Hunting on National Trust Land

[Shay]

Following the recent Meynell hunting convictions an ‘anti team’ have set up a petition in an attempt to persuade the National Trust from preventing the Meynell from ‘hunting’ on NT land.

A counter petition has therefore been set up and would welcome your support and here's the link: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/allow-the-meynell-south-staffs-hunt-on-national-trust.html

Please take the trouble to sign the petition and forward as a decision in favour of the antis will undoubtedly have implications for other hunts using National Trust land.

 

[WestCoast]

Really seriously do you think that they deserve to be able to continue after showing such flagrant disregard for a law supported by such a large majority of the population that the government can't even get a majority of conservative MPs to support repealing it? Or do laws only apply to poor people in this country?

 

[happyhunter123]

Or do laws only apply to poor people in this country?

Classic class hatred and ignorance coming out there. Many poor people hunt, you bigot!

 

[happyhunter123]

A law supported by such a large majority of the population

Actually, most members of the public have not one tiny clue about hunting with hounds, and don't care all that much. OK, maybe if asked they'll say they oppose it because it sounds 'nasty'. But I've met, and know, a unbelievable number of people who have either never heard of hunting with hounds or didn't know it was banned (you'll be surprised how many people don't watch the news or read the paper). Many people who have heard of the ban think that it prevents people from killing foxes in any way. Anyway, if they were all very strong antis, you'd think the LACS might have a few million more members than the couple of thousand it has now!

I think, in a survey, it was found that for over half of voters would not be more or less likely to vote Labour if they would ban hunting. The CA commissioned a survey which found that '59% say keep hunting'. The League found that '76% say ban it'. You'll find that those who commission these surveys always seem to find the answer they want. In 2005, it was found, in a Countryfile commissioned survey that 47% supported the ban. 73% thought that the government spend too long debating the Act. But when (I would say) the majority of the public don't really know what hunting is, these figures, whether they support or oppose, are meaningless.

 

[Alec Swan]

....... a law supported by such a large majority of the population .......

.......

That's factually incorrect. The vast majority of the population recognise a fraudulent and dishonest law which was engineered by groups with no interest in right or wrong, OR, the countryside.

That you bring the argument of rich and poor, which presumably would equate to a class structured statement, into a debate, leaves your argument without substance, I'm sorry to tell you.

Another point for you to consider, The NT let out their land to shooting syndicates, and earn a considerable revenue from such lettings. The NT is also a huge money making machine, and if they were to ban hunting, in any form, and on the grounds of morality, do you honestly think that they'd abandon their other sporting money making enterprises? I don't.

Alec.

 

[WestCoast]

Classic class hatred and ignorance coming out there. Many poor people hunt, you bigot!

Oh yes of course - all those poor people that can afford to keep a horse and all the paraphernalia. Oh sorry - I forgot, the plebs happily follow the toffs on foot for a good bit of ripping apart of wildlife.

59% say keep hunting

Ah yes that excellent statistic best know for the ASA serving a cease and desist notice on the CA for fraudulent advertising.

But when (I would say) the majority of the public don't really know what hunting is, these figures, whether they support or oppose, are meaningless

Yes of course when the vaste majority disagree with what you do then they must be stupid not to see the noble selflessness of what you are doing. Ah hang on. . .

Jeez guys, get over yourselves and do something useful with your time. Or jusT go drag hunting like those of us who aren't pond life were doing 30 years ago.

 

[L&M]

Petition signed.

Paulag - if you find our activities so abhorrent, why do you bother to frequent the hunting page of the Horse and HOUND forum (clue is in the name)?

Fyi I am not wealthy, and our hunt conducts it's activities within the law, so really do not appreciate being referred to as 'pondlife'.

 

[WestCoast]

It appeared on the latest post feed and kinda assumed it was in support of throwing the lawbreakers off national trust land.

You need to sent up your own private forum if you don't want to be criticised.

Sorry I regard people who consider hunting a living creature for kicks acceptable pond life - live with it, it's not like you care what people think..

Paula

 

[Maesfen]

Just how much land does the Meynell hunt over that actually IS NT land?

 

[L&M]

Sigh......

 

[Alec Swan]

.......

Jeez guys, get over yourselves and do something useful with your time. Or jusT go drag hunting like those of us who aren't pond life were doing 30 years ago.

It often seems to me, Paula, that those who run out of reasoned argument, seem to resort to insult. Within my argument, have I insulted you, or been offensive?

If I am, as you say, "pond life", why do you bother to enter into a conversation with me? Perhaps, were you to save your energies, you could do something useful with them.

One final tip for you; you're on a pro-hunting forum, and you're waisting your thoughts. Still, if that's what brings you pleasure.

Alec.

 

[A1fie]

Signed

 

[WestCoast]

It often seems to me, Paula, that those who run out of reasoned argument, seem to resort to insult. Within my argument, have I insulted you, or been offensive?

If I am, as you say, "pond life", why do you bother to enter into a conversation with me? Perhaps, were you to save your energies, you could do something useful with them.

One final tip for you; you're on a pro-hunting forum, and you're waisting your thoughts. Still, if that's what brings you pleasure.

Alec.

It's not so much the pro hunting that is the problem, but the support for lawbreaking that needs to be challenged. This hunt's members, despite clearly having the resources to afford the best lawyers gave been proven in court to have broken the law. So why would anyone put up a petition to support them?

Of course this is offensive - why wouldn't it be?

 

[Shay]

This is not about allowing "lawbreaking" on NT land. Do the NT conduct a PNC check on every visitor to be sure they have no convinctions, unpaid parking fines etc? No. Do you want such a world? Well personally - no.

(And I have never been convicted of anything - not even a parking ticket!)

There is a petition from those opposed and from those in support. Just choose. Don't descend to personal insults.

Although - thank you to Paulag. Your vocal opposition has probably got more signatures onto this petition in the last 2 hours than any amount of quiet diplomacy.

 

[Keenjean]

Paulag, this is a pro hunting forum and this post is in the hunting section, horse and hound is a pro hunting magazine.... I'd say there's enough clues there for you not reading posts in this section of the forum as you will always be outnumbered on here.
Also, comments such as pond life are unnecessary.

 

[acw295]

Signed

 

[happyhunter123]

Paulag, this is a pro hunting forum and this post is in the hunting section, horse and hound is a pro hunting magazine.... I'd say there's enough clues there for you not reading posts in this section of the forum as you will always be outnumbered on here.
Also, comments such as pond life are unnecessary.

Slightly going away from the topic.
Paulag, why waste your time? The people who read this forum are unlikely to listen to you if all you are is rude and abusive to them. If you wish to enter into calm, sensible, fact-based debate on the issue of hunting, please feel free too. I accept you have your own views, that's fine, and I would listen to you. You would have to do the same I have so much respect for antis that can do that (they are extremely rare). What you need is the maturity to accept that I might have a different view from you.
The hunting debate is so tiring! It's just two sides mainly hurling abuse at each other, neither understanding each other in the slightest.

 

[Hunters]

Apart from religion, hunting has to be the one subject that the opposite sides will never agree on. There is almost little point in debate on these forums as each side rarely changes their views.


That said, according to my sister who is a journalist, more anti hunt people have swapped 'sides' that hunt supporters. For example, during the 400 plus hours spent debating the subject in parliament, radio presenters found it easier to find previous sabs that had turned 'pro' than the other way round. Given the normal strength of feeling and passion felt, this was nevertheless strange but true.,,

 

[Hunters]

Finally, to insult someone by calling them pond life, to my mind shows that the perpetrator has simply run out of reasoned argument. Not a particularly clever or effective way of attempting to exert influence over anyone.

 

[Goldenstar]

What's the issue with things that live in ponds anyway ? Lots of very nice interesting things live in ponds.
Wonder what happened to Paulag in the past perhaps she had a nasty fright with a newt.

 

[Lizzie66]

Signed

 

[MerrySherryRider]

Paulag, this is a pro hunting forum and this post is in the hunting section, horse and hound is a pro hunting magazine.... I'd say there's enough clues there for you not reading posts in this section of the forum as you will always be outnumbered on here.

Actually, its a horse forum with a hunting section. It would be an interesting exercise to determine what proportion of members fall into the pro, anti and can't be arsed categories.

As there is no requirement to be pro hunting on here and bearing in mind some of the extreme responses in the hunting section, I wonder if its a classic and interesting example of Group Polarization.

Just because the pro hunting lobby sometimes scare the more middle of the road posters into silence, it doesn't mean everyone agrees all that you say.

 

[Littlelegs]

Signed. And lots of thanks to paulag, as I don't regularly hunt anymore, I rarely come into this section through sheer jealousy cos I miss hunting. But the reference to this thread on one in new lounge prompted me. Slightly confused though. As I used to hunt, have taken small daughter & hope to again in future, am I pond life or just pond side life? Anyway, can't hang around to find out, in all these years I never realised only the rich hunt, so I'm off to check my bank balance, someone must have made a hefty deposit!

 

[Kat]

Jeez guys, get over yourselves and do something useful with your time. Or jusT go drag hunting like those of us who aren't pond life were doing 30 years ago.

But Paula where will the drag hunts hunt if the NT bans hunting from its land? The NT are unlikely to ban just the meynell, especially as it could easily be argued that the majority should not be penalised for the actions of the few. The conclusion of highlighting this and campaigning to stop the meynell from hunting on NT land is likely to be a ban of all hunting on NT land, if the NT start to feel that allowing hunts on their land will be unpopular with their visitors and members they will ban the lot.

A great many hunts now do not kill anything. Some never did. Some hunt live quarry within the law. Why should they and their members be penalised for the actions of a couple of law breakers who no doubt do not represent the majority.

 

[happyhunter123]

Why should they and their members be penalised for the actions of a couple of law breakers who no doubt do not represent the majority.

But that's (I think) what very many antis want. They would be so much happier if every hunt packed it in now, whether they are hunting legally or not. That sounds ridiculous: why should they oppose drag or trail hunting? Well, in principle they don't oppose it (they don't morally oppose it), but in practice they want it gone. The reasons why are quite simple. If every trail or drag hunt disbanded there would never be any chance of repeal. Support for hunting would die out, and there would be no campaign for a resumption of 'proper' hunting if the sport was dead. Hunting's infrastructure would disappear. There would be no, or little, chance of revival ever. There would never be any chance for hunts to break the law under the guise of trail hunting.
In addition, the end of hunting in any form would be a complete victory over the 'nasty' hunting people, and for those with a hatred more based on class prejudice, it would be another victory. the antis absolutely loathe us, whatever we're doing, it seems. Don't worry though, for we shall not allow them to win!

 

[Alec Swan]

....... Within my argument, have I insulted you, or been offensive?

.......

Alec.

.......

Of course this is offensive - why wouldn't it be?

I don't entirely understand your response. I asked if I had offended you, or been offensive towards you.

I suspect paulag, that you are a rather sad and vulgar person. Just a pointer for you, being sad and vulgar has nothing to do with class, but everything to do with breeding, and good breeding is a quality as easily found in a Council House, as a Castle.

Your abusive and pointless posts do little to recommend you. I can't think that there's anyone on this forum who I dislike, but you're rapidly heading in that direction. Not that that would bother you, and there'd be a good reason for that, wouldn't there?

Alec.

 

[Suelin]

I know nothing of the problem with the NT and the Meynell, however it was my understanding that the NT had banned any form of hunting with hounds on it's property a good few years ago. Is that not the case now? Just interested if the goal posts had been moved.

 

[Maesfen]

That's what I thought Suelin. It was a blanket ban for all of their properties and there was quite a stink about it from some who had donated property in the past as it was always their forebears wishes that hunting continued over their land and they'd never have left it to the NT if they knew that would happen.

 

[Kat]

But that's (I think) what very many antis want. They would be so much happier if every hunt packed it in now, whether they are hunting legally or not. That sounds ridiculous: why should they oppose drag or trail hunting? Well, in principle they don't oppose it (they don't morally oppose it), but in practice they want it gone. The reasons why are quite simple. If every trail or drag hunt disbanded there would never be any chance of repeal. Support for hunting would die out, and there would be no campaign for a resumption of 'proper' hunting if the sport was dead. Hunting's infrastructure would disappear. There would be no, or little, chance of revival ever. There would never be any chance for hunts to break the law under the guise of trail hunting.
In addition, the end of hunting in any form would be a complete victory over the 'nasty' hunting people, and for those with a hatred more based on class prejudice, it would be another victory. the antis absolutely loathe us, whatever we're doing, it seems. Don't worry though, for we shall not allow them to win!

I agree that a lot of antis would like to see all hunting banned, even drag hunting and bloodhounding. I was responding speacifically to paulag who has said in other posts that she has drag hunted in the past.

Many people who aren't involved in hunting don't seem to be aware that much hunting doesn't involve killing anything, either because they never have done or because they are respecting the ban. It suits the antis that people think that people on horses in red jackets = killing stuff and breaking the law. This suits many of the antis as it is all about class warfare and the perception that those who hunt are toffs and revenge for closing the pits rather than having anything to do with animal welfare.

 

[combat_claire]

I know nothing of the problem with the NT and the Meynell, however it was my understanding that the NT had banned any form of hunting with hounds on it's property a good few years ago. Is that not the case now? Just interested if the goal posts had been moved.

This is NT policy and always has been:

The National Trust is very much aware of the importance of countryside traditions. We allow field sports to take place on our property where traditionally practised, providing they are within the law and are compatible with the Trust's purposes, which include public access and the protection of rare animals and birds and fragile habitats.

The Trust is a charitable body, and as such cannot take a political position either for or against field sports.

The Trust's general position on field sports remains unchanged by its decision in 1997 not to renew licences for the hunting of red deer. This decision was taken following the publication of the Bateson report, from which the Trust's Council concluded that hunting red deer with hounds caused suffering incompatible with the Trust's responsibility for the welfare of red deer on its property. These findings relate to red deer only.

The Trust therefore continues to permit other forms of hunting as well as shooting and fishing where appropriate, subject to controls and licences.