer might happily watch a family of young cubs who'd been born in an artificial earth that he'd put in playing on his land all summer, and ensure that they were safe. Then he'd tip the wink to the huntsman come the cubbing season in autumn, who would send hounds in. The field would be positioned around the outside of the covert 'holding up', ie making lots of noise when the (now virtually fully grown) cubs tried to escape, and the young entry of hounds would learn their trade by killing most of the cubs near their birthplace.

As far as I know the creation of an artificial earth with the intention of encouraging foxes is still not illegal, though cubbing as described above has been banned since the Hunting Act came in.

One does wonder what the 'official' reason was for the relatively recent refurbishment of the artificial earth in E.Essex country, though ?. Clearly not so that a sicko with a fork could harvest and torture foxes.

 

[palo1]

But this is the problem, hunts are putting hounds in areas very likely containing foxes and foxes are killed, laying trails of fox urine into coverts and copses and undergrowth, is so dangerous to wildlife, the hunt says sorry it was an accident and proving intent is practically impossible which is why we want the recklessness clause added, please don’t start the what if’s three dogs chase a squirrel nonsense because it needs to be clear how it should be applied. Then these hunts wonder why they get sabbed when they are laying trails ….
#smokescreen

Well we agree on some things but the issue for a lot of hunters (probably those who wish to follow the letter rather than the spirit of the law) is that their actions may well be legal and cannot known be be illegal until the point at which they cross the line of the law. This may be why the presence of sabs and their interference will be seen as illegitimate, even where I understand that is entirely possible for illegal hunting to take place and for anti hunters to feel passionately, actively angry about that. For other hunts where hunting is carried out entirely legally and in the spirit of the law too, sabs are utterly unwarranted and the constant assertions of illegality are totally unhelpful to any furthering of animal welfare causes. The issue of danger to wildlife with legal trailhunting is really not proven and even the dear old National Trust have publicly stated that hunting activities are no more disruptive than any other legal activity.

Even Knepp estate have accepted trail hunting on their land as 'safe' when their entire raison d'etre is the improvement of conditions for nature and wildlife.

 

[palo1]

Really? but true. If you think thats rude you should see me when I really try

Please don't.

 

[Gallop_Away]

Really? but true. If you think thats rude you should see me when I really try

Palo has made it quite clear she does not support illegal hunting. That response was completely unnecessary.
Palo has been nothing but polite throughout this debate. What a shame others can't show her the same courtesy.

 

[milliepops]

requiring people to follow the spirit of the law when the letter says something different is always going to go wrong.
Remember all the "but what can i get away with" kind of stuff at the start of the pandemic.
If you're writing a law that is intended to be effective or watertight you have to say what you mean. attacking the law instead of individuals would be a better use of sabs time.

resorting to personal insults makes the debate a total farce.

 

[ycbm]

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 don't. I would though, have expected them up have woken up to the fact that the tide of public opinion had been gradually turning against them for at least 50 years. The Act was not sudden or unexpected, and it was felt by many to be long overdue.

If you are making a point about morality then that is entirely separate to matters of legality.

Not in my view. You write consistently as if the loopholes in the law designed so that people are not prosecuted for a genuine mistakenly killed fox somehow gives people the right to ignore the spirit of the law, and continue to use fox scent in fox country in the full knowledge that it makes those "accidents" likely.

I'm afraid that for me that very much weakens your statement that you disagree with illegal hunting.

an animal that was, somewhat by chance, revered and supported by a community in this country because of it's association with hunting

Foxes were supported so they could be hunted. Can you see the conflict in being proud of that? You later in the post I took this from say sabs misuse sentimentality. Revered? If that isn't sentimentality I don't know what it is. I've never heard a word of reverence for the fox from any of the many fox hunters I've known. It's also the first time I've seen an animal described as revered by people prepared to see it run until exhausted and die torn in pieces, often after being dragged out of an earth by some terriers after escaping the hounds.
.