Hunting is in a spot of bother

[palo1]

I think a lot of people could see the sense in this though some hunts are luckier than others in relation to the country they have available. Unfortunately some of the oldest and most influential hunts are in highly populated areas which makes it more likely for them to come into conflict with their neighbours and they would resent any suggestion of contraction. So be it. It may be the only way for hunting to survive would be to ensure that it happens in less densely populated areas full stop. The only issue I can see with the 3 strikes suggestion is that there would be a huge effort made by anti-hunters and sabs to make those 3 strikes happen. I know it is not a popular viewpoint but I do know of several incidents local to me where sabs have drawn hounds onto ground they are not supposed to be on - that would be so easy to manufacture and it would not be fair. I have known too, sabs to call hounds onto a military impact area. The military police were called immediately of course - sabs vanished into the ether and there was a horrible period of waiting to retrieve hounds hoping that no awful incident would happen. Having seen that I have no faith in the good intentions of some of those people and groups - that slightly brings us back to square 1 really; sabs v hunters IF, IF there were a decent and credible, independent governing body for hunting it might, however be possible. I would welcome that as I would love to think that hunting culture could be generally seen as respectable again.

 

[SilverLinings]

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).

Re. 1: In these days of internet communication, mobile phones, whatsapp etc why can't hunts communicate without the MFHA? Surely through word-of-mouth they could track down the others who feel the same? I'm not being argumentative, mean those as purely as questions. I realise that a lot of hunts are pretty independent, but working together may be a more effective way of securing their future.

Re. 2: Surely a mass petition could be used to make the MFHA sit up and realise that they are causing themselves a lot of future trouble (an outright ban on hunting as the result of public opinion) if they don't listen to what people are saying? It shouldn't destabilise the world of legal hunting as *hopefully* it would show that the majority of people involved with hunting want to do so legally and are prepared to work together to secure it's future?

I do realise that the two ideas would be unlikely to fix the problem as some people are too wedded to continuing as they are, but it is frustrating that the middle ground doesn't appear to be taking much action, just the two parties on the extreme ends (illegal hunts and sabs).

I definitely agree with your final paragraph; I hunted (in different parts of the country) with several mounted packs and 2 foot packs in the 90's pre-ban, and they prided themselves on being part of the local communities, were keen to be liked and accepted, and were unfailingly polite. As I've moved about a bit I'm not sure whether I see the opposite now because I live in a different area, or because the behaviour of some hunts has changed post-ban.

 

[palo1]

Re. 1: In these days of internet communication, mobile phones, whatsapp etc why can't hunts communicate without the MFHA? Surely through word-of-mouth they could track down the others who feel the same? I'm not being argumentative, mean those as purely as questions. I realise that a lot of hunts are pretty independent, but working together may be a more effective way of securing their future.

Re. 2: Surely a mass petition could be used to make the MFHA sit up and realise that they are causing themselves a lot of future trouble (an outright ban on hunting as the result of public opinion) if they don't listen to what people are saying? It shouldn't destabilise the world of legal hunting as *hopefully* it would show that the majority of people involved with hunting want to do so legally and are prepared to work together to secure it's future?

I do realise that the two ideas would be unlikely to fix the problem as some people are too wedded to continuing as they are, but it is frustrating that the middle ground doesn't appear to be taking much action, just the two parties on the extreme ends (illegal hunts and sabs).

I definitely agree with your final paragraph; I hunted (in different parts of the country) with several mounted packs and 2 foot packs in the 90's pre-ban, and they prided themselves on being part of the local communities, were keen to be liked and accepted, and were unfailingly polite. As I've moved about a bit I'm not sure whether I see the opposite now because I live in a different area, or because the behaviour of some hunts has changed post-ban.

I hear what you are saying. I would happily petition the MFHA tbh and I think the popularity of TiHUK is in no small part because they represent a better face for hunting BUT like anyone with their back against the wall it takes real guts and commitment to break out against an institution - I am not sure how easy it would be really for some people to start moving away from the MFHA, especially where insurance and stuff is organised through them. The threat of hounds, very carefully bred with bloodlines centuries old and who are the centre of hunting culture, being outside the stud book really would be difficult for many people I think. But a mass petition to the MFHA may be possible. You would hope they would take notice...

I do know that attempts to really speak out against some of the bad incidents have been problematical because some of the stronger voices in hunting DON'T want sabs to see divisions...which of course, I hope, are obvious actually but there we go!

As for hunts working together, they do, sort of but on a very ad hoc basis and I think it would take such negotiation and diplomacy to get enough hunts happy with any particular statement or position on the absolute wealth of things that matter to people it might take another century and I don't think there is enough time for that!! I am not saying these aren't absolutely common sense ideas and really valid actually though. I really hope there is a groundswell of anger and frustration in the hunting community that the MFHA are pulled into alignment with what grass roots hunting people want; demonstrably safe and acceptable hunting. I know that it is possible but there has to be real determination and action now.

 

[paddy555]

. Unfortunately some of the oldest and most influential hunts are in highly populated areas which makes it more likely for them to come into conflict with their neighbours and they would resent any suggestion of contraction. .

but everyone is in this position. Roads you used to ride on are now almost out of bounds from a safety POV, fields/tracks you used to ride on are housing estates or supermarkets. Many areas have been drastically altered and are almost no go for many riders. Even sloping along on a country lane with your dog wandering at your side is now risking death.
Just about all horse riders have had to adapt. Many dare not ride out they have to have a yard with schools.

Everyone has to adapt but the vast majority of riders don't trespass or cause damage, upset animals because they resent progress. They have to work with the confines now available in a rapidly changing world. Hunts in areas of rapidly increasing population are no different. Resentment is not an acceptable reason for anything.

 

[palo1]

but everyone is in this position. Roads you used to ride on are now almost out of bounds from a safety POV, fields/tracks you used to ride on are housing estates or supermarkets. Many areas have been drastically altered and are almost no go for many riders. Even sloping along on a country lane with your dog wandering at your side is now risking death.
Just about all horse riders have had to adapt. Many dare not ride out they have to have a yard with schools.

Everyone has to adapt but the vast majority of riders don't trespass or cause damage, upset animals because they resent progress. They have to work with the confines now available in a rapidly changing world. Hunts in areas of rapidly increasing population are no different. Resentment is not an acceptable reason for anything.

You are not telling me anything I don't know! I don't know why some people behave the way they do or hold the opinions they do; I wasn't in any way justifying that resentment - just stating it as a possible issue in the same way that many people will resent a new wind farm or restrictions on their diet/travel etc due to climate change. People don't necessarily behave in a justifiable or reasonable way. It doesn't seem to stop them from thinking their views are valid. In fact in the age of individualism there is a positive epidemic of holding views and opinions that seem unreasonable in civil and environmental terms (at least to me) but that is the result of the highly individualist culture we are in...

 

[Fellewell]

Hunt behaviour has changed since the ban because they're engaged in a battle for survival. If we consider that this type of propaganda is a real 'result' for hunt saboteurs but an absolute PR disaster for hunting then who has the most to gain from it all? Suffolk/Essex sabs are quite proud of their ability to distract/disrupt hounds so where were they when this incident took place? Using the football analogy; how is a referee supposed to keep his eye on the ball and 22 players when he is constantly under threat of a pitch invasion?
I think hunts have adopted a never complain, never explain strategy for too long now, primarily because anything else would be seen as ill-mannered. Get rid of those who seek to disrupt and you'll get rid of the 'accidents'
We're all sleep walking into AR oblivion anyway. There's a sentience bill in the Commons based on human assumptions about what is good for animals. What's next...

 

[paddy555]

Hunt behaviour has changed since the ban because they're engaged in a battle for survival. If we consider that this type of propaganda is a real 'result' for hunt saboteurs but an absolute PR disaster for hunting then who has the most to gain from it all? Suffolk/Essex sabs are quite proud of their ability to distract/disrupt hounds so where were they when this incident took place? Using the football analogy; how is a referee supposed to keep his eye on the ball and 22 players when he is constantly under threat of a pitch invasion?
I think hunts have adopted a never complain, never explain strategy for too long now, primarily because anything else would be seen as ill-mannered. Get rid of those who seek to disrupt and you'll get rid of the 'accidents'
We're all sleep walking into AR oblivion anyway. There's a sentience bill in the Commons based on human assumptions about what is good for animals. What's next...

. Are you saying this accident was actually caused entirely by the hunt sabs?
the hunt could have warned animal keepers beforehand.

If the hunt sabs were got rid of all these hunt "accidents" would disappear overnight and they would all be drag hunting and not causing any problems.

 

[Fellewell]

. Are you saying this accident was actually caused entirely by the hunt sabs?
the hunt could have warned animal keepers beforehand.

If the hunt sabs were got rid of all these hunt "accidents" would disappear overnight and they would all be drag hunting and not causing any problems.

It wouldn't be the first time.
Hunts were always very happy to inform all of their whereabouts. The sabs have stopped all that being possible because of their constant and dangerous interference. As to your last point there is only one way to find out. Many of the anti 'names' on these threads absolutely refuse to accept that any hunts are acting lawfully, it just doesn't fit their agenda. That is grossly unfair.

 

[paddy555]

It wouldn't be the first time.
Hunts were always very happy to inform all of their whereabouts. The sabs have stopped all that being possible because of their constant and dangerous interference. As to your last point there is only one way to find out. Many of the anti 'names' on these threads absolutely refuse to accept that any hunts are acting lawfully, it just doesn't fit their agenda. That is grossly unfair.

sorry didn't get that. Are you saying that Barney's accident was caused by the sabs? I am specifically interested in this particular occasion. Is there evidence to support this?

the sabs haven't stopped animal keepers being informed. If you don't put up public notices what is wrong with the telephone.

are all hunts acting lawfully? not any but ALL?
what about hounds out of control and going over private land? last time that happened to me there were no sabs just the hunt. Others are in the same position.

 

[Fellewell]

sorry didn't get that. Are you saying that Barney's accident was caused by the sabs? I am specifically interested in this particular occasion. Is there evidence to support this?

the sabs haven't stopped animal keepers being informed. If you don't put up public notices what is wrong with the telephone.

are all hunts acting lawfully? not any but ALL?
what about hounds out of control and going over private land? last time that happened to me there were no sabs just the hunt. Others are in the same position.

Don't put words in my mouth, I asked where they were, I hoped you'd know
Read my post again for the second answer.
Yes of course, the hounds stray and sometimes it's because of hunt sabbing tactics. They don't always need to be there as has been shown over the years.

 

[Sandstone1]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1394542594298714

Reading all this rubbish about how everything is sabs fault leads me to briefly break my new years resolution to stay away from this thread!
Warning. There is bad language in this video.
I am not getting drawn back in to pointless arguments on this thread but had to point out that there are faults on both sides and this video is NOT edited.

 

[Tiddlypom]

Suffolk/Essex sabs are quite proud of their ability to distract/disrupt hounds so where were they when this incident took place?

There has been no mention of sabs being present at this incident. Surely the hunt involved would have blamed sab interference by now if that had happened?

There is very little, if any, support for active sabbing on this thread. I am very much against sabbing for the reasons you mention - the loss of control of hounds for a start. I support passive monitoring.

In any case, if a hunt is being actively sabbed, that is all the more reason to inform local horse owners when they are coming. Barney's owner has said that she would have got her horses in if she'd known that the hunt was coming.The commotion of a hunt being sabbed is even greater than a normal hunt day, and even more frightening to horses. I've had a grandstand view of it all in action outside my own property frontage - sabs, monitors, illegal hunting, terrier men racing about on quad bikes, lots of police - it was noisy, horrible, and went on for a long time. Thank goodness that my horses were in, they'd have been frantic if left out.

That pack has since gone legit. Hunting days are much calmer now. Meet cards are given out again, plus you get a text before a meet local to you. As it should be. The antis are observing on occasion, but not interfering.

Too many hunts still seem to think that they are number one priority traffic as they rampage across the countryside, with all else to give way to them.

Many of the anti 'names' on these threads absolutely refuse to accept that any hunts are acting lawfully, it just doesn't fit their agenda. That is grossly unfair.

You must be reading a different thread to me. Almost all posters agree that 'some' hunts are trying to hunt legally, though many of us, including me, suspect that rather more hunts currently hunt illegally than legally. Credit has been given to those hunts who have reformed and now hunt trail, or who have hunted trail since the ban.

 

[paddy555]

Don't put words in my mouth, I asked where they were, I hoped you'd know
Read my post again for the second answer.
Yes of course, the hounds stray and sometimes it's because of hunt sabbing tactics. They don't always need to be there as has been shown over the years.

and sometimes they stray when there are no sabs. Is that acceptable to you?

your posts are doing nothing to promote the hunts in fact the opposite. Lots of might have beens, lots of excuses and lots of blame someone else if at all possible.

 

[Tiddlypom]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1394542594298714

Reading all this rubbish about how everything is sabs fault leads me to briefly break my new years resolution to stay away from this thread!
Warning. There is bad language in this video.
I am not getting drawn back in to pointless arguments on this thread but had to point out that there are faults on both sides and this video is NOT edited.

That unedited video does make grim viewing. A rider mows the sab down at speed in an open field. The sab could have been killed.

My take on it is that the first group of riders deliberately rode at the sab at speed (to intimidate him?), but then pulled away before colliding with him. The following rider may have been at least partially unsighted by the riders ahead of him, and realised too late that the sab was there. I may be being overly generous to the motives of the riders, though.

It was shockingly reckless behaviour, at best, by that group of riders.

 

[palo1]

That unedited video does make grim viewing. A rider mows the sab down at speed in an open field. The sab could have been killed.

My take on it is that the first group of riders deliberately rode at the sab at speed (to intimidate him?), but then pulled away before colliding with him. The following rider may have been at least partially unsighted by the riders ahead of him, and realised too late that the sab was there. I may be being overly generous to the motives of the riders, though.

It was shockingly reckless behaviour, at best, by that group of riders.

I think those riders were intimidating that sab for sure but the bloke who collided with him was unsighted by the other riders and he was trying to steer away but the horse was not really responding. Reckless, stupid and dangerous behaviour on the riders' parts and unacceptable to be that close to a walker/pedestrian. However, that sab had every opportunity to move out of the way of the field and as at least one ambulance driver commented 'what an idiot' - to deliberately put himself in that situation and risk such injury. Ambulances called etc etc. He will claim of course that he should not have to move out of the way and certainly those riders should absolutely get a boll***king for such appalling manners and dangerous conduct. The sab was busy telling the camera that they were riding at him, he could see what was happening - the other sabs with him did nothing to try to prevent that collision by waving off the riders nor did they tell the man injured to get out of the way. In a less 'political' situation - such as meeting a group of speed cyclists for example who are either oblivious or aggressive toward horses (I have had that experience) you would get out of the way wouldn't you? I have no idea why a group of people would wait for someone to get hurt...Utterly stupid and dangerous behaviour on everyone's part. Equally, no one should ever be using their horse as a weapon. Dire, stupid, provocative and pointless on all counts.

ETA - the pedestrian always has priority and all of those riders should be ashamed of themselves and fined in my view. At the very least...The sab is just an idiot, looking for ways to make things worse. Which he did.

 

[ycbm]

However, that sab had every opportunity to move out of the way o

Not from what I'm seeing. He's in the middle of a field and the riders spread out across that field. In the time it took for them to reach him he could have moved a few yards and they could (would?) still have ridden straight at him, so there was no point in moving.
.

 

[Fred66]

Not from what I'm seeing. He's in the middle of a field and the riders spread out across that field. In the time it took for them to reach him he could have moved a few yards and they could (would?) still have ridden straight at him, so there was no point in moving.
.

From their own post they admit to stalking and harassing that hunt for a considerable time, I would imagine largely whilst trespassing. Whilst I don’t condone deliberately knocking them down (if that’s what they did - as per Palo looks more as though the front riders rode close and the one that hit him was unsighted), everyone has a responsibility for their own safety too.
If protesters went onto the course at Cheltenham and then got hit by a racehorse, who should take the lions share of the blame?

 

[Tiddlypom]

Not from what I'm seeing. He's in the middle of a field and the riders spread out across that field. In the time it took for them to reach him he could have moved a few yards and they could (would?) still have ridden straight at him, so there was no point in moving.
.

I agree. The sab was in clear view of the first group of riders in an open field. He didn't have anywhere safe to run. He wasn't trying to block the oncoming riders. He may well have been trespassing, but that doesn't in any way excuse what the riders did as a group.

As a horsey person, I'd likely have also stayed put if it had been me caught out in the middle of an open field facing oncoming riders, allowing the riders a clear view and room to fan out around me.

 

[ycbm]

From their own post they admit to stalking and harassing that hunt for a considerable time, I would imagine largely whilst trespassing. Whilst I don’t condone deliberately knocking them down (if that’s what they did - as per Palo looks more as though the front riders rode close and the one that hit him was unsighted), everyone has a responsibility for their own safety too.
If protesters went onto the course at Cheltenham and then got hit by a racehorse, who should take the lions share of the blame?

There is a big difference between standing in the middle of a field and standing in the middle of a race track.

My advice to anyone standing in the middle of a field with horses, ridden or otherwise, running into that field would be to stand still and provide a stationary object for the horses to avoid.
.

 

[Fred66]

There is a big difference between standing in the middle of a field and standing in the middle of a race track.

My advice to anyone standing in the middle of a field with horses, ridden or otherwise, running into that field would be to stand still and provide a stationary object for the horses to avoid.
.

Not really (a difference yes but not big)if that field is being used by a large group of horse riders for an organised day out traveling the land at speed and the other group are there illegally with the stated intent of harassing and intimidating them and stopping their paid for day out then aga whilst not condoning if it was deliberate then I can understand.

I would agree with your latter point and if they had all been together and not splintered into smaller groups then it would have made avoiding them a lot easier.

 

[ycbm]

Not really (a difference yes but not big)if that field is being used by a large group of horse riders for an organised day out traveling the land at speed and the other group are their illegally with the stated intent of harassing and intimidating them.

I would agree with your latter point and if they had all been together and not splintered into smaller groups then it would have made avoiding them a lot easier.

Strangely, when I was with a big group of people out hunting galoping through fields, or even a wood, with trees in, I never had any issues avoiding the trees.

 

[paddy555]

Not from what I'm seeing. He's in the middle of a field and the riders spread out across that field. In the time it took for them to reach him he could have moved a few yards and they could (would?) still have ridden straight at him, so there was no point in moving.
.

that's how I see it. Nowhere to go really. It was deliberate act by the riders and there was little margin for error as a result of their actions. They deliberately took action cantering towards the sabs that was likely to hurt someone on foot,

Nothing like Cheltenham. There you know that a group of horses are going to be deliberately galloping down a track, the direction they are going in and time they are going to do it. In this case the riders just turned and rode at the sabs. in a deliberate act. There was nowhere they could go and even if they had moved I suspect the riders would have kept coming.

I couldn't find a date on this, (must have missed it somewhere) Is any action being taken against Webb by the police?

 

[palo1]

Not really (a difference yes but not big)if that field is being used by a large group of horse riders for an organised day out traveling the land at speed and the other group are there illegally with the stated intent of harassing and intimidating them and stopping their paid for day out then aga whilst not condoning if it was deliberate then I can understand.

I would agree with your latter point and if they had all been together and not splintered into smaller groups then it would have made avoiding them a lot easier.

Yes. You would think, for safety reasons that the sabs, on seeing a group of horses approaching at speed would have gathered together rather than providing multiple things for the horses to avoid. It does not excuse deliberate riding down but I don't think it was quite that. It was intimidation I think not attempt to injure. The responsibility to keep each other safe seems to have been somewhat neglected by the group of sabs but I understand why those sabs would rather risk injury than have a 'no story'. The whole thing is infuriating and I wish those riders just hadn't risen to the provocation. The sabs were on and off the footpath judging from the video though - it's not immaterial in fact and you can't see in the film whether the riders were in some way avoiding other sabs in the direction that they rode. They clearly and deliberately ride around the sab except for the man that collided with him. I hope the bloke is ok.

The whole thing is stupid and does not demonstrate in any way any illegal hunting; it is just conflict in the countryside.

 

[Fred66]

Strangely, when I was with a big group of people out hunting galoping through fields, or even a wood, with trees in, I never had any issues avoiding the trees.

Big difference between a tree that towers above horses and doesn’t move and people that move who can get hidden by the horse in front

 

[Koweyka]

He was on a footpath, both groups of riders had ample opportunity to take the horses wide away from the footpath with the Sabs traversing on it. You can see the first group of horses are further over nearer the hedge, the second group of riders also had a clear view of people on the path when entering the field but took no evasive action at all and rode directly at them. Would they have done the same if it had been a family walking a dog, of course they wouldn’t.

It’s disgusting, but not an unusual occurrence we often have horses used against us whether we are stood on pavements or footpaths, it’s all about intimidating us, a huge half ton horse with a rider on top is quite scary when it’s deliberately being backed into you.

It’s not showing illegal hunting, nobody has claimed it was, it’s shows yet more disgusting behaviour from hunts. The police in my area have cautioned riders for doing this to us, I hope the police take action in this case.

 

[Tiddlypom]

This happened two days ago. The hunt is the N.Shropshire.

Their patch is not too far from me, albeit I do not know anyone who hunts with them, or have any inside gossip on them.

Interestingly though, the same groups of antis who stopped sabbing my local pack when it went legit are some of the ones still after the N.Shrops, who they believe to be illegally hunting.

Attitudes do seem to have hardened here. Another neighbouring pack is carrying on blatantly fox hunting despite much anti attention, and seems to have no intention of switching to trail hunting like my local pack did. I have been anticipating a human fatality for a while now, the situation is pretty ugly.

 

[palo1]

He was on a footpath, both groups of riders had ample opportunity to take the horses wide away from the footpath with the Sabs traversing on it. You can see the first group of horses are further over nearer the hedge, the second group of riders also had a clear view of people on the path when entering the field but took no evasive action at all and rode directly at them. Would they have done the same if it had been a family walking a dog, of course they wouldn’t.

It’s disgusting, but not an unusual occurrence we often have horses used against us whether we are stood on pavements or footpaths, it’s all about intimidating us, a huge half ton horse with a rider on top is quite scary when it’s deliberately being backed into you.

It’s not showing illegal hunting, nobody has claimed it was, it’s shows yet more disgusting behaviour from hunts. The police in my area have cautioned riders for doing this to us, I hope the police take action in this case.

I think he must have been on and off the footpath as he moves round the field a bit and comments that the hunt/field/ are crossing a footpath that he is nowhere near or he is somewhere near a footpath that is not on the map. I don't disagree that there was intimidation. Also, very likely aggravated trespass and provocation. There is still no need for dangerous riding at all and I hope those riders are at least cautioned. But no-one comes out of this looking particularly clever.

ETA - if this is not related to illegal hunting then 1: What were those people doing there as they don't appear on the footpath and are demonstrably trying to disrupt something that is not illegal? 2: The film is just additional aggro isn't it? How does that help animal welfare?

I get that the agenda is, if you can't prove illegal hunting, prove any other form of bad behaviour possible to discredit hunting people. Provoke, enrage, disrupt till you get something. The riders were stupid to rise to this but it's not behaviour to be proud of or to further the cause of the anti hunt movement either. I think a lot of people watching that would think the sabs are idiots. But I hope the bloke injured is ok.

 

[MurphysMinder]

This happened two days ago. The hunt is the N.Shropshire.

Their patch is not too far from me, albeit I do not know anyone who hunts with them, or have any inside gossip on them.

Interestingly though, the same groups of antis who stopped sabbing my local pack when it went legit are some of the ones still after the N.Shrops, who they believe to be illegally hunting.

Attitudes do seem to have hardened here. Another neighbouring pack is carrying on blatantly fox hunting despite much anti attention, and seems to have no intention of switching to trail hunting like my local pack did. I have been anticipating a human fatality for a while now, the situation is pretty ugly.

Was this on Friday or Saturday? A friend and I were walking there on Friday afternoon and we commented on the strong smell of fox and wondered if hounds were out. The ground was awful so I'm quite surprised farmers welcomed them on their land.

 

[Fred66]

He was on a footpath, both groups of riders had ample opportunity to take the horses wide away from the footpath with the Sabs traversing on it. You can see the first group of horses are further over nearer the hedge, the second group of riders also had a clear view of people on the path when entering the field but took no evasive action at all and rode directly at them. Would they have done the same if it had been a family walking a dog, of course they wouldn’t.

It’s disgusting, but not an unusual occurrence we often have horses used against us whether we are stood on pavements or footpaths, it’s all about intimidating us, a huge half ton horse with a rider on top is quite scary when it’s deliberately being backed into you.

It’s not showing illegal hunting, nobody has claimed it was, it’s shows yet more disgusting behaviour from hunts. The police in my area have cautioned riders for doing this to us, I hope the police take action in this case.

a) were you there, if not how do you know they were on a footpath?
b) intimidation is a two way thing, going out dressed in black, masked, armed with whips and chemical spray doesn’t smack of a family walk

If the person was deliberately knocked down then it was wrong and I assume the police/cps will deal, otherwise then I’m afraid play stupid games ......

 

[Sandstone1]

Some of the posts here are reminding me to stay away from this thread. I will just say before I go that they were on a FOOTPATH and if those riders can not control their horses well enough to avoid hitting a walker in a field they should not be out hunting.