Hunting is in a spot of bother

[saalsk]

(sorry, no good at quoting)

Reply to YorksG

I am quite sure they are not a registered pack, and in no way linked to any proper hunt packs in my area.

The police response was "if you don't have video and audio evidence of the actual people firing guns, and that they don't have a licence and permission to do so on that particular property, then there is nothing we can do. As no people actually trespassed on your property, that you saw and had video evidence of, only the dogs, then that isn't a reason to do anything either. You don't know they were not calling the hounds away, and the hounds were simply not leaving as quickly as you would have liked"

An appropriate response ?!

 

[YorksG]

(sorry, no good at quoting)

Reply to YorksG

I am quite sure they are not a registered pack, and in no way linked to any proper hunt packs in my area.

The police response was "if you don't have video and audio evidence of the actual people firing guns, and that they don't have a licence and permission to do so on that particular property, then there is nothing we can do. As no people actually trespassed on your property, that you saw and had video evidence of, only the dogs, then that isn't a reason to do anything either. You don't know they were not calling the hounds away, and the hounds were simply not leaving as quickly as you would have liked"

An appropriate response ?!

Good lord!!!! No, not at all appropriate. If that were me, then I would be emailing the local police and crime commissioner, asking their view of it that was an appropriate response

 

[paddy555]

Paddy 555 if your horse truly cornered a foxhound and 'kicked seven bells' out of it there is no way that hound would live to tell the tale.

As you and the people who liked your comments would have obviously have realised when you watched this incident you are questioning you would have seen the indentation where the trough was that to some extent protected it during it's beating.

 

[paddy555]

Paddy myself and palo can only give our own experiences. Neither of us have condoned the actions of this hunt. Quite the opposite. Neither have we attempted to blame sabs for this sad affair so I'm unsure where your last comment has come from?

I'm sorry I was unclear. By antis I didn't mean sabs, they obviously don't come into this I was meaning ordinary people who are anti hunt and want it stopped such as me.

 

[paddy555]

If members of other hunts have never seen hounds on private land nor horses worked up into a state then you are lucky and really should pull together to address the behaviour of hunts letting the side down.

I was beginning to think it was just me that saw this sort of behaviour.

 

[paddy555]

which hunts are your hunts Gallop Away and Palo?

 

[Gallop_Away]

I will not openly name our hunt on an open forum due to the issues we are having with sabs. I'm sorry but after everything I have experienced I have a huge distrust for them and don't wish to attract more negative attention.
I will say that it is one of the Welsh packs.

 

[ycbm]

Cats, deer, calves, horses. This has to stop. Hunting cannot survive this kind of PR. It has to accept that it has to share a busy countryside with 70 million people in this country now, that its hounds must stay on the set trail like drag hounds manage to do and that people living in the area where those trails are set need notification of an event taking place so they can decide what to do about their animals. Ditto fireworks, but that's another thread.

 

[Indy]

I was beginning to think it was just me that saw this sort of behaviour.

Not just you

 

[Miss_Millie]

There have been two incidents in the past week of hounds running out of control - in the first instance chasing a fox through a village in front of cars, and now poor Barney losing his life when 40 hounds ran into his field.

Given the frequency of these events, I don't see how those who hunt can confidently say the masters are in control of their hounds. This seems to happen far too often. Will all of these hounds be shot as a result?

 

[paddy555]

I will not openly name our hunt on an open forum due to the issues we are having with sabs. I'm sorry but after everything I have experienced I have a huge distrust for them and don't wish to attract more negative attention.
I will say that it is one of the Welsh packs.

OK fine, I understand your reasoning. If your hunt has no problems at all why are you targeted. Just curious.

 

[Chianti]

Just wondering. Imagine if groups of people riding horses and hunting with dogs had never existed. Then ten years ago someone thought it up and it quickly spread across the country. Considering the number of incidents that have been reported in the last ten years of harm to land, cats, sheep, chickens and other horses, would it be allowed to continue?

 

[GoldenWillow]

Cats, deer, calves, horses. This has to stop. Hunting cannot survive this kind of PR. It has to accept that it has to share a busy countryside with 70 million people in this country now, that its hounds must stay on the set trail like drag hounds manage to do and that people living in the area where those trails are set need notification of an event taking place so they can decide what to do about their animals. Ditto fireworks, but that's another thread.

We also have hound trails running in our area, in fact between 2 and 4 a year from our village. I've never known them as a group stray from the trail, occasionally there's an odd one doesn't come in with the others and has got lost. Is that because the trail is aniseed? Which again leads to the question can hunting not change to it?

 

[Tiddlypom]

That feels rather like saying that because, say Chelsea FC have a lot of hooligans in their crowd, that Bradford fc need to alter their behaviour.

The football club analogy is quite a useful one .

If football as a sport was in danger of being banned completely because of the behaviour of the fans of certain clubs, premier league or not, and football's governing body was ignoring/denying the issue, then clubs in lower leagues with peaceful fans would do well to jump ship and set up another football association of their own.

Then the law abiding football clubs would have a much better chance of survival.

 

[stangs]

I think the fact that both Gallop_Away and palo hunt in Wales is quite telling. The Welsh countryside is has a much lower population density than England's, so surely Welsh packs aren't as 'forced' as English packs to go where they're not wanted and disturb livestock.

OK fine, I understand your reasoning. If your hunt has no problems at all why are you targeted. Just curious.

I took Gallop_Away's post to mean that trail hunting in general is having issues with sabs, not their specific hunt.

 

[ycbm]

If football as a sport was in danger of being banned completely because of the behaviour of the fans of certain clubs

Back in the 70's and 80's this was definitely the case. Violence was terrible at some clubs. I've been there I've seen it. Millwall (notorious for violence) vs Portsmouth 1977, bloody scary. The whole of football acted together to change things. Family stands are now standard. People are safe to go to games. It took the whole sport to change and change they did.
.

 

[SEL]

That feels rather like saying that because, say Chelsea FC have a lot of hooligans in their crowd, that Bradford fc need to alter their behaviour.

When English teams were banned from playing in Europe due to their fans behaviour EVERY football club worked hard to get hooliganism under control so they could rejoin the European leagues.

If people who hunt want to continue the sport then they need to stop saying "well it wasn't us" and start dealing with hunts who trespass, commit criminal damage and cause harm. Otherwise it won't be around for anyone in a pretty short space of time.

 

[Tiddlypom]

^^^^ Excellent post, SEL ???.

 

[palo1]

When English teams were banned from playing in Europe due to their fans behaviour EVERY football club worked hard to get hooliganism under control so they could rejoin the European leagues.

If people who hunt want to continue the sport then they need to stop saying "well it wasn't us" and start dealing with hunts who trespass, commit criminal damage and cause harm. Otherwise it won't be around for anyone in a pretty short space of time.

Yes, you are right. I think for most ordinary people who want to trail hunt (like myself) is that the structure of hunting is not really set up for that. Every hunt has come out of a community tradition and each hunt is different; usually, but not always run by a local committee who have very different levels of engagement with the 'main/national' office (ie Hunting Office and MFHA). Each of these hunting committees has a long, specifically local set of practices, traditionsl, prejudices and approaches (like different WI groups) - these are borne out of practice and the kinds of individuals involved. Traditional structures and procedures mean that hunts like mine actually have very little to do with the national office - we don't particularly need them for our insurance and because we are not particularly posh or well connected we are very much a satellite or outpost. The committee get information from the MFHA for example about Covid regs which were actually very clear and well organised so we were able to follow that but on other matters I am not sure how much of a 2 way commmunication process there is!! I think it extremely unlikely/virtually impossible that our Masters for eg had anything to do with the famous webinars; they just couldn't spare the time or probably didn't believe there was much value to them in attending. We already lay trails etc and don't have issues with sabs so there probably wasn't any incentive to spend hours at some webinar during a work day; all of our masters have jobs after all. As long as the kennels are checked out regularly and we receive/attend and abide by certain briefings we are pretty much left to get on with it. IF there were an incident of bad behaviour in our local hunt, someone could report that to the Hunting Office/MFHA but it is possible that they wouldn't particularly know the country, the individuals involved or have any way to 'investigate' in a meaningful way. This is very bad news really though at the moment I think hunts like mine are delighted to be distanced from the MFHA...!

In recent years the Hunting Office has not been especially open to any suggestions or discussion from ordinary folk or probably from masters of small hunts and the arrogance etc of those running the hunting office has meant that many hunts have sort of done their own thing; some for the good, as in my and other hunts happily referenced here, but some have gone really badly off track and the HO seem either unable or unwilling to address that. I would hope that Andrew Osborne is able to bring hunting communities back into a real discussion and then to apply proper governance and discipline. If the HO listened to most grass roots hunters they would know that there is a huge dissatisfaction with the way things are now and the incidents of illegal hunting and poor behaviour.

As for setting up alternative Hunting groups that has been done; This is Hunting Uk is one that has tried unrelentingly to engage with the Hunting Office which in turn reports (as it were) to the Countryside Alliance and to other bodies but there has been a huge reluctance by the Hunting Office to listen and to meet with grass roots hunters. I don't know why: This is Hunting UK has over 40,000 followers (national and international) and absolutely promotes safe and considerate hunting activities and 'manners'. However, without real engagement by the MFHA it is difficult to apply any leverage and the MFHA are the ones that provide 'legitimacy' and thus, potentially governance and discipline to hunting. I think that many hunts that are outliers would really rather just do their own thing; there is considerable distrust of the hunting authorities due to their lack of credibility.

I know some packs may be considering de-registering from the MFHA. If they can arrange insurance elsewhere (as my and other hunts do) then there is very little benefit to the large fee hunts pay to the MFHA for this 'respectability/legitimacy' although for many huntsmen and masters the driving force will be the registration and maintenance of hound pedigrees as that is hugely important and ties in to all sorts of other things. That would mean, of course that it would be difficult for hunts to be in any way accountable to anyone (not that it seems much point at the moment tbh). The only way to stop pirate packs in that scenario would be the slaughter of pure bred hunting dogs -likely impossible due to people absolutely making every use of loopholes in the law (eg cross breeding) or making it illegal to exercise more than 2 dogs at a time without, for example a licence as a dog walker/breeder. Again that would probably be useless/impossible to police/unworkable etc etc.

I think the vast majority of people really do want to see the end of these awful incidents of hunting hooliganism but it's not going to be immediate and in the same way that the vast majority of football fans are not hooligans or racists, most hunters don't in any way support the bad behaviour. I hope Andrew Osborne can bring some more sense to things and get people to actually buy in to the Hunting Office/MFHA. The badly behaved hunts seem (I don't know this as fact) to think the MFHA can't discipline them and the well behaved hunts associate poor behaviour and terrible headlines with the MFHA so steer well clear.

Sorry for the long explanation; it is not an excuse for any bad behaviour but not everyone will be aware of these things. Hunting in the UK is definitely not one community with one set of values.

 

[paddy555]

[

Yes, you are right. I think for most ordinary people who want to trail hunt (like myself) is that the structure of hunting is not really set up for that. Every hunt has come out of a community tradition and each hunt is different; usually, but not always run by a local committee who have very different levels of engagement with the 'main/national' office (ie Hunting Office and MFHA). Each of these hunting committees has a long, specifically local set of practices, traditionsl, prejudices and approaches (like different WI groups) - these are borne out of practice and the kinds of individuals involved. Traditional structures and procedures mean that hunts like mine actually have very little to do with the national office - we don't particularly need them for our insurance and because we are not particularly posh or well connected we are very much a satellite or outpost. The committee get information from the MFHA for example about Covid regs which were actually very clear and well organised so we were able to follow that but on other matters I am not sure how much of a 2 way commmunication process there is!! I think it extremely unlikely/virtually impossible that our Masters for eg had anything to do with the famous webinars; they just couldn't spare the time or probably didn't believe there was much value to them in attending. We already lay trails etc and don't have issues with sabs so there probably wasn't any incentive to spend hours at some webinar during a work day; all of our masters have jobs after all. As long as the kennels are checked out regularly and we receive/attend and abide by certain briefings we are pretty much left to get on with it. IF there were an incident of bad behaviour in our local hunt, someone could report that to the Hunting Office/MFHA but it is possible that they wouldn't particularly know the country, the individuals involved or have any way to 'investigate' in a meaningful way. This is very bad news really though at the moment I think hunts like mine are delighted to be distanced from the MFHA...!

In recent years the Hunting Office has not been especially open to any suggestions or discussion from ordinary folk or probably from masters of small hunts and the arrogance etc of those running the hunting office has meant that many hunts have sort of done their own thing; some for the good, as in my and other hunts happily referenced here, but some have gone really badly off track and the HO seem either unable or unwilling to address that. I would hope that Andrew Osborne is able to bring hunting communities back into a real discussion and then to apply proper governance and discipline. If the HO listened to most grass roots hunters they would know that there is a huge dissatisfaction with the way things are now and the incidents of illegal hunting and poor behaviour.

As for setting up alternative Hunting groups that has been done; This is Hunting Uk is one that has tried unrelentingly to engage with the Hunting Office which in turn reports (as it were) to the Countryside Alliance and to other bodies but there has been a huge reluctance by the Hunting Office to listen and to meet with grass roots hunters. I don't know why: This is Hunting UK has over 40,000 followers (national and international) and absolutely promotes safe and considerate hunting activities and 'manners'. However, without real engagement by the MFHA it is difficult to apply any leverage and the MFHA are the ones that provide 'legitimacy' and thus, potentially governance and discipline to hunting. I think that many hunts that are outliers would really rather just do their own thing; there is considerable distrust of the hunting authorities due to their lack of credibility.

I know some packs may be considering de-registering from the MFHA. If they can arrange insurance elsewhere (as my and other hunts do) then there is very little benefit to the large fee hunts pay to the MFHA for this 'respectability/legitimacy' although for many huntsmen and masters the driving force will be the registration and maintenance of hound pedigrees as that is hugely important and ties in to all sorts of other things. That would mean, of course that it would be difficult for hunts to be in any way accountable to anyone (not that it seems much point at the moment tbh). The only way to stop pirate packs in that scenario would be the slaughter of pure bred hunting dogs -likely impossible due to people absolutely making every use of loopholes in the law (eg cross breeding) or making it illegal to exercise more than 2 dogs at a time without, for example a licence as a dog walker/breeder. Again that would probably be useless/impossible to police/unworkable etc etc.

I think the majority really do want to see the end of these awful incidents of hunting hooliganism but it's not going to be immediate and in the same way that the vast majority of football fans are not hooligans or racists, most hunters don't in any way support the bad behaviour. I hope Andrew Osborne can bring some more sense to things and get people to actually buy in to the Hunting Office/MFHA. The badly behaved hunts seem (I don't know this as fact) to think the MFHA can't discipline them and the well behaved hunts associate poor behaviour and terrible headlines with the MFHA so steer well clear.

Sorry for the long explanation; it is not an excuse for any bad behaviour but not everyone will be aware of these things. Hunting in the UK is definitely not one community with one set of values.

that is a very interesting explanation, so thank you. You describe the frustration of yourself and others hunting legally and behaving nicely towards some of the things going wrong.
If you feel that frustration at least you have the pleasure of indulging in your sport. How do you think some of us feel when there appears to be absolutely no accountability whatsoever by hunts for their actions which range from trespassing, damage and the death of their pets or damage/distress to their livestock? They don't even get any pleasure from hunting.

I have highlighted some points above. To myself as simply a member of the public there appears to be no recourse, no penalties. Basically they can do what they like and s*d everyone else especially the pesky, irritating public, landowners and most especially their even more irritating animals if they get in the way.

No amount of compensation whatsoever is going to improve life for Barney's family. Nothing the hunt can do can ever compensate for the fact that they did not have the competence to control 40 dogs or didn't want to.

There is no reason whatsover why hunt meets cannot be well advertised both in the local press, on a noticeboard, by flyers through animal keepers doors. If they are trail hunting they know where they are going.They don't need to notify the entire county. If the argument against that is sabs them perhaps if everyone behaved well they wouldn't be needed. Of some of the recent incidents they were publicised because of the sabs, the sabs didn't cause them.(I am not a sab nor ever have been)

This is an activity with no effective body in charge, no disciplinary procedures and some of their members are effectively running riot.
Without effective controls in place the only solution is to bring it to an end. As with everything the good suffer because of the bad but that is life.
There is plenty of opportunity for hunting people to take control and correct matters. The don't so why do the public have to put up with it any longer?

 

[SEL]

@palo1 thanks for your reply. I think law abiding hunts must feel extremely frustrated by the actions of those that bring the sport into disrepute. Given the National Trust's recent decision I can't help but think hunting's days will be numbered unless they can put in place some form of body to supervise and take action against those who don't abide by the law.

 

[Clodagh]

When I hunted all horse owners in the area were told when and where the meets were so they could keep their horses in if necessary. Now that there is a veil of secrecy over the whole thing this doesn’t happen.
That’s quite separate to hound or hunt trespass, it should just never happen and not should it ever have done. Hunting keeps acting as though it’s still the days of landed gentry and owned peasants on vast estates. Then it keeps saying it’s a sport open to all. In which case treat everyone with the same respect.
My husband was reading an old book in which the MFH was hacking to the meet with his hounds. They rode through a village and hounds killed a cat. He held the body up and shouted ‘let this be a lesson to you all, not to let pets out on hunting days’. Nothing seems to have changed.

 

[Tiddlypom]

palo1, I also thank you for your considered and very informative post.

With regards to the 'new' (June 2021) chair of the MFHA, Andrew Osbourne, he hasn't made a promising start after posting the below in Dec '21, so I still doubt that true reform and a genuine commitment to rooting out illegal hunting/poor practice are likely to emanate from the MFHA .

https://thehuntingoffice.org.uk/news

'I wanted to take the opportunity to update all members of the MFHA, and the wider Hunting community about plans we have been working on recently. As all supporters of hunting know, the infiltration and subsequent misrepresentation of a trail hunting webinar and the prosecution of a Director has been used to try and cause great harm to our way of life.'

This is Hunting UK does have a lot of followers, and fortunately seems to be continuing after the recent death of the founder. I do pop on regularly to see what's posted there. TiHUK does seem to be regarded with an unwarranted amount of suspicion by the hunting establishment.

 

[paddy555]

When I hunted all horse owners in the area were told when and where the meets were so they could keep their horses in if necessary. Now that there is a veil of secrecy over the whole thing this doesn’t happen.
That’s quite separate to hound or hunt trespass, it should just never happen and not should it ever have done. Hunting keeps acting as though it’s still the days of landed gentry and owned peasants on vast estates. Then it keeps saying it’s a sport open to all. In which case treat everyone with the same respect.
My husband was reading an old book in which the MFH was hacking to the meet with his hounds. They rode through a village and hounds killed a cat. He held the body up and shouted ‘let this be a lesson to you all, not to let pets out on hunting days’. Nothing seems to have changed.

yeah, absolutely. Good final para that sums it up perfectly.

 

[Miss_Millie]

palo1, I also thank you for your considered and very informative post.

With regards to the 'new' (June 2021) chair of the MFHA, Andrew Osbourne, he hasn't made a promising start after posting the below in Dec '21, so I still doubt that true reform and a genuine commitment to rooting out illegal hunting/poor practice are likely to emanate from the MFHA .

https://thehuntingoffice.org.uk/news

'I wanted to take the opportunity to update all members of the MFHA, and the wider Hunting community about plans we have been working on recently. As all supporters of hunting know, the infiltration and subsequent misrepresentation of a trail hunting webinar and the prosecution of a Director has been used to try and cause great harm to our way of life.'

This is Hunting UK does have a lot of followers, and fortunately seems to be continuing after the recent death of the founder. I do pop on regularly to see what's posted there. TiHUK does seem to be regarded with an unwarranted amount of suspicion by the hunting establishment.

That is just delusional.

 

[palo1]

palo1, I also thank you for your considered and very informative post.

With regards to the 'new' (June 2021) chair of the MFHA, Andrew Osbourne, he hasn't made a promising start after posting the below in Dec '21, so I still doubt that true reform and a genuine commitment to rooting out illegal hunting/poor practice are likely to emanate from the MFHA .

https://thehuntingoffice.org.uk/news

'I wanted to take the opportunity to update all members of the MFHA, and the wider Hunting community about plans we have been working on recently. As all supporters of hunting know, the infiltration and subsequent misrepresentation of a trail hunting webinar and the prosecution of a Director has been used to try and cause great harm to our way of life.'

This is Hunting UK does have a lot of followers, and fortunately seems to be continuing after the recent death of the founder. I do pop on regularly to see what's posted there. TiHUK does seem to be regarded with an unwarranted amount of suspicion by the hunting establishment.

I have no idea why This is Hunting Uk has been sidelined by the MFHA and repeatedly so tbh - James Barclay was from hunting royalty and he knew everyone involved in hunting from the ground up. His opinion of some people, involved in poor hunting practices, were utterly scathing and he was regularly infuriated by bad behaviour. TiHUK are really committed to safe, accessible, legal trail hunting and there are a number of hunts that are absolutely on side with them. I feel confident that TiHUK at least will continue to promote positive behaviour, legal trail hunting and good manners. There are some really good and also some very influential people involved and that organisation really does engage with the grass roots. But they are not involved with, nor do they have, at this point, impact on 'policy' or sanction against the people that need disciplining. I think Andrew Osborne's ego would struggle with such a humble group as TiHUK - he possibly wouldn't want the grubby grass roots dictating how things need to be but I have never met the man and know nothing of him so I can't say what he thinks or what he is planning tbh. I would hope he is awake at night trying to work out how to improve matters though! I also understand his statement above; he has to appeal to those hunting people who have been misrepresented (I feel misrepresented for example) and many, many hunting people DO feel that their way of life (not the illegal hunting, trespass and bad manners bit) is in danger. That may not be popular or bring much sympathy but it is true.

It feels, from the grass roots, similar to the problems with endurance; at the top end you have some really serious issues yet at the grass roots it is a decent sport. I am not trying to deflect from the problems that have been highlighted (including the utterly needless death of that much loved horse Barney) but trying to provide my own sense of context. As a add-on to that, I used to quite enjoy endurance until I started to see more of the 'top end' stuff; the level of abuse and bad behaviour as well as wide-spread questionable practice was enough to put me off totally. My experience of hunting, within my local pack has never given me the same level of un-ease and anger. I know that will contradict people's views about both things but that is my experience.

 

[palo1]

[


that is a very interesting explanation, so thank you. You describe the frustration of yourself and others hunting legally and behaving nicely towards some of the things going wrong.
If you feel that frustration at least you have the pleasure of indulging in your sport. How do you think some of us feel when there appears to be absolutely no accountability whatsoever by hunts for their actions which range from trespassing, damage and the death of their pets or damage/distress to their livestock? They don't even get any pleasure from hunting.

I have highlighted some points above. To myself as simply a member of the public there appears to be no recourse, no penalties. Basically they can do what they like and s*d everyone else especially the pesky, irritating public, landowners and most especially their even more irritating animals if they get in the way.

No amount of compensation whatsoever is going to improve life for Barney's family. Nothing the hunt can do can ever compensate for the fact that they did not have the competence to control 40 dogs or didn't want to.

There is no reason whatsover why hunt meets cannot be well advertised both in the local press, on a noticeboard, by flyers through animal keepers doors. If they are trail hunting they know where they are going.They don't need to notify the entire county. If the argument against that is sabs them perhaps if everyone behaved well they wouldn't be needed. Of some of the recent incidents they were publicised because of the sabs, the sabs didn't cause them.(I am not a sab nor ever have been)

This is an activity with no effective body in charge, no disciplinary procedures and some of their members are effectively running riot.
Without effective controls in place the only solution is to bring it to an end. As with everything the good suffer because of the bad but that is life.
There is plenty of opportunity for hunting people to take control and correct matters. The don't so why do the public have to put up with it any longer?

I get all of this. It really didn't used to be like that - in that the MFHA would and could discipline any hunt that caused trouble. At the moment hunts should be accountable to the Hunting Office who should discipline them for bad behaviour; if appropriate to sack individuals or close repeat offending hunts down and give their country to well behaved hunts or completely re-evaluate the country wrt it's suitability for hunting. I have no idea why governance and clear disciplinary codes are not in place; they are in our own hunt and they should be at the top end of the hunting organisation too. If people behave badly they are told they can't come to meets or they get the sack! Letters of complaint (about anything) have to be read at committee meetings and they are discussed and responded to; that is all open. I know that happens as I wrote a letter of complaint to my own hunt about a meet where a couple of visitors were drunk after the meet and kept cantering in and out of a pond that has some rare plants in! The whole sorry episode was discussed in depth and those visitors have never returned. We had a letter once from a landowner complaining about hounds being on property next to his (not a single hound on his property). Our masters deemed it appropriate not to return to that location (well not the fields bordering that man's land). We have other places to go but there was much discussion about how 'fair' it was on both parties. There are endless minutes and records for this sort of thing; hunting leaks has 'used' examples of bad stuff of course but never the good stuff. But they wouldn't would they?!

I have heard it said that part of the problem was the stranglehold that the much esteemed Capt Ronnie Wallace had on hunting discipline. So firm was his grip and so completely did he 'manage' hunting that there was no one to 'inherit' the role once he retired. Those that have come after him have been weak and desperate to 'please' rather than maintain that same level of discipline - which I am sure caused other issues too. I have no idea if this is an idea given any credence in wider hunting circles but it is one explanation. In any case that doesn't help the current situation but hunting has got the structure that COULD make things work.

 

[SilverLinings]

It seems to me that the majority of people on here, and the people I meet IRL, would be happy for LEGAL trail hunting to continue and/or would like to hunt if their local pack was doing so legally. It is the unfortunate confusion by many in the general public of legal with illegal hunting, plus the continuing bad (illegal) behaviour by some hunts that is likely to seal the death warrant for all hunting with dogs/on horseback. So thinking about how to solve this I have two questions:

1. Have all of the LEGAL, well behaved trail hunts considered banding together and threatening to leave the MFHA/The Hunting Office en masse for TiHUK, thereby leaving the MFHA/THO to only represent those that are behaving badly/illegally? The intention would be that this would force the MFHA to get a grip of the hunts hunting illegally or risk becoming an association for an illegal 'sport'.

2. Has there been any kind of organised mass petition sent to the MFHA/THO from all those who trail hunt legally (or wish to) demanding that the MFHA police all hunts better, and instigate protocols that would start to regain public trust (such as publishing meet cards again, and punishing bad behaviour)?

I think if all hunts behaved how Palo (and others) have said that theirs do - only hunting a trail, only on land with permission, alerting all locals when in the area, being polite to the general public, not allowing rioting of hounds, etc - then there would be very little objection to the continuation of trail hunting.

The MFHA and illegal hunts seem to be behaving like small children at the moment, along the lines of 'if I can't have the toy I want then I'll break all the toys'. Their refusal to obey the law and exercise basic good manners is going to end up with all hunting (as we currently understand it, e.g. a pack with mounted riders) being banned.

 

[palo1]

It seems to me that the majority of people on here, and the people I meet IRL, would be happy for LEGAL trail hunting to continue and/or would like to hunt if their local pack was doing so legally. It is the unfortunate confusion by many in the general public of legal with illegal hunting, plus the continuing bad (illegal) behaviour by some hunts that is likely to seal the death warrant for all hunting with dogs/on horseback. So thinking about how to solve this I have two questions:

1. Have all of the LEGAL, well behaved trail hunts considered banding together and threatening to leave the MFHA/The Hunting Office en masse for TiHUK, thereby leaving the MFHA/THO to only represent those that are behaving badly/illegally? The intention would be that this would force the MFHA to get a grip of the hunts hunting illegally or risk becoming an association for an illegal 'sport'.

2. Has there been any kind of organised mass petition sent to the MFHA/THO from all those who trail hunt legally (or wish to) demanding that the MFHA police all hunts better, and instigate protocols that would start to regain public trust (such as publishing meet cards again, and punishing bad behaviour)?

I think if all hunts behaved how Palo (and others) have said that theirs do - only hunting a trail, only on land with permission, alerting all locals when in the area, being polite to the general public, not allowing rioting of hounds, etc - then there would be very little objection to the continuation of trail hunting.

The MFHA and illegal hunts seem to be behaving like small children at the moment, along the lines of 'if I can't have the toy I want then I'll break all the toys'. Their refusal to obey the law and exercise basic good manners is going to end up with all hunting (as we currently understand it, e.g. a pack with mounted riders) being banned.

Hmm. 1: There isn't really a way of all hunts who want one thing communicating with each other except via the MFHA. Hunts such as mine are literally a world apart from some of the big hunts and whilst individuals know each other the thought of 1 hunt committee directly working with another or many to leave the formal organisation of hunting is...difficult to imagine. It's a bit like working with members of the EU!!

2. I think the MFHA regularly receive communications of concern about their policies, structure etc...I have NO idea why that hasn't had any traction. I would like to know why too. Mass petitions to destabilise the only formal organisation in hunting when hunting itself is at risk due to the issues is a game of double jeopardy that many people would not want to play; hunting communities are largely very conservative (in nature not necessarily politically). That might happen and certainly TiHUK could be well placed to co-ordinate something like that. I think a lot of people hope that Andrew Osborne's new plan might have something worthwhile in it. If it doesn't maybe that will be a more useful way forward.

The way you talk about how hunting should be, it used to be like that far more widely. Apart from the trail hunting bit, those things were the standard to which most hunts held themselves accountable. They could be again but hunting needs much better leadership and probably not inconsiderable contraction in places where hunting can't realistically be managed with the goodwill of the locals (ie very populated places).

 

[Chianti]

I wonder if it needs a really drastic approach to make all hunts realise that they can't have regular 'incidents' and 'accidents'? Perhaps a 'three strikes and you're out' system might help to focus some hunts' minds. If hunts cause damage to land they shouldn't be on, or animals are hurt, then after three such incidents they would be disbanded and hunting wouldn't be allowed in that area. If some hunts can operate without upsetting their neighbours then they all should be able to.