Hunting is in a spot of bother

[Upthecreek]

I agree about the different scents.

Me too. Bearing in mind dogs can be trained to detect the scent of drugs, money, cancer, live people, dead bodies & ignore other smells I see no reason why hounds can’t be trained to pick up and follow a scent that has absolutely nothing to do with fox.

 

[Gallop_Away]

There have been a lot of comments recently that have insulted me and the people who are trying to stop wildlife being killed, many of these have come from the people that are supposedly trailing. Continually blaming the Sabs and monitors for all the hunts bad behaviour, some of the names/descriptions/blaming of the lad who was mown down are disgusting, I know him personally.

Then blaming the Sabs for that fox that was killed and then for not putting it out of its misery and these are coming from the people that claim to be trailing, they certainly aren’t acting that way. If they tone the rhetoric and insults down so will I, I usualy refer to them as pro hunt, but certainly there are several that do “trail hunting” no favours at all and are just encouraging even harder views against trail hunting as a whole.

Just because someone challenges your views and questions you on situations doesn't mean they are "pro-fox killing". Have I referred to everyone who has disagreed with me as a "pro-countryside terrorist"? You can question and disagree sabs without being in favour of fox hunting, just as you may question trail hunting but that does not mean you don a balaclava on weekends and scream at children mounted on horseback.
I understand you are passionate but you are doing yourself no favours by continually coming across in an unnecessarily aggressive manner.

 

[Nasicus]

My dogs would pounce on a rabbit if they found one. And leverets. They chase foxes. They are not as big as foxhounds so can’t do them any harm but they certainly belt off after them if they see or smell any.

That would be an accident though, unless you specifically trained or encouraged them to chase rabbits. The hounds are trained to chase fox scent and then let out in area where there are plentiful foxes leaving their own fox scent everywhere. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that there's a good chance they're going to get drawn off the laid trail. Like scribbling squiggly lines on a piece of paper in red pen, and then telling you to follow one specific red line through all the other red lines. How are the hounds supposed to differentiate from allowed fox scent and forbidden fox scent? Not impossible, but certainly tricky under controlled circumstances. Add in noise, speed, all the other scents and general chaos of a large group of dogs, horses and riders, well you can't help but wonder how the hunts can reasonably and truthfully believe that the hounds can follow that one red line without error. When you stack it all up, it seems very hard to believe these are genuine accidents.

At least if they were following the scent of something distinctive and non-native to the area, they'd be able to more easily and consistently follow that blue line through the tangled mess of red lines.

 

[Koweyka]

Just because someone challenges your views and questions you on situations doesn't mean they are "pro-fox killing". Have I referred to everyone who has disagreed with me as a "pro-countryside terrorist"? You can question and disagree sabs without being in favour of fox hunting, just as you may question trail hunting but that does not mean you don a balaclava on weekends and scream at children mounted on horseback.
I understand you are passionate but you are doing yourself no favours by continually coming across in an unnecessarily aggressive manner.

There you go again…. With the “donning a balaclava and shouting at children rhetoric” about Sabs.

My god this weekend I was called a “f ugly slag who will get a hiding” by a female rider in her early twenties who was supposedly on a trail hunt, while I was stood on a path wearing jeans and a pink jumper and not a balaclava in sight. This was just after this hunt trashed a badger sett searching for a fox where the “trail” had been laid and chased it. This is a hunt that claims it’s laying trails.

So forgive me if I have just about had a belly full of this trail hunt nonsense, I am on the front end of this, I challenge any of you “pro trail hunt” to go out with your local Sabs and see it from their side, then maybe some of this misguided ridiculous nonsensical rubbish spouted about them may stop and there can be a proper debate.
I can see from your reaction you do not like certain phrases but what makes you believe we have to tolerate the vileness said about us ?

 

[Gallop_Away]

There you go again…. With the “donning a balaclava and shouting at children rhetoric” about Sabs.

My god this weekend I was called a “f ugly slag who will get a hiding” by a female rider in her early twenties who was supposedly on a trail hunt, while I was stood on a path wearing jeans and a pink jumper and not a balaclava in sight. This was just after this hunt trashed a badger sett searching for a fox where the “trail” had been laid and chased it. This is a hunt that claims it’s laying trails.

So forgive me if I have just about had a belly full of this trail hunt nonsense, I am on the front end of this, I challenge any of you “pro trail hunt” to go out with your local Sabs and see it from their side, then maybe some of this misguided ridiculous nonsensical rubbish spouted about them may stop and there can be a proper debate.
I can see from your reaction you do not like certain phrases but what makes you believe we have to tolerate the vileness said about us ?

I'm afraid you have missed my point. I deliberately drew on a negative stereotype for sabs. Apologies if that was not clear.
The point I am trying to make is that just because people disagree and challenge your views, doesn't make them a "fox killer", just as not everyone who challenges my views on trail hunting is a stereotypical masked terrorist. it is possible to disagree with you on some points and disagree with fox hunting, just as it is possible to challenge trail hunting but that doesn't automatically make you in favour of VIOLENT sabs.
I and many others on this thread have clearly stated we do not condone illegal hunting. To continue to call us such names is coming across as ignorant and rude. It is possible to engage in a civil discussion without resulting to petty insults.

 

[Fred66]

There you go again…. With the “donning a balaclava and shouting at children rhetoric” about Sabs.

My god this weekend I was called a “f ugly slag who will get a hiding” by a female rider in her early twenties who was supposedly on a trail hunt, while I was stood on a path wearing jeans and a pink jumper and not a balaclava in sight. This was just after this hunt trashed a badger sett searching for a fox where the “trail” had been laid and chased it. This is a hunt that claims it’s laying trails.

So forgive me if I have just about had a belly full of this trail hunt nonsense, I am on the front end of this, I challenge any of you “pro trail hunt” to go out with your local Sabs and see it from their side, then maybe some of this misguided ridiculous nonsensical rubbish spouted about them may stop and there can be a proper debate.
I can see from your reaction you do not like certain phrases but what makes you believe we have to tolerate the vileness said about us ?

Gallop away didn’t accuse you of anything she/he actually said that people from either side are entitled to have differing views without calling each other names.

Both sides have members who don’t behave as well as they could, I have tried to distinguish in my posts by referring to people as hunt monitors or hunt sabs both of which have the same intended end game of ensuring that illegal fox hunting is stopped. The former generally don’t get abusive the latter generally go out of their way to be as offensive and obnoxious as possible, but even this is changing. You don’t do the same, you lump everyone in together and generally play whataboutery and avoid questions whenever someone challenges you.
Apparently one group of monitors has now started posting a “hunt hag” of the week on Twitter (they are banned from doing it on Facebook) where they take a picture of a female follower or rider and post it for people to mock. Maybe if the misogyny bill gets through parliament these groups will be prosecuted for hate crimes?

Any chance of a response to my post 2554?

 

[Koweyka]

I'm afraid you have missed my point. I deliberately drew on a negative stereotype for sabs. Apologies if that was not clear.
The point I am trying to make is that just because people disagree and challenge your views, doesn't make them a "fox killer", just as not everyone who challenges my views on trail hunting is a stereotypical masked terrorist. it is possible to disagree with you on some points and disagree with fox hunting, just as it is possible to challenge trail hunting but that doesn't automatically make you in favour of VIOLENT sabs.
I and many others on this thread have clearly stated we do not condone illegal hunting. To continue to call us such names is coming across as ignorant and rude. It is possible to engage in a civil discussion without resulting to petty insults.

Sigh I did not start the petty insults, they have been flung at me from the start. I have been quite restrained in all honesty, but the recent comments from some members have just been disgusting. So if they have a “cap fits” attitude why can’t I or is that because I am an anti we are all tarred with the same brush….there is the irony.

I will not be drawn into an argument about name calling, because you and I and the lovely people that trial hunt but somehow still manage to kill foxes will never agree.

 

[Koweyka]

Gallop away didn’t accuse you of anything she/he actually said that people from either side are entitled to have differing views without calling each other names.

Both sides have members who don’t behave as well as they could, I have tried to distinguish in my posts by referring to people as hunt monitors or hunt sabs both of which have the same intended end game of ensuring that illegal fox hunting is stopped. The former generally don’t get abusive the latter generally go out of their way to be as offensive and obnoxious as possible, but even this is changing. You don’t do the same, you lump everyone in together and generally play whataboutery and avoid questions whenever someone challenges you.
Apparently one group of monitors has now started posting a “hunt hag” of the week on Twitter (they are banned from doing it on Facebook) where they take a picture of a female follower or rider and post it for people to mock. Maybe if the misogyny bill gets through parliament these groups will be prosecuted for hate crimes?

Any chance of a response to my post 2554?

I looked at the post and your list of questions and thought it so ridiculous that you knew the answers already however I don’t know anyone who takes chemical weapons into the countryside.

As for the hunt hag, I don’t agree with that, that’s not what we are supposedly about, but you must be aware unless you are living under a rock that hunts are doing exactly the same to the antis and I know because I featured on one such “calendar” !

 

[Gallop_Away]

I can see I am wasting my time. Nevermind

 

[Koweyka]

I can see I am wasting my time. Nevermind

Touché ?

 

[Fred66]

I looked at the post and your list of questions and thought it so ridiculous that you knew the answers already however I don’t know anyone who takes chemical weapons into the countryside.

As for the hunt hag, I don’t agree with that, that’s not what we are supposedly about, but you must be aware unless you are living under a rock that hunts are doing exactly the same to the antis and I know because I featured on one such “calendar” !

Did I say chemical weapons ? I said chemical spray bottles, I believe sabs say they take bottles of citronella with them ?

You’re right I do, so I will take this as your confirmation that sabs are out breaking the law every single time they follow the hunt.

I wasn’t aware of any hunt posting sabs images on line in this way, again don’t agree with it, unless it is for identification purposes of people known to be violent or aggressive when following.

 

[Koweyka]

Did I say chemical weapons ? I said chemical spray bottles, I believe sabs say they take bottles of citronella with them ?

You’re right I do, so I will take this as your confirmation that sabs are out breaking the law every single time they follow the hunt.

I wasn’t aware of any hunt posting sabs images on line in this way, again don’t agree with it, unless it is for identification purposes of people known to be violent or aggressive when following.

I don’t believe some of the people that go trail hunting are actually fully aware of what goes on. Yes we take photographs for ID purposes should we get a case to court. This is taken from police training on evidence gathering.

So ok, if you are taking that completely out of context, how is this …. Your hunt is being sabbed every single week because your hunt is either killing or attempting to kill foxes. You enjoy seeing animals killed and running for their lives …. It goes both ways if you want to make assumptions.

 

[Fred66]

So ok, if you are taking that completely out of context, how is this …. Your hunt is being sabbed every single week because your hunt is either killing or attempting to kill foxes. You enjoy seeing animals killed and running for their lives …. It goes both ways if you want to make assumptions.

I wasn’t making assumptions, I asked the question you replied with “thought it so ridiculous that you knew the answers already”. At this point yes I assumed but you led me there, I took nothing out of context

Not sure where the leap is to just because sabs are there we must be hunting illegally. Nor that I enjoy seeing animals being killed, as I don’t (even when we were hunting fox). As at every point I have indicated that I follow a legal trail hunt.

I had a conversation the other week with another follower and we both agreed that we preferred it when the fox got away (we were talking regariding pre-ban), generally this meant hounds would have been following a healthy fox. That we didn’t agree with digging out or blocking holes.

I would have welcomed a middle way, as I do believe that control of fox numbers is necessary and that use of hounds to do this is actually better for the fox species (please note fox species not individual fox) than other methods as it does largely weed out healthy and fit from not, but the law is the law

 

[palo1]

I don’t believe some of the people that go trail hunting are actually fully aware of what goes on. Yes we take photographs for ID purposes should we get a case to court. This is taken from police training on evidence gathering.

So ok, if you are taking that completely out of context, how is this …. Your hunt is being sabbed every single week because your hunt is either killing or attempting to kill foxes. You enjoy seeing animals killed and running for their lives …. It goes both ways if you want to make assumptions.

But you have asserted in the past that if a trail hunt isn't being sabbed it's not because they are actually trail hunting but because there aren't enough sabs to go around. That makes no sense whatsoever. Also, how do you explain my experience (not my hunt) in relation to that, of 12-16 sabs turning up to a tiny hamlet, all masked, be-camera'd and swaggering down this tiny lane because (by their admission) they had had no 'luck' sabbing another hunt in the area - either they couldn't find them or the hunt was not, in fact, hunting foxes. There were certainly enough sabs that day to serve several hunts as peaceful monitors. In fact they outnumbered the inhabitants of the hamlet... The 2nd hunt they sabbed on that occasion (the one I was witness to) was utterly bemused and sabs gave up after a few hours of seriously cheesing off the local people, because there was nothing for those sabs to see and nothing to 'sab'. They wrote it up explaining that the huntsman was so useless that there was no need to sab him...Sooooo, 'useless' or 'not actually hunting illegally' - either way, what is that all about? I also regularly read reports from sab groups explaining how they saw no foxes at all in spite of lots of sabs around and yet they have at the same time 'saved' foxes.

Those experiences lead me to believe, with respect, that there absolutely are sabs and sab groups that are harrassing trail hunts for reasons entirely other to those related to the legality of what those hunts are doing. You won't recognise that so it makes it incredibly difficult to treat with respect some of the other things you say.

 

[Koweyka]

But you have asserted in the past that if a trail hunt isn't being sabbed it's not because they are actually trail hunting but because there aren't enough sabs to go around. That makes no sense whatsoever. Also, how do you explain my experience (not my hunt) in relation to that, of 12-16 sabs turning up to a tiny hamlet, all masked, be-camera'd and swaggering down this tiny lane because (by their admission) they had had no 'luck' sabbing another hunt in the area - either they couldn't find them or the hunt was not, in fact, hunting foxes. There were certainly enough sabs that day to serve several hunts as peaceful monitors. In fact they outnumbered the inhabitants of the hamlet... The 2nd hunt they sabbed on that occasion (the one I was witness to) was utterly bemused and sabs gave up after a few hours of seriously cheesing off the local people, because there was nothing for those sabs to see and nothing to 'sab'. They wrote it up explaining that the huntsman was so useless that there was no need to sab him...Sooooo, 'useless' or 'not actually hunting illegally' - either way, what is that all about? I also regularly read reports from sab groups explaining how they saw no foxes at all in spite of lots of sabs around and yet they have at the same time 'saved' foxes.

Those experiences lead me to believe, with respect, that there absolutely are sabs and sab groups that are harrassing trail hunts for reasons entirely other to those related to the legality of what those hunts are doing. You won't recognise that so it makes it incredibly difficult to treat with respect some of the other things you say.

There are well over a hundred hunts possibly 200 just how many Sabs do you think there are ? Believe me I want to see every hunt watched, but the ones that are continually watched are the ones that are not hunting with in the spirit or the law.

How are people supposed to know if a hunt is behaving or not if you don’t go and watch them. I really don’t understand the points you are trying to make. It’s amazing though, just how many hunts pack up and can’t cope when monitors or Sabs arrive, clearly haven’t perfected the smokescreen. They could liaise and explain but choosing to pack up screams guilt.

I have seen hunts Facebook pages saying they have had a glorious days hunting, when they have killed a fox. It’s naive if you believe it’s all the Sabs “ fake “ narrative on reports.

Also do you care about the villages that are invaded by the hunt that don’t want them there but have no choice, that have their pets killed, horses killed I have seen livestock mauled, they get away with that because hounds are wrongly classed as working dogs. What’s your opinion on that.

The fact is, Sabs monitors whatever you want to call us do not set out knowing that what they do could potentially kill an animal under the guise of a hobby. Every time a pack of dogs trained to kill and follow an animal based scent they risk wildlife and that is completely unacceptable and why trail hunting will finish. What will you all do then.

In my opinion respect only counts when you actually want respect from the other person. So as neither of us cares anything for the other neither of us should be concerned.

For every insinuation you make about antis I can give you a hundred back about the hunts.

Your “sport” is dying, I see AXA will no longer insure the hunts for legal fee’s hopefully when hunters have to pay out of pocket they may take more care not to kill as many foxes.

Fred666 I had post mortems done on several foxes killed by a hunt and all were young and healthy, one had a stomach full of dog food, rather odd in the middle of the countryside, but it was close to an artificial earth, however this narrative it’s only the sick and old that get caught isn’t true. Hunting has no effect on population control, unless you are breeding cubs to feed to the hounds but I guess that’s a different story.

 

[Fred66]

Fred666 I had post mortems done on several foxes killed by a hunt and all were young and healthy, one had a stomach full of dog food, rather odd in the middle of the countryside, but it was close to an artificial earth, however this narrative it’s only the sick and old that get caught isn’t true. Hunting has no effect on population control, unless you are breeding cubs to feed to the hounds but I guess that’s a different story.

My post said largely not all. I know someone local to me who actively encourages foxes into their garden by feeding them. If it has no effect on population control then why are you so concerned ? Artificial earths and keeping/bagging are another of the things that I would have seen banned on the middle way route.

What you fail to recognize is that many that followed fox-hunting when it was legal didn’t do it through blood lust or psychopathic tendencies (comments found on every sab Facebook page) we did it because we recognised that culling of foxes was a requirement of maintaining balance in the country side and that hunting with hounds was actually a more natural way of performing that task. Watching the hounds draw for the scent, picking it up in challenging conditions, follow the trail, lose it cast again, and pick up that scent again or another’s was what you went to watch. The actual kill was not the thrill, anymore than when you watch a pride of lions on a nature programme stalk and kill their prey.You are just as pleased if not more so when the fox gets away.

Culling in any form results in a dead animal, as long as the dispatch is swift then the method is largely irrelevant.

 

[ycbm]

we did it because we recognised that culling of foxes was a requirement of maintaining balance in the country side and that hunting with hounds was actually a more natural way of performing that task.

I believe only a minoriity did it for those reasons, the rest did it for the social aspects and most for a damned good ride across country. I've know a lot of hunters and none of them did it to watch the hounds work or because they thought it was the most effective way of culling foxes.

And the link of that majority having fun as a direct result of the discomfort of an animal is what the majority, I believe, of the British public no longer finds acceptable.

But it's illegal now anyway, and if hunts were looking out for their own future they would stop doing anything that can too easily be mistaken for hunting fox.
.

 

[Fred66]

I believe only a minoriity did it for those reasons, the rest did it for the social aspects and most for a damned good ride across country. I've know a lot of hunters and none of them did it to watch the hounds work or because they thought it was the most effective way of culling foxes.

And the link of that majority having fun as a direct result of the discomfort of an animal is what the majority, I believe, of the British public no longer finds acceptable.

But it's illegal now anyway, and if hunts were looking out for their own future they would stop doing anything that can too easily be mistaken for hunting fox.
.

Agree it’s illegal hence trail hunting tries to replicate the challenge as the skill of the hounds is what is important.

I am sure some go just for the riding across land that they wouldn’t otherwise get access to and the social aspects. Most huntsman probably view them as a necessary evil in that they pay for the upkeep.

 

[palo1]

@Koweyka ''How are people supposed to know if a hunt is behaving or not if you don’t go and watch them. I really don’t understand the points you are trying to make. It’s amazing though, just how many hunts pack up and can’t cope when monitors or Sabs arrive, clearly haven’t perfected the smokescreen. They could liaise and explain but choosing to pack up screams guilt.''

It is not your job to act as rural vigilantes - the law is there for that. It is not the fault of the hunting community that the Hunting Act makes a nonsense of every point of view; hunters, sabs, police and the law itself. Your assumption of guilt is purely, speculatively that, because of your viewpoint. It is not objective in any way. Who appointed you the arbiter of this law? Where and what is your legitimacy to take the law and interpretation of it into your hands? What are your qualifications and expertise that give you authority to state your unequivocal 'facts'?

''Also do you care about the villages that are invaded by the hunt that don’t want them there but have no choice, that have their pets killed, horses killed I have seen livestock mauled, they get away with that because hounds are wrongly classed as working dogs. What’s your opinion on that.''

This is just 'whataboutery'. Of course I care about the villages I visit with my local hunt' they are my neighbours, friends, friends of friends, places I want to enjoy and support local businesses. I have no interest whatsoever in upsetting those people or communities. I am a part of them too and I have to live with the people there; people who know I am part of a hunting community. There is no reason whatsoever for me to want to upset my own community or that of friends. Sabs visiting from miles away, treating local people with suspicion and disdain because they 'might' support hunting is not exactly community minded. Filming children who have nothing to do with hunting is not acceptable. Recording vehicles because they 'might' have something to do with hunting is not acceptable either. Trespass, obstruction and abuse are not acceptable and have been recorded from both sides often enough for you to know, without doubt that this is a sab problem as much as it is a hunting problem.

''The fact is, Sabs monitors whatever you want to call us do not set out knowing that what they do could potentially kill an animal under the guise of a hobby. Every time a pack of dogs trained to kill and follow an animal based scent they risk wildlife and that is completely unacceptable and why trail hunting will finish. What will you all do then.

The fact is that every time someone with any dog heads out into the countryside, they should know that their dog absolutely has what it takes to chase, maim and kill another animal. Sadly even domestic dogs kill children on tragic occasions. Most dogs need no instruction whatsoever to act out their predatory instincts. I see many more pet dogs out of control than working dogs, including trail hounds. That means that pets and domestic livestock are, as you say 'mauled' and people get away with that because these are accidents, or untraceable tragedies or they are 'tolerated' because dog owners have 'accidents' or poor control. People deliberately let their dogs off lead where there are sheep or in villages where there may well be pet rabbits, chickens or small or large livestock. Dogs attack horses on bridlepaths and chase horses on beaches. Every time anyone who owns a dog sets out to walk that dog, there is probably more potential for damage and injury to others than when a pack of hounds are taken to hunt a trail.

You want to attack the hunting community. I get that. Please just don't pretend that you have the authority or credibility to do that in any other way than personally. You know the facts about trail hunting and sabbing as well as I do and you need to start accepting that the sab story is not always accurate or honest.

 

[Miss_Millie]

I really hate the 'fox hunters are conservationists' angle, I find is so disingenuous. The majority of people who hunt (pre or post ban) do it because it is fun to gallop about the countryside. Not because they're the Jane Goodall's of British wildlife.

Those who genuinely care about conservation would spend their weekends planting trees and volunteering at wildlife shelters, not tearing up turf on their horses and then driving off in their gas guzzlers to have a nice drink at the pub.

The fact that fox urine is used as the scent shows how little those who hunt, actually care about wildlife. The foxes that are farmed live a life of unimaginable misery!

 

[palo1]

I really hate the 'fox hunters are conservationists' angle, I find is so disingenuous. The majority of people who hunt (pre or post ban) do it because it is fun to gallop about the countryside. Not because they're the Jane Goodall's of British wildlife.

Those who genuinely care about conservation would spend their weekends planting trees and volunteering at wildlife shelters, not tearing up turf on their horses and then driving off in their gas guzzlers to have a nice drink at the pub.

The fact that fox urine is used as the scent shows how little those who hunt, actually care about wildlife. The foxes that are farmed live a life of unimaginable misery!

I am sorry @Miss_Millie - you are entitled to your views but the idea that hunters and hunting can be very well allied to conservation is really well explored and understood. It is contentious in the UK but virtually nowhere else (unless you are talking about 'canned' hunting which is another thing entirely). There has been a huge amount of research around this - from many completely objective sources including London Zoo and UNESCO. Knepp Wilding project has recently supported trail hunting by hosting the local hunt. They are one of the most daring, progressive and successful conservation experiments we have in the UK and so much has been learnt from their example. They are not some unwitting bumpkins who just like to see people 'tearing up turf on their horses'....

The fact that fox scent is used is entirely about trying to preserve and conserve the unique abilities of a hunting dog that is the envy of hunting people the world over. That may not matter to you at all - I respect that but there is a bit more to the whole hunting scenario than you think. Farmed foxes have beggar all to do with trail hunting in the UK - particularly because even those trail hunts that use fox scent are using, in fact, dead shot foxes in the main to provide that scent.

 

[Gallop_Away]

There are well over a hundred hunts possibly 200 just how many Sabs do you think there are ? Believe me I want to see every hunt watched, but the ones that are continually watched are the ones that are not hunting with in the spirit or the law.

How are people supposed to know if a hunt is behaving or not if you don’t go and watch them. I really don’t understand the points you are trying to make. It’s amazing though, just how many hunts pack up and can’t cope when monitors or Sabs arrive, clearly haven’t perfected the smokescreen. They could liaise and explain but choosing to pack up screams guilt.

But that's the point, some sabs don't just "watch". They harass/intimidate/tresspass/shout abuse/scare horses etc etc. So let's not pretend all sabs do is watch.
I also completely disagree that all hunts that are continually sabbed are hunting illegally. I shall say it again. Our hunt has not killed in the 7 years I have hunted with them, yet we endure harassment from sabs.
Our hunt has tried to engage with them, inviting them to come and watch/monitor but it seems there is no fun in that.
The writes up that are put up on their Facebook page are complete fantasies I'm afraid. It's quite funny to see them pat each other on the back for there being no kills, when in fact our hunt wasn't doing anything wrong in the first place.
If all sabs did was "watch" there would be no issue. I can certainly speak for our hunt when I say we would take no issues with peaceful monitors joining us in the field.

 

[Tiddlypom]

Every time anyone who owns a dog sets out to walk that dog, there is probably more potential for damage and injury to others than when a pack of hounds are taken to hunt a trail.

Oof, Palo, while I do agree with a fair bit that you have written in your more recent posts, I most certainly do not agree with that statement.

The potential for a trail hunt to cause accidents is rather more than from your average dog walker. Hounds loose and unattended on roads, looking forlorn and lost even when there is no anti presence or activity, is far too common. I've been the muggins trying to flag traffic down when this is near me.

Or I've texted in to report about 6 couple of hounds wandering around in the road in the dark a couple of miles away, forcing son to brake sharply as he spotted them in his headlights, to be told "Oh, don't worry, we know where they are, we're in the field just on the other side of the hedge'.

 

[meleeka]

What you fail to recognize is that many that followed fox-hunting when it was legal didn’t do it through blood lust or psychopathic tendencies (comments found on every sab Facebook page) we did it because we recognised that culling of foxes was a requirement of maintaining balance in the country side and that hunting with hounds was actually a more natural way of performing that task. Watching the hounds draw for the scent, picking it up in challenging conditions, follow the trail, lose it cast again, and pick up that scent again or another’s was what you went to watch. The actual kill was not the thrill, anymore than when you watch a pride of lions on a nature programme stalk and kill their prey.You are just as pleased if not more so when the fox gets away.

Culling in any form results in a dead animal, as long as the dispatch is swift then the method is largely irrelevant.

How is chasing a fox with a pack of hounds and a large group of horses natural?! Neither is it a swift end for the fox.

 

[Miss_Millie]

I am sorry @Miss_Millie - you are entitled to your views but the idea that 1. hunters and hunting can be very well allied to conservation is really well explored and understood. It is contentious in the UK but virtually nowhere else (unless you are talking about 'canned' hunting which is another thing entirely). There has been a huge amount of research around this - from many completely objective sources including London Zoo and UNESCO. 2. Knepp Wilding project has recently supported trail hunting by hosting the local hunt. They are one of the most daring, progressive and successful conservation experiments we have in the UK and so much has been learnt from their example. They are not some unwitting bumpkins who just like to see people 'tearing up turf on their horses'....

3. The fact that fox scent is used is entirely about trying to preserve and conserve the unique abilities of a hunting dog that is the envy of hunting people the world over. That may not matter to you at all - I respect that but there is a bit more to the whole hunting scenario than you think. 4. Farmed foxes have beggar all to do with trail hunting in the UK - particularly because even those trail hunts that use fox scent are using, in fact, dead shot foxes in the main to provide that scent.

1. I never said that hunting in general can not assist with wildlife conservation, in some countries and cultures, in certain situations it might be necessary. I certainly do not have any qualms with people hunting to feed themselves and thus, survive. However the British countryside is on the edge of ecological collapse - the lack of biodiversity due to intensive farming, industry, and the overall spread of the human population is slowly but surely destroying it. The insect population is declining at an alarming rate, species of mammals, plants etc going extinct left right and centre. To suggest that hunting fox would in any way restore balance to an already drastically altered ecosystem is a fantasy. Bring back apex predators, plant hundreds of native trees, restore barren fields into wildlife meadows and we might have a small shot of preserving what very little biodiversity we have left.

I truly cannot see how dozens of people turning up in their diesel land rovers with horse boxes attached, quad bikes, loads of people on foot, roaming all over an already barren landscape, to kill one wee fox, is going to restore balance to the countryside. It is in no way energy efficient or practical, and even if you deem it to have conservational benefits, the reality is that 99% of the people there, are there to have a good time. They aren't on a mission to save the British countryside. So this narrative really frustrates me.

2. I know all about Knepp and I don't see what them allowing the hunt on their land has to do with conservation, given that they will be legally trail hunting, and thus not in any way impacting the fox population. If they want to support trail hunting then fine, it has nothing to do with controlling the fox population though. They have made it clear that they are against illegal fox hunting and would never allow it on their land.

3. Hounds could be trained to follow any scent, you don't give them enough credit. Foxes that are farmed for fur/urine live a life of misery, you seem to think that the tradition of using fox urine is more important than the endless cycle of suffering these farmed foxes have to endure. It also massively increases the risk of hounds 'accidentally' hunting a fox. I believe this is the real reason why it is the favoured scent.

4. This is not true, many hunts use farmed fox urine shipped from Europe or the US.

 

[Fred66]

How is chasing a fox with a pack of hounds and a large group of horses natural?! Neither is it a swift end for the fox.

The fox would not be an apex predator in the uk but for mans intervention.
Therefore the use of another animal is more natural than the use of guns, traps or poison.
The kill at the end of the chase with hounds has a high likelihood of death within seconds or failing that a couple of minutes, even with shooting the outcome if not immediate can be drawn out for days.

Please note I am talking in the abstract as fox hunting with more than two hounds is illegal

 

[stangs]

The fox would not be an apex predator in the uk but for mans intervention.

Well, there's no way about it then. We need to reintroduce lynx.

 

[meleeka]

The fox would not be an apex predator in the uk but for mans intervention.
Therefore the use of another animal is more natural than the use of guns, traps or poison.
The kill at the end of the chase with hounds has a high likelihood of death within seconds or failing that a couple of minutes, even with shooting the outcome if not immediate can be drawn out for days.

Please note I am talking in the abstract as fox hunting with more than two hounds is illegal

So you aren’t counting the time which the fox is literally running for it’s life, just the actual death? Just because the act of killing it doesn’t take long, it doesn’t excuse the terror before it.

 

[Fellewell]

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.[/

Yes, I should have explained. No it's not acceptable of course but that's the problem with hunts advertising their whereabouts. For me a trail hunt is about watching hounds work. It's a marathon rather than a sprint unlike a drag hunt so beloved of the thrusters, where the scent is artificial but the hunt is shorter and for hounds it's more eyes than nose. Trail hunts are more nose to the ground but hounds know they're not following a live scent so when sabs turn up hours beforehand and put down scent dullers and false trails they're doing more harm than good and quite possibly facilitating a kill. The hunt trail layers know where they can go, the huntsman and whippers-in know where they should be but the hounds obviously don't. Fox scent is long lasting and very pungent and quarry based scent is always preferable to the hounds but like any other scent it is very susceptible to environmental conditions so my argument is give them all a fighting chance to stay legal and don't disrupt the hounds.

 

[paddy555]

Yes, I should have explained. No it's not acceptable of course but that's the problem with hunts advertising their whereabouts. For me a trail hunt is about watching hounds work. It's a marathon rather than a sprint unlike a drag hunt so beloved of the thrusters, where the scent is artificial but the hunt is shorter and for hounds it's more eyes than nose. Trail hunts are more nose to the ground but hounds know they're not following a live scent so when sabs turn up hours beforehand and put down scent dullers and false trails they're doing more harm than good and quite possibly facilitating a kill. The hunt trail layers know where they can go, the huntsman and whippers-in know where they should be but the hounds obviously don't. Fox scent is long lasting and very pungent and quarry based scent is always preferable to the hounds but like any other scent it is very susceptible to environmental conditions so my argument is give them all a fighting chance to stay legal and don't disrupt the hounds.[/QUOTE]

sorry FW that quote hasn't worked well.
there are 2 sides to it. Firstly whilst it is your right to legally trail hunt it is also the right of animal owners to keep their animals in their fields. It is up to the hunt to make sure they are not disrupting these animal owners with their activities so those animals eg Barney can graze in peace or be stabled to protect them. The hunt trail layers know where they are laying the trail. They know (or most certainly should know) where the animal owners and their animals are. There is no reason why the hunt cannot contact them either by phone or text to advise of the forthcoming activity. If the hunt are unwilling to do this then it says to those animal keepers that the hunt's day out is far more important than our animals are. That is wrong.

Secondly whilst I appreciate that hounds don't know the trail route that doesn't mean they should stray onto private land. Somehow or other the huntsman has a responsibility to prevent that from happening. I appreciate that if he is trying to hunt with sabs disrupting things then it may not be easy but it is no excuse. The argument is between the sabs and the hunt. The private landowner does not come into it. Just because the sabs are disrupting the hunt doesn't mean the hunt should then allow their hounds onto someone's fields.