Hunting is in a spot of bother

Koweyka

Well-Known Member
Joined
15 January 2021
Messages
278
My colleagues are out at the moment unblocking badger setts under police supervision after a particularly vile hunt has packed up. On top of the sett there are very fresh boot and spade marks and quad bike tracks, the hunt turned up in the same wood. This happens at every meet location this hunt meets at.

How do the pro hunts explain this ? How do you feel about sett blocking by your soft underbelly?
 

Upthecreek

Well-Known Member
Joined
9 May 2019
Messages
1,856
Unless there are drastic changes to the Hunting Act nothing will change. In reality you have something which is banned, but allowed to continue. The law is practically unenforceable due to the difficulty in proving intent as far as illegal hunting is concerned. Even when intent has been proven, the penalties are not severe.

Intent in my opinion would be defined as hounds being proven to be ineffectively trained and managed because they chase and kill animals. If they cannot ignore live fox, deer or hare the hunt should be disbanded. This would mean that all packs would have to properly train and manage the hounds to follow a trail only because the consequences of not doing so would be not being allowed to continue hunting.
 

palo1

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 July 2012
Messages
4,463
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.




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.



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.
.
I have just had to come back to this @ycbm. You haven't at all taken on board the impact of culture on a community and how difficult it is in practical terms to get rid of cultural activities, values and behaviours. Whilst you might think it easy, history absolutely proves it to be not so!! The fox has been genuinely 'special' in British culture with much song, poetry, art, music and ritual -including hunting around that animal. That isn't actually easily dismantled in a trice, especially not where there are communities that still want to refer to those things in their life. I think you know better than what you suggest - either that or you are extraordinarily naive about how society and culture really works....

Revered isn't a sentimental term at all - it means raising something above it's basic status and that exactly describes the fox in British culture. Today the fox remains emblematic - it is everywhere; on everything from pajamas to animal rights activists literature. In any object analysis this suggests that that animal is far more significant than just a red-brown canine. I cannot see the conflict in me acknowledging that supporting an animal for hunting purposes when that was entirely legal might have been positive for that species. Many other people will have said the same about foxes and other animals. Moral judgements are entirely separate to legal ones; in the same way that religious practices make moral judgements about food, about sex, about contraception; they are entirely different to legality. For some their morality and the law clash, for others they co-exist happily and for most of us there are shades of grey between the two on many issues.

I don't think I have the right to censure someone if they are obeying the law of the land regardless of how I feel about their attitudes, behaviour or beliefs. I might express my own views of course, hopefully respectfully and within the law. That is how our society works.
 

AdorableAlice

Well-Known Member
Joined
24 October 2011
Messages
12,481
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.
I doubt the charities receiving donations would agree with you and your response is very blinkered which I expected, and whilst I agree that my comment is not particularly relevant to the discussion on this thread, it is relevant that the anti hunt groups and the general public should be aware that the rural community do a lot for charity for both their own and others.
 

Tiddlypom

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 July 2013
Messages
17,631
Location
In between the Midlands and the North
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.
You think that all the anti hunt people, by which I presume you mean the anti illegal hunting people (who comprise the vast majority of posters on this thread) are using aggressive, bordering on abusive language? Really?

ETA I also think that it would be easier to police the pirate hunts if all legal hunting goes to the wall, as the police would instantly know that such groups were up to no good.
 
Last edited:

paddy555

Well-Known Member
Joined
23 December 2010
Messages
9,244
I have just had to come back to this @ycbm. You haven't at all taken on board the impact of culture on a community and how difficult it is in practical terms to get rid of cultural activities, values and behaviours. Whilst you might think it easy, history absolutely proves it to be not so!! The fox has been genuinely 'special' in British culture with much song, poetry, art, music and ritual -including hunting around that animal. That isn't actually easily dismantled in a trice, especially not where there are communities that still want to refer to those things in their life. I think you know better than what you suggest - either that or you are extraordinarily naive about how society and culture really works....
what about the impact of that culture on the community who hate it? Not just one or two people but a lot. If you did a poll of our area, which is reasonably rural, I am pretty sure there would be a large number who wanted it stopped both trail and fox.

I think you are very naive if you really think the vast majority of people living in the country (which is where hunting in whatever form takes place) actually want it.

It could be dismantled tomorrow very easily and quickly.
 

Koweyka

Well-Known Member
Joined
15 January 2021
Messages
278
I doubt the charities receiving donations would agree with you and your response is very blinkered which I expected, and whilst I agree that my comment is not particularly relevant to the discussion on this thread, it is relevant that the anti hunt groups and the general public should be aware that the rural community do a lot for charity for both their own and others.
But you have absolutely no idea what anti hunt groups do for charity, how much money they raise, how much time they give freely to causes, we just don’t brag, as for the blinkered comment ….well pot, kettle, black to you too.
 

Fred66

Well-Known Member
Joined
15 February 2017
Messages
2,055
The problem is that you don't. And then complain about hunts being sabbed.
I think it is immoral and illegal for a group of people to threaten and intimidate others in an attempt to force them to bend to their view. Especially when trespassing which is illegal once it is pointed out to them and keeping their faces masked.
Do you think this is acceptable?
 

paddy555

Well-Known Member
Joined
23 December 2010
Messages
9,244
Especially when trespassing which is illegal once it is pointed out to them and keeping their faces masked.
Do you think this is acceptable?
what about the hunt letting their hounds trespass on people's land where they are specifically not allowed and then causing damage. That is no more acceptable.
 

Tiddlypom

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 July 2013
Messages
17,631
Location
In between the Midlands and the North
You haven't at all taken on board the impact of culture on a community and how difficult it is in practical terms to get rid of cultural activities, values and behaviours. Whilst you might think it easy, history absolutely proves it to be not so!! The fox has been genuinely 'special' in British culture with much song, poetry, art, music and ritual -including hunting around that animal. That isn't actually easily dismantled in a trice, especially not where there are communities that still want to refer to those things in their life. I think you know better than what you suggest - either that or you are extraordinarily naive about how society and culture really works....
But their culture wasn't dismantled in a trice, there was plenty of time to get used to the idea of a ban and of what should come after it.

There will be people on here who started hunting longer ago than me, but I was about 14 and it was about 1973 when I hacked (on my own) to my first hunt meet. I had a fabulous day, and I had many more fabulous days after that, but the writing was on the wall even then. It was just a question of when, not if, hunting would be banned.
 

palo1

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 July 2012
Messages
4,463
You think that all the anti hunt people, by which I presume you mean the anti illegal hunting people (who comprise the vast majority of posters on this thread) are using aggressive, bordering on abusive language? Really?

ETA I also think that it would be easier to police the pirate hunts if all legal hunting goes to the wall, as the police would instantly know that such groups were up to no good.
I don't see how you work that one out @Tiddlypom because if a landowner is happy to have a pirate pack on their land and no offence is committed then it is not a police matter. The problem would be that it would be incredibly hard to monitor in any way as pirate packs are not registered nor do they have any need or want to engage with the public. I have no idea how much attention they have had from anti-hunting groups but I would guess that as they are a much harder target to find, very little attention has been paid to their activities, legal or not.
 

stangs

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 September 2021
Messages
1,169
What fascinates me is how fox hunting continues despite the ban (even though people claim that there's been a decrease in the population of rural foxes), but, to the best of my knowledge, when otter populations decreased, packs stopped hunting them without a ban. Was it that people turned to hunting mink instead back then, or that certain train hunts today are affronted by the existence of a ban?

Anyone here know anything about otter packs?
 

palo1

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 July 2012
Messages
4,463
But their culture wasn't dismantled in a trice, there was plenty of time to get used to the idea of a ban and of what should come after it.

There will be people on here who started hunting longer ago than me, but I was about 14 and it was about 1973 when I hacked (on my own) to my first hunt meet. I had a fabulous day, and I had many more fabulous days after that, but the writing was on the wall even then. It was just a question of when, not if, hunting would be banned.
20 years is nothing in comparison to the structures and roots of a tradition and a set of beliefs and practices. Christianity over 2000 years has failed to totally overwrite earlier cultural traditions - cleverly early Christians adapted and absorbed the old stuff. You are naive if you think you can enforce complete cultural change on a community in just one or two generations. Changes can be made and have been but it takes a long time.
 

Gallop_Away

Well-Known Member
Joined
5 May 2015
Messages
501
My colleagues are out at the moment unblocking badger setts under police supervision after a particularly vile hunt has packed up. On top of the sett there are very fresh boot and spade marks and quad bike tracks, the hunt turned up in the same wood. This happens at every meet location this hunt meets at.

How do the pro hunts explain this ? How do you feel about sett blocking by your soft underbelly?
I really don't understand what more you want people say that hasn't already been said!? NOT ONE PERSON has defended illegal hunting activities. I'm not sure what more you want people to say?
 

palo1

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 July 2012
Messages
4,463
What fascinates me is how fox hunting continues despite the ban (even though people claim that there's been a decrease in the population of rural foxes), but, to the best of my knowledge, when otter populations decreased, packs stopped hunting them without a ban. Was it that people turned to hunting mink instead back then, or that certain train hunts today are affronted by the existence of a ban?

Anyone here know anything about otter packs?
I really don't but I suspect that otters were actually hunted (and killed in other ways including poison and environmental damage etc) until they were no longer viable for anyone to kill for any reason. Originally they had been hunted because people felt they competed with them for fish. Thank goodness, for a number of reasons our otter population is increasing.
 

ycbm

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 January 2015
Messages
43,711
I think it is immoral and illegal for a group of people to threaten and intimidate others in an attempt to force them to bend to their view. Especially when trespassing which is illegal once it is pointed out to them and keeping their faces masked.
Do you think this is acceptable?
No I don't think that's acceptable. But they think you are lying. They aren't trying to stop you doing what you're doing, they're trying to stop you doing what they think you are lying about.

I completely understand why they think you are lying as I have already explained several times.
.
 

palo1

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 July 2012
Messages
4,463
My colleagues are out at the moment unblocking badger setts under police supervision after a particularly vile hunt has packed up. On top of the sett there are very fresh boot and spade marks and quad bike tracks, the hunt turned up in the same wood. This happens at every meet location this hunt meets at.

How do the pro hunts explain this ? How do you feel about sett blocking by your soft underbelly?
For goodness sake @Koweyka, whoever blocked badger setts is not 'my' (or probably any other poster on this thread's) soft underbelly! Stop conflating all of your hatred for a different group of people into one thing. Interfering with a badger sett is an offence under the Protection of Badgers Act and this may be part of a hunt's activity and may be part of a Hunting Act offence but it is nothing to do with the legal trail hunting that is supported on this thread.
 

ycbm

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 January 2015
Messages
43,711
I have just had to come back to this @ycbm. You haven't at all taken on board the impact of culture on a community and how difficult it is in practical terms to get rid of cultural activities, values and behaviours. Whilst you might think it easy, history absolutely proves it to be not so!! The fox has been genuinely 'special' in British culture with much song, poetry, art, music and ritual -including hunting around that animal. That isn't actually easily dismantled in a trice, especially not where there are communities that still want to refer to those things in their life. I think you know better than what you suggest - either that or you are extraordinarily naive about how society and culture really works....

Revered isn't a sentimental term at all - it means raising something above it's basic status and that exactly describes the fox in British culture. Today the fox remains emblematic - it is everywhere; on everything from pajamas to animal rights activists literature. In any object analysis this suggests that that animal is far more significant than just a red-brown canine. I cannot see the conflict in me acknowledging that supporting an animal for hunting purposes when that was entirely legal might have been positive for that species. Many other people will have said the same about foxes and other animals. Moral judgements are entirely separate to legal ones; in the same way that religious practices make moral judgements about food, about sex, about contraception; they are entirely different to legality. For some their morality and the law clash, for others they co-exist happily and for most of us there are shades of grey between the two on many issues.

I don't think I have the right to censure someone if they are obeying the law of the land regardless of how I feel about their attitudes, behaviour or beliefs. I might express my own views of course, hopefully respectfully and within the law. That is how our society works.
I think you are grossly overstating the cultural impact of fox hunting. It's a minority sport done for the most part by people who want a whizz across country on horseback.

Within all the geographical areas that I have hunted there were people who disagreed with it, many of them dyed in the wool country folk.
.
 

Fred66

Well-Known Member
Joined
15 February 2017
Messages
2,055
No I don't think that's acceptable. But they think you are lying. They aren't trying to stop you doing what you're doing, they're trying to stop you doing what they think you are lying about.

I completely understand why they think you are lying as I have already explained several times.
.
What they think is irrelevant. They have no legal or moral right to take the actions they do.
They can monitor and follow openly, without the masks in a legal manner.
 

Tiddlypom

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 July 2013
Messages
17,631
Location
In between the Midlands and the North
I think it is immoral and illegal for a group of people to threaten and intimidate others in an attempt to force them to bend to their view. Especially when trespassing which is illegal once it is pointed out to them and keeping their faces masked.
Do you think this is acceptable?
The masked aggressive trespassers in these parts were at least as likely to be the hunt terrier men as the sabs.

In fact, on reflection, the sabs were probably the less intimidating of the two groups as viewed by us residents.
 

paddy555

Well-Known Member
Joined
23 December 2010
Messages
9,244
20 years is nothing in comparison to the structures and roots of a tradition and a set of beliefs and practices. Christianity over 2000 years has failed to totally overwrite earlier cultural traditions - cleverly early Christians adapted and absorbed the old stuff. You are naive if you think you can enforce complete cultural change on a community in just one or two generations. Changes can be made and have been but it takes a long time.
but as I said earlier and you ignored many in the community don't want hunting. Which bit of that are you failing to get? Why is it imposed on the many because the few like their tradition and need several generations to change.

We are having hunting imposed on us. I think your comments about Christianity are simply twaddle. Sorry.

Ban the whole lot. Make sure the wording makes pirate packs illegal, all dogs and horses to be confiscated if/when they are caught. That will remove any doubts over who is hunting legally.
 

YorksG

Over the hill and far awa
Joined
14 September 2006
Messages
14,918
Location
West Yorkshire
The masked aggressive trespassers in these parts were at least as likely to be the hunt terrier men as the sabs.

In fact, on reflection, the sabs were the less intimidating of the two groups.
Then your experience is different from others. Our local foot hunt has been targeted at local pubs, among other places in recent years, they were hardly illegally hunting there!
 

AdorableAlice

Well-Known Member
Joined
24 October 2011
Messages
12,481
But you have absolutely no idea what anti hunt groups do for charity, how much money they raise, how much time they give freely to causes, we just don’t brag, as for the blinkered comment ….well pot, kettle, black to you too.
Please tell me what you and your friends do for charity, that was my very first question to you and a simple one in my view. I have seen many of you over the years and all I see is rent a mob who are happy to throw ball bearings under horses and lure hounds onto the roads.
 

ycbm

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 January 2015
Messages
43,711
This went well.

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.
And then you wrote this, once again removing any reference to intent and seeming to sanction the catching of foxes as long as there isn't enough evidence to prosecute.

I don't think I have the right to censure someone if they are obeying the law of the land regardless of how I feel about their attitudes, behaviour or beliefs.
We all have the right to censure people whose behaviour we believe is wrong but legal. It's legal but wrong to borrow someone else's property and use it without permission, it's legal but wrong to tell a stranger you think they are ugly or fat, it's legal but wrong (in the UK) to queue jump. We censure behaviour all the time.

I don't have any problem believing that it's wrong to trail hunt with the scent of an animal you are not legally allowed to hunt.
 

palo1

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 July 2012
Messages
4,463
but as I said earlier and you ignored many in the community don't want hunting. Which bit of that are you failing to get? Why is it imposed on the many because the few like their tradition and need several generations to change.

We are having hunting imposed on us. I think your comments about Christianity are simply twaddle. Sorry.

Ban the whole lot. Make sure the wording makes pirate packs illegal, all dogs and horses to be confiscated if/when they are caught. That will remove any doubts over who is hunting legally.
You are definitely not having hunting imposed on you and never have. It is like everything else - if you don't like it don't access it or join in! It is like many other elements of society and culture.
 

ycbm

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 January 2015
Messages
43,711
What they think is irrelevant. They have no legal or moral right to take the actions they do.
I agree, but at the same time I understand why they think they have a moral right, and trail hunting could change that, but here we go round in a circle again.
 

ycbm

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 January 2015
Messages
43,711
You are definitely not having hunting imposed on you and never have. It is like everything else - if you don't like it don't access it or join in! It is like many other elements of society and culture.

The arrogance of this statement is astounding.

Everyone who is in an area which is being hunted has hunting imposed upon them whether they like it or not.
 
Top