Hunting is in a spot of bother

I can't "like" that because I want to trail hunt, but trail hunting has no-one to blame but itself for not distancing itself from what it knew was happening in its name. So that's most? of Wales gone, and all NT land. What next?
.
 
Last edited:
Another 'what on earth does this mean?' comment from a prominent pro hunt name in response to the announcement about the National Trust banning trail hunting.

National Trust bans trail hunting on its land https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59420935

Tim Bonner, chief executive of the Countryside Alliance said: "The inability of trustees to differentiate between the legal use of hounds and the governance of hunting is extremely regrettable and breaks the basic principle of access to National Trust land for legitimate activities."

Err, Mr Bonner, the whole point is that the governance of hunting has been caught and convicted red handed of advising hunts on how to pretend to hunt legally while hunting illegally. So nothing pro hunt can say re hunting legally can now (or indeed ever could be) trusted, and they certainly couldn't/can't be trusted to use National Trust land for "legitimate activities".

You are very much part of the norty old guard who havd been caught out fair and square, yet you're still bleating on about the legal use of use of hounds? Who on earth do you expect will believe you? Why are you and the rest of the old guard who are responsible for this state of affairs still in office?
 
Last edited:
Hmm, I am disappointed but not astonished by the withdrawal of licensing. I think both organisations are wrong and all of this will play into the hands of unregistered packs who will be hunting illegally and who will prove far more difficult to identify and prosecute. Where there are determined fox hunting elements in the registered packs they are potentially likely to remove themselves to an unregistered one. I have heard of several people taking this option in fact. Without horses, those packs of hounds are more likely to be welcomed by farmers or at least ignored by them too. The general public, if disturbed by these packs which is not especially likely, will have no way of identifying anything about the hounds or the human individuals involved. One of the major handbrakes on those packs in the past has been the registered packs who have legitimacy and who will challenge (and often recognise) the unregistered/pirate packs. The greatest attention of the sabs/anti hunt lobby has been on these registered, accountable packs but there are increasing numbers of pirate packs of hounds which are totally unaccountable. These withdrawals of licences for registered hunts who could be brought to task and who are likely to want to protect their country from unregistered packs won't help foxes, it won't stop illegal access to NT or NRW land and it will likely cause further trouble in all manner of ways. To my view this is short sighted and divisive policy. Unregistered packs of hounds and their followers will be a very hard nut to crack and without the visual symbolism of traditional, registered packs very hard to appeal to the general public as 'an issue' - once the red and black coated riders are gone I will be astonished if anyone gives a fig what actually happens to foxes...

Anyhow, the antis will have moved on by then, to shooting and farming.
 
  • Like
Reactions: L&M
Hopefully the National Parks, United Utilities and Forestry Commission will step up and also ban it completely.

The webinars are the gifts that keep on giving alongside the head burying of those that knew what certain hunts were getting up to.
 
palo1 said:
Hmm, I am disappointed but not astonished by the withdrawal of licensing. I think both organisations are wrong and all of this will play into the hands of unregistered packs who will be hunting illegally and who will prove far more difficult to identify and prosecute. Where there are determined fox hunting elements in the registered packs they are potentially likely to remove themselves to an unregistered one. I have heard of several people taking this option in fact. Without horses, those packs of hounds are more likely to be welcomed by farmers or at least ignored by them too. The general public, if disturbed by these packs which is not especially likely, will have no way of identifying anything about the hounds or the human individuals involved. One of the major handbrakes on those packs in the past has been the registered packs who have legitimacy and who will challenge (and often recognise) the unregistered/pirate packs. The greatest attention of the sabs/anti hunt lobby has been on these registered, accountable packs but there are increasing numbers of pirate packs of hounds which are totally unaccountable. These withdrawals of licences for registered hunts who could be brought to task and who are likely to want to protect their country from unregistered packs won't help foxes, it won't stop illegal access to NT or NRW land and it will likely cause further trouble in all manner of ways. To my view this is short sighted and divisive policy. Unregistered packs of hounds and their followers will be a very hard nut to crack and without the visual symbolism of traditional, registered packs very hard to appeal to the general public as 'an issue' - once the red and black coated riders are gone I will be astonished if anyone gives a fig what actually happens to foxes...

Anyhow, the antis will have moved on by then, to shooting and farming.
Click to expand...

Prepare to be astonished as antis don’t actually give a fig about red or black or green or tweed coats ….it’s all about the fox and the cruelly killing of animals, the public will be equally disgusted.
 
Koweyka said:
Hopefully the National Parks, United Utilities and Forestry Commission will step up and also ban it completely.

The webinars are the gifts that keep on giving alongside the head burying of those that knew what certain hunts were getting up to.
Click to expand...

And what will sabs do about those unregistered packs of foxhounds I have mentioned?
 
palo1 said:
Hmm, I am disappointed but not astonished by the withdrawal of licensing. I think both organisations are wrong and all of this will play into the hands of unregistered packs who will be hunting illegally and who will prove far more difficult to identify and prosecute. Where there are determined fox hunting elements in the registered packs they are potentially likely to remove themselves to an unregistered one. I have heard of several people taking this option in fact. Without horses, those packs of hounds are more likely to be welcomed by farmers or at least ignored by them too. The general public, if disturbed by these packs which is not especially likely, will have no way of identifying anything about the hounds or the human individuals involved. One of the major handbrakes on those packs in the past has been the registered packs who have legitimacy and who will challenge (and often recognise) the unregistered/pirate packs. The greatest attention of the sabs/anti hunt lobby has been on these registered, accountable packs but there are increasing numbers of pirate packs of hounds which are totally unaccountable. These withdrawals of licences for registered hunts who could be brought to task and who are likely to want to protect their country from unregistered packs won't help foxes, it won't stop illegal access to NT or NRW land and it will likely cause further trouble in all manner of ways. To my view this is short sighted and divisive policy. Unregistered packs of hounds and their followers will be a very hard nut to crack and without the visual symbolism of traditional, registered packs very hard to appeal to the general public as 'an issue' - once the red and black coated riders are gone I will be astonished if anyone gives a fig what actually happens to foxes...

Anyhow, the antis will have moved on by then, to shooting and farming.
Click to expand...

I am afraid your post does little for hunting. It just comes across as if we cannot do it legally then s*d it we will just carry on illegally whether people like it or not. You say where there are determined fox hunting elements. Surely using dogs to chase/kill foxes was made illegal by the 2004 act. So if people cannot hunt on NT land they will take their revenge and do it anyway. Is there any wonder that the public are just so anti hunting with that sort of attitude.

I think the only way is to ban the whole lot lock, stock and barrel. Perhaps also ban ownership of packs of hounds, or to stop individuals each owning one hound ban gatherings of more than 3 fox hounds. That will show unregistered packs and the antis will be able to concentrate their efforts.

Yes it is pathetic to have to think of doing that but if a hard core won't behave and trail or drag hunt legally then the whole lot will have to pay the price for it.
the penalty would be very simple, hounds engaged in illegal activity would be confiscated and destroyed.

With the attitudes described in your post I think it really is a time to put this whole thing to bed forever.
 
palo1 said:
And what will sabs do about those unregistered packs of foxhounds I have mentioned?
Click to expand...

And what are you going to do for all the masses of job losses when all the horses are got rid of, this is what you claimed would happen if hunting was banned, now you are turning it on us again with your what aboutery, to me you have just confirmed it’s all about the killing, always looking for a way to carry on hunting.
Registered or unregistered it makes no difference to us.
 
palo1 said:
Hmm, I am disappointed but not astonished by the withdrawal of licensing. I think both organisations are wrong and all of this will play into the hands of unregistered packs who will be hunting illegally and who will prove far more difficult to identify and prosecute. Where there are determined fox hunting elements in the registered packs they are potentially likely to remove themselves to an unregistered one. I have heard of several people taking this option in fact. Without horses, those packs of hounds are more likely to be welcomed by farmers or at least ignored by them too. The general public, if disturbed by these packs which is not especially likely, will have no way of identifying anything about the hounds or the human individuals involved. One of the majorWhat handbrakes on those packs in the past has been the registered packs who have legitimacy and who will challenge (and often recognise) the unregistered/pirate packs. The greatest attention of the sabs/anti hunt lobby has been on these registered, accountable packs but there are increasing numbers of pirate packs of hounds which are totally unaccountable. These withdrawals of licences for registered hunts who could be brought to task and who are likely to want to protect their country from unregistered packs won't help foxes, it won't stop illegal access to NT or NRW land and it will likely cause further trouble in all manner of ways. To my view this is short sighted and divisive policy. Unregistered packs of hounds and their followers will be a very hard nut to crack and without the visual symbolism of traditional, registered packs very hard to appeal to the general public as 'an issue' - once the red and black coated riders are gone I will be astonished if anyone gives a fig what actually happens to foxes...

Anyhow, the antis will have moved on by then, to shooting and farming.
Click to expand...
What a load of tosh. Do you really think antis care whos hunting? They care about the fact that animals are being hunted illegally.
 
paddy555 said:
I am afraid your post does little for hunting. It just comes across as if we cannot do it legally then s*d it we will just carry on illegally whether people like it or not. You say where there are determined fox hunting elements. Surely using dogs to chase/kill foxes was made illegal by the 2004 act. So if people cannot hunt on NT land they will take their revenge and do it anyway. Is there any wonder that the public are just so anti hunting with that sort of attitude.

I think the only way is to ban the whole lot lock, stock and barrel. Perhaps also ban ownership of packs of hounds, or to stop individuals each owning one hound ban gatherings of more than 3 fox hounds. That will show unregistered packs and the antis will be able to concentrate their efforts.

Yes it is pathetic to have to think of doing that but if a hard core won't behave and trail or drag hunt legally then the whole lot will have to pay the price for it.
the penalty would be very simple, hounds engaged in illegal activity would be confiscated and destroyed.

With the attitudes described in your post I think it really is a time to put this whole thing to bed forever.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Just completely shown that they just care about the killing.
 
paddy555 said:
well I can't really see Charlie banning hunting nor many of the landowners. .
Click to expand...

We have noticed a lot of smaller landowners have banned our local hunts and those that haven’t have been watching what’s going on, it’s making it difficult to plan a full days hunting and they are repeatedly going to the same areas.
 
Koweyka said:
We have noticed a lot of smaller landowners have banned our local hunts and those that haven’t have been watching what’s going on, it’s making it difficult to plan a full days hunting and they are repeatedly going to the same areas.
Click to expand...

afraid I cannot see that happening here. There is hunting on Duchy tenants land like it or not and the landowners are large on the moorland areas.
 
Koweyka said:
Hopefully the National Parks, United Utilities and Forestry Commission will step up and also ban it completely.

The webinars are the gifts that keep on giving alongside the head burying of those that knew what certain hunts were getting up to.
Click to expand...


paddy555 said:
I am afraid your post does little for hunting. It just comes across as if we cannot do it legally then s*d it we will just carry on illegally whether people like it or not. You say where there are determined fox hunting elements. Surely using dogs to chase/kill foxes was made illegal by the 2004 act. So if people cannot hunt on NT land they will take their revenge and do it anyway. Is there any wonder that the public are just so anti hunting with that sort of attitude.

I think the only way is to ban the whole lot lock, stock and barrel. Perhaps also ban ownership of packs of hounds, or to stop individuals each owning one hound ban gatherings of more than 3 fox hounds. That will show unregistered packs and the antis will be able to concentrate their efforts.

Yes it is pathetic to have to think of doing that but if a hard core won't behave and trail or drag hunt legally then the whole lot will have to pay the price for it.
the penalty would be very simple, hounds engaged in illegal activity would be confiscated and destroyed.

With the attitudes described in your post I think it really is a time to put this whole thing to bed forever.
Click to expand...

It is not my attitude actually - I was just stating what I know. I don't think banning keeping a pack of hounds would be feasible tbh. I sort of feel a bit insulted (that is likely deliberate) after numerous attempts to clearly articulate that I don't support illegal hunting that you would suggest that I would want to support an unregistered fox hound pack. Oh well.
 
Koweyka said:
And what are you going to do for all the masses of job losses when all the horses are got rid of, this is what you claimed would happen if hunting was banned, now you are turning it on us again with your what aboutery, to me you have just confirmed it’s all about the killing, always looking for a way to carry on hunting.
Registered or unregistered it makes no difference to us.
Click to expand...

But I have supported legal trail hunting and have done nothing to bring hunting into disrepute. I am asking what will anti fox hunters do about illegal, unregistered fox hound packs.
 
palo1 said:
But I have supported legal trail hunting and have done nothing to bring hunting into disrepute. I am asking what will anti fox hunters do about illegal, unregistered fox hound packs.
Click to expand...
And I will refer you back to your previous posts where you have repeatedly stated that if hunting is banned how it will cost thousands of jobs etc I am asking what you will do about that under the circumstances you describe.
Do you think antis ignore unregistered packs when we receive tip offs regarding them ?
 
The whole point is fox hunting has been banned for years, we all know it has gone on under the guise of trail hunting. Now because its become so clear to the general public that in fact it is still going on trail hunting will either be banned or it will become impossible to do because of the lack of land and willing landowners. This is all because of pro hunters who think they can continue as if fox hunting was never banned at all!
The " turn a blind eye" attitude has got to stop.
 
Not sure how you'd enforce a ban in the South Downs National Park - it's the most farmed national park in the UK, for the most part on private land, and a number of powerful estates are slap bang in the middle of it - Goodwood, Cowdray, the Norfolks...
 
There is a possibility that NT can’t ban trail hunting on all their land.
Much of their land was gifted and there are quite a few instances where the gift either expressly stated that hunting across the land was to be granted or where the sporting rights were withheld.
So in some instances whilst NT might own the land they might not control the right to hunt across it.
 
Fred66 said:
There is a possibility that NT can’t ban trail hunting on all their land.
Much of their land was gifted and there are quite a few instances where the gift either expressly stated that hunting across the land was to be granted or where the sporting rights were withheld.
So in some instances whilst NT might own the land they might not control the right to hunt across it.
Click to expand...

See this is an interesting one - my local hunt usually has its opening meet at a NT property literally a stone's throw from the kennels. Despite the wishes of the family who live on site/own the land, the NT still said no.
 
Last edited:
palo1 said:
That is tricky for the NT!!
Click to expand...
Well I don’t think it is by my understanding, NT farms are tenanted so the landowner, the Trust, gets to say what happens.
No different to a large estate having tenant farmers and them having to abide by the landowners rules.
 
teapot said:
Not sure how you'd enforce a ban in the South Downs National Park - it's the most farmed national park in the UK, for the most part on private land, and a number of powerful estates are slap bang in the middle of it - Goodwood, Cowdray, the Norfolks...
Click to expand...
National Parks are privately owned land, so the landowner top trumps the NP Authority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top