Hunting is in a spot of bother

[AdorableAlice]

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.

I wonder if the anti hunt groups raise money for charity as the hunts do ? Tens of thousands of pounds are raised by the hunts for many charities through the years. Just recently 10k was raised by my local pack for the air ambulance for instance. Other charities receiving donations include MacMillan, Breast Cancer and The Heart Foundation. Many activities go on organised by the various hunts raising money for charity and always have done. There is no big public statement made when the money is handed over, just perhaps a note on the hunt website. Maybe more publicity is needed. I hunted for 22 seasons pre ban and enjoyed many of the charity events as well. Fun rides, summer shows etc etc. I no longer hunt and if the MFHA don't address the current problems there is no doubt hunting will finish. Major changes are needed.

Perhaps those anti hunt prolific posters on this thread can tell me how much money their groups have raised for worthy causes ?

 

[ycbm]

requiring people to follow the spirit of the law when the letter says something different is always going to go wrong.

The letter of the law is to prevent innocent people being prosecuted for a completely accidental kill. It is not an accidental kill, but a very predictable one, if weak scent is laid in an area known to have foxes.

A comparison would be that the letter of the law says that for something to be theft there must be an attempt to "permanently deprive" the owner of the stolen goods. Every thief could mount the defence "but I always intended to take it back", which would mean it was not theft. Only nobody believes them, so they get convicted.

And since the webinars, few people any longer believe the innocence of the hunts "accidentally" catching fox and I would expect to see convictions somewhat easier to obtain in future.
.

 

[palo1]

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.

But taking hounds to an area where there are likely to be foxes is definitely not illegal. Using a fox scent is legal. Encouraging hounds to follow a scent is legal. Deliberately encouraging hounds to follow a particular scent of a known, live fox with the intention of killing it is not legal. What is legal and what is not are so incredibly close that as @milliepops has said expecting people to follow the spirit rather than the letter of the law is never going to work. You may feel that what is legal is actually immoral but that is entirely different.

 

[ycbm]

I wonder if the anti hunt groups raise money for charity as the hunts do ? Tens of thousands of pounds are raised by the hunts for many charities through the years. Just recently 10k was raised by my local pack for the air ambulance for instance. Other charities receiving donations include MacMillan, Breast Cancer and The Heart Foundation. Many activities go on organised by the various hunts raising money for charity and always have done. There is no big public statement made when the money is handed over, just perhaps a note on the hunt website. Maybe more publicity is needed. I hunted for 22 seasons pre ban and enjoyed many of the charity events as well. Fun rides, summer shows etc etc. I no longer hunt and if the MFHA don't address the current problems there is no doubt hunting will finish. Major changes are needed.

Perhaps those anti hunt prolific posters on this thread can tell me how much money their groups have raised for worthy causes ?

I'm sorry AA, it really isn't relevant. It isn't necessary to hunt fox to raise money for charity.
.

 

[ycbm]

. You may feel that what is legal is actually immoral but that is entirely different.

The problem is that you don't. And then complain about hunts being sabbed.

 

[Koweyka]

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.

I regularly meet with MP’s to discuss the hunting act, I have had a statement read in Parliament debating the hunting act, I also speak at council meetings, newspapers, I have also been on television several times discussing the hunting act, which is extremely nerve wracking, however while there is a Conservative Government there will be no change, they won’t rock the boat, though I am extremely heartened that more and more Tory MP’s are taking a stance against trail hunting.

 

[milliepops]

there are all sorts of moral wrongs that are legally right though. in an argument it's useful to be logical or clear which is which, that's all i take from palo's distinctions.

 

[Koweyka]

I wonder if the anti hunt groups raise money for charity as the hunts do ? Tens of thousands of pounds are raised by the hunts for many charities through the years. Just recently 10k was raised by my local pack for the air ambulance for instance. Other charities receiving donations include MacMillan, Breast Cancer and The Heart Foundation. Many activities go on organised by the various hunts raising money for charity and always have done. There is no big public statement made when the money is handed over, just perhaps a note on the hunt website. Maybe more publicity is needed. I hunted for 22 seasons pre ban and enjoyed many of the charity events as well. Fun rides, summer shows etc etc. I no longer hunt and if the MFHA don't address the current problems there is no doubt hunting will finish. Major changes are needed.

Perhaps those anti hunt prolific posters on this thread can tell me how much money their groups have raised for worthy causes ?

We give our free time to many animal charities, we don’t brag or make a big deal of it sometime boots on the ground is worth far more than money.

 

[palo1]

The letter of the law is to prevent innocent people being prosecuted for a completely accidental kill. It is not an accidental kill, but a very predictable one, if weak scent is laid in an area known to have foxes.

A comparison would be that the letter of the law says that for something to be theft there must be an attempt to "permanently deprive" the owner of the stolen goods. Every thief could mount the defence "but I always intended to take it back", which would mean it was not theft. Only nobody believes them, so they get convicted.

And since the webinars, few people any longer believe the innocence of the hunts "accidentally" catching fox and I would expect to see convictions somewhat easier to obtain in future.
.

Well those are your interpretations and I understand your view. The fact is that the law remains the basis for prosecution and under UK laws evidence has to be provided in relation to the law that stands, not the law as others would like it to work. A predictable incident is not the same as an illegal one.

It is predictable that people going to the pub will drink drive, and they do every year with several tragic deaths as a result. But it isn't illegal to go to the pub, it's not illegal to drive to the pub or any other event where there is a plentiful supply of alcohol and encouragement to partake in it. The law says that it is illegal to drink over a certain amount. It might be wiser and better if you were not allowed any alcohol as that would more likely prevent any drink driving or reduce the incidence of that. That is not what the law states however so prosecutions have to work with the law. I don't know why that is so difficult to grasp.

 

[Steerpike]

Just saw a post on a local fb group of someone going to check their resting field for storm damage to find the hunt have been all over her field, shod hoof prints when her horses are barefoot, she's not impressed and rightly so.

 

[palo1]

Just saw a post on a local fb group of someone going to check their resting field for storm damage to find the hunt have been all over her field, shod hoof prints when her horses are barefoot, she's not impressed and rightly so.

Well if they haven't had permission to be on her land, under the new laws relating to trespass as long as she can identify who has been in her field she will be able to refer the matter to the police. Last week or so 2 anti hunt protestors were arrested for trespassing at a shoot; it seems likely that the law will be workable if individuals are identifiable.

 

[Gallop_Away]

Perhaps those anti hunt prolific posters on this thread can tell me how much money their groups have raised for worthy causes ?

Prior to covid our hunt would organise several events throughout the summer season. There would usually be an annual fun ride, also several shows and a point to point.
Some of the funds raised would go towards the hunt but a portion also went to a local horse rescue and a cancer hospital.

 

[ycbm]

. I don't know why that is so difficult to grasp.

It isn't.

Why does it seem so difficult for hunting people to grasp that sabbing will never stop, and they may lose their entire sport, if they don't find a way to get all hunts to act within the spirit of the law?
.

 

[ycbm]

Prior to covid our hunt would organise several events throughout the summer season. There would usually be an annual fun ride, also several shows and a point to point.
Some of the funds raised would go towards the hunt but a portion also went to a local horse rescue and a cancer hospital.

A lot of the people who "buy" a knighthood do it by giving vast sums, sometimes from very dodgy sources, to charitable causes.

Charitable giving is not relevant to the discussion.
.

 

[palo1]

It isn't.

Why does it seem so difficult for hunting people to grasp that sabbing will never stop, and they may lose their entire sport, if they don't find a way to get all hunts to act within the spirit of the law?
.

Because 'spirit' isn't ever going to make fair or acceptable laws. Sabbing might not stop but the courts can't act outside of what is actually within the letter of the law. The police can't be expected to interpret the law either and have regularly expressed considerable frustration about anti-hunt footage of alleged illegal hunting which is edited. That happens because they too are trying to 'get round' the law by removing evidence that would change the footage from potentially legal to potentially illegal. Or possibly to remove evidence of their own potentially illegal activity.

 

[Gallop_Away]

A lot of the people who "buy" a knighthood do it by giving vast sums, sometimes from very dodgy sources, to charitable causes.

Charitable giving is not relevant to the discussion.
.

It is relevant because of the bad PR hunting has. Hunts need to do more to address the public's perception of them and doing more for local communities is a good start. They have a very long way to go.

 

[ycbm]

Palo your argument is leaving out the whole question of intent. I think the law is broken if the intent was that there was a deliberate or reckless disregard for whether foxes were or were not killed.

You claim that you are against illegal hunting. But i don't think you are. You seem only to be against illegal hunting where the intent can be proven to the satisfaction of a court.

And where you get evidence of intent, like the webinar prosecutions, you somehow manage to convince yourself that it's all been taken out of context.,

And here's another problem. The legal trail hunts constantly assure us that they are hunting entirely legally and avoid catching foxes. So why can't the others? There's only one answer to that, because they are hunting with a deliberate or reckless disregard for the law.

I think your statements that you are against illegal hunting are misleading.

 

[ycbm]

It is relevant because of the bad PR hunting has. Hunts need to do more to address the public's perception of them and doing more for local communities is a good start. They have a very long way to go.

I get your point but I don't think the public will buy it until you stop other hunts killing foxes.
.

 

[Gallop_Away]

I get your point but I don't think the public will buy it until you stop other hunts killing foxes.
.

I was referring to legal hunts in my post.
I completely agree that we should be distancing ourselves from the illegal hunts and condemning their behaviour as loudly as possible. I also think we have a long way to go with the PR side.
Sadly I worry this will all come too late and it really is only a matter of time before all hunting legal or not is stopped.
I for one would be very sad to see the legal hunts dissappear with the illegal ones.

 

[ycbm]

I was referring to legal hunts in my post.
I completely agree that we should be distancing ourselves from the illegal hunts and condemning their behaviour as loudly as possible. I also think we have a long way to go with the PR side.
Sadly I worry this will all come too late and it really is only a matter of time before all hunting legal or not is stopped.

I know you were. But the public no longer trust any hunt to be legal, and you won't get far with a PR campaign based on your charity funding until you stop hunts catching fox, ime.

I for one would be very sad to see the legal hunts dissappear with the illegal ones.

So would I.

 

[YorksG]

If the registered packs are forced to quit, then there will be a proliferation of "pirate" packs. They will do as our local pack did this weekend, take out say 15 couple of hounds and 15 people will take guns, and then claim they are each attempting to flush, by two hounds, to each gun. The pirate packs will have no governance, other than already hard pressed local police services.

 

[ycbm]

Palo, to clarify what you mean why you say you are against illegal hunting, can you give us a straight yes or no answer to this question?

Are you personally against the activities of hunts which are either deliberately or recklessly setting trails of a type and in an area which make it likely that they will catch fox?
.

 

[stangs]

Trail hunting needs to unambiguously, clearly state that it condemns the hunts that continue to hunt illegally.

Saying "but, pre-ban, killing foxes was actually good bc a) ... b) ..." only muddies any condemnations/apologises.

 

[Clodagh]

If the registered packs are forced to quit, then there will be a proliferation of "pirate" packs. They will do as our local pack did this weekend, take out say 15 couple of hounds and 15 people will take guns, and then claim they are each attempting to flush, by two hounds, to each gun. The pirate packs will have no governance, other than already hard pressed local police services.

I agree with your post but at the moment the whole shebang is unmanaged due to the mfha’s arrogance and incompetence.

 

[palo1]

Palo, to clarify what you mean why you say you are against illegal hunting, can you give us a straight yes or no answer to this question?

Are you personally against the activities of hunts which are either deliberately or recklessly setting trails of a type and in an area which make it likely that they will catch fox?
.

Because of the way the UK countryside is @ycbm all trail hunts necessarily are working where there are foxes but I am against deliberate and/or reckless trail hunting and know for certain that a decent pack of hounds can absolutely hunt a laid trail safely. Hounds must be controlled and effectively trained in the same way as sheepdogs and other 'working' dogs. I am furious with hunts and huntsmen/women who are exhibiting reckless bad behaviour, poor manners - including the taunting of sabs as well as bringing all hunting into disrepute, not to mention their poor control or discipline of hounds which are demonstrably capable of moving along a trail safely.

I have no qualms in repeating ad nauseam my position that I am against illegal hunting through intent.

 

[palo1]

I agree with your post but at the moment the whole shebang is unmanaged due to the mfha’s arrogance and incompetence.

Quite so! I suspect that the pirate packs are far more discreet in relation to where they feel they can go and how they operate. Sadly enough, because the MFHA have let hunting down so badly I imagine a number of hunts may choose to de-register where they feel they can find insurance elsewhere (in fact my hunt does not get it's insurance through the MFHA and others are in that situation too) and where they don't feel they are gaining much from registration or formal association with the MFHA.

 

[Koweyka]

Well there is also a train of thought that insurance companies may pull the plug on insuring hunts due to the “badly” behaved hunts and the fallout from the webinars. Then you will all be screwed just like the hunts in Ireland.

 

[YorksG]

This is just an observation, but the tone and language of the anti hunt people on this thread, is particularly aggressive, bordering on abusive, which is in contrast to the more pro hunt posters.

 

[palo1]

Well there is also a train of thought that insurance companies may pull the plug on insuring hunts due to the “badly” behaved hunts and the fallout from the webinars. Then you will all be screwed just like the hunts in Ireland.

There will always be someone prepared to provide insurance; it is a business and conditions of recklessness can be built into insurance more easily than law. I think insurance refusing to do business is wishful thinking to be honest.

 

[Koweyka]

There will always be someone prepared to provide insurance; it is a business and conditions of recklessness can be built into insurance more easily than law. I think insurance refusing to do business is wishful thinking to be honest.

The hunts in Ireland have struggled to find insurance, I hope the premiums will be astronomical.