If the Hunting Act is repealed....

[spacefaer]

If the Hunting Act is repealed, what are you all expecting to result from it?

does anyone think we'll go back to how it was?
does anyone think the replacement legislation will be more enforceable than the current?

or do you think it'll be somewhere in between??


sitting watching the Simpsons and just wondering

 

[cptrayes]

It's a good question when you're snowed in. I think the LACS will go into overdrive. If they were bad before, they'll be ten times as bad, having been so close to success. They aren't going to give up, I just foresee them getting more and more organised, using more and more technology to thwart hunts and possibly becoming more and more violent if they don't get what they want. It's not a pretty picture!

The Lush move was very significant. A major chain like that does not commit commercial suicide. They knew very well before their announcement that their customer profile was young, female and overwhelmingly anti. They gained massive publicity from their stand and quite likely made a lot of upwards impact on their pre-Christmas sales.

The young generation that started the anti movement are now established adults and some of them are in powerful positions where they can finance the anti fight or provide management expertise.

It's going to be interesting, to say the least!

 

[missyme10]

I dont think it will be quite as clear cut as that, I agree they will never let up and they will go into overdrive, and they will certainly be more sophisticated.

But I also think that the young generation that started the anti movement who are now adults aren't all the same, they have grown up and views have changed in some.
I'm one of them, in my early twenties I was as anti hunting as you can imagine, I'm now 37 and my opinions on hunting have totally changed. I now believe that people who want to hunt should have the right to do so, and those that dont shouldn't just stay away and mind their own business.

I think when you're young, its an issue that you feel passionate about, but as you get older, you start to believe in live and let live and respect that others have different opinions from yourself.
I dont think todays youngsters will take the issue up so passionately. Well I hope not.

Even if there is a repeal, hunting will never be the same again.

 

[Xlthlx]

It's more a question of what will happen if there isn't a repeal. I would not assume that the status quo will continue. Groups like LACS are constantly stating that most hunts are breaking the law and many Labour MPs believe them. Although the official line is that the Act is Working there is a high probability that the Act will be 'tightened' in the future. One aim of this 'tightening' will be to effectively make trail hunting impossible because a hunt would become liable if the hounds chased a fox without them intending to because they had allowed the hounds into an area such as woodland where a fox might be present.

They are very unhappy with the current lack of prosecutions and it's fairly innevitable that steps will be taken in the future to raise the level. IMO If this happens then the long term effect on hunting will be negative.

 

[cptrayes]

"Groups like LACS are constantly stating that most hunts are breaking the law and many Labour MPs believe them."

They believe them because it's true that hunts (maybe not "most" but certainly more than one or two) are doing just that.

Why would trail hunting be impossible Giles? In the time I've been drag hunting and with three different drag hunts I have never seen drag hounds chase a fox.

I think your forecast about prosecutions is spot on.

 

[Xlthlx]

From what i understand they key difference between trail hunting and drag hunting is that with trail hunting real fox scent is used, the trail is laid to simulate a real foxes trail - ie through areas where a fox would go, and the hunt do not have a clue where the trail will go.

This means of course that they don't know whether the trail they actually follow is the laid trail or a real one.

This means that innevitably they will sometimes encounter a real fox on the end of it.

In these instances they would be liable to prosecution even if it were their intent.

My dogs often encounter wildlife, I just let them wander round all over the shop off the lead and they do what dogs do - hunt.

Under such a revised law I would be breaking it even if I am not myself hunting.

That's the way i see it anyhow.

In my opinion it's ridiculous to prosecute people whose dogs accidentally chase a fox. approx 80,000 foxes are accidentally killed a year - hardly any of them by hunts. Why target the hunts if it is not intentional?

 

[Xlthlx]

They believe them because it's true that hunts (maybe not "most" but certainly more than one or two) are doing just that.

The reason that they want to make people criminals even if the fox was just chased accidentally is because they cannot prove that statement.

Hunting is, according to the Government an intentional activity.

The idea that people should be guilty of hunting even if they don't intend means they would be guilty of hunting even though they weren't.

It strikes me that deliberately drafting a law so that people would be guilty of something they weren't doing would be somewhat unjust. What do you think?

 

[cptrayes]

I think it should be pretty clear whether any real attempt was made to call off the hounds or not. But of course in order to do so the huntsman needs to know where the trail was laid and that the hounds are not on it. I had no idea that they didn't, because ours does (but not the field). Apart from knowing where Des goes or not, I can't see any real difference between our scent trail and a trail hunt trail. He lays a trail just like a fox runs as well, as H&H described when they came out with us in November.

Can a trail hunt not have one or two people knowing where the trail is going, and call off the hounds if they go in the wrong direction, like a drag hunt does? Someone must have planned where it was going to be laid, surely?

 

[Xlthlx]

Why do you assume any great effort must be made to call them off?

 

[spacefaer]

Why do you assume any great effort must be made to call them off?

Because to hunt within the law, hounds must be called off when the huntsman is aware that a real fox is being hunted.

 

[spacefaer]

cptrayes - in answer to your question regarding the difference between a drag trail and a fox scent trail.......

A drag trail is a much stronger scent than a fox trail (used to be aniseed) as the original whole point of drag hunting was the thrill and speed of crossing country and drag hounds were usually drafts from foxhound packs.

After centuries of dedicated and careful breeding of different types of foxhounds to hunt the fox in different types of country, it is hardly surprising that foxhound enthusiasts should not wish to see all this effort lost to no purpose.

A much lighter fox based scent is used for trail hunting which is lifted and changed directionally to simulate the real thing - more twisty than Des - in an effort to preserve the hunting and scenting qualities of the true foxhound.

Bit off the OP but just FYI!!

 

[Xlthlx]

Why do you assume any great effort must be made to call them off?

Because to hunt within the law, hounds must be called off when the huntsman is aware that a real fox is being hunted.

Maybe .. If you read what the government says the hunting has to be intentional. Defra also say somewhere that if hounds are not called off it MAY be illegal. TBH no one really completely knows because the law is such a mess.

Also the prosecution would have to prove that the huntsman was not attempting to call them off.

They had footage of hounds chasing a fox but the case was dropped.

 

[Mike007]

There are two things I truely love :One is foxhunting,the other is English Law. Now people have some strange ideas about both of these. The great thing at the moment is that our dear friends the LACS have discovered that their pursuit of a "class war" has hit the solid wall of English law and that their victimisation of the people they hate is now subject to a ridgid framework of law.Mens Rea ,(guilty intent)is what they have to prove.Draghunting and trail laying have nothing to fear. However the people that hate us are going to become desperate and yes ,as another poster said, their efforts will become more severe . Ultimately I put my faith in English Law and these people will be dealt with.

 

[cptrayes]

Thanks Spacefaer, that makes a lot of sense. If hunting remains banned then it would be logical to assume that eventually hunts will all swap to a heavier drag scent, but I can completely understand now why the scent is used as it is, because if/when the act is repealed you still need your hounds to hunt fox. I get it, thanks !

 

[Herne]

Quote CPTrayes: <<But of course in order to do so the huntsman needs to know where the trail was laid and that the hounds are not on it. I had no idea that they didn't, because ours does (but not the field). Apart from knowing where Des goes or not, I can't see any real difference between our scent trail and a trail hunt trail. He lays a trail just like a fox runs as well, as H&H described when they came out with us in November.

Can a trail hunt not have one or two people knowing where the trail is going, and call off the hounds if they go in the wrong direction, like a drag hunt does? Someone must have planned where it was going to be laid, surely?>>

I don't know about your hunt in particular, but in general the answer to your question is "no".

In traditional Drag Hunting the purpose is to lay a drag to go from jump to jump to jump as fast as possible.

In a country with lots of jumps, there are only so many routes that the drag can follow, and in areas with less jumps, there is often only one possible route that brings in all the jumps without crossing the line, going on land that is closed etc. The drag is laid thick and strong to make sure that the hounds cover the correct pre-determined route as quickly as possible.

For that reason the Master(s) and or Huntsman know pretty much exactly where the drag goes and, if we are being completely honest, could gallop the route quite easily without the hounds in attendance.

I know this to be true, because I help our local drag pack organise two meets within our (fox) hunt country every year and the route is so set, it’s even drawn on a map.

For us old-fashioned hunters what is described above is not really *hunting*. In hunting the Huntsman needs to *hunt* the quarry. That means that he can’t have any idea where it is going to go, and he has to use his skill working out with his hounds where it has gone.

Traditional hunting people have always pointed out that one of the greatest parts of the pleasure of hunting is watching the huntsman work his hounds. It is why traditional hunting always draws many more car and foot followers than drag hunting – because drag hunting is pretty much purely an equestrian activity, whereas traditional hunting is more about watching hounds work than about riding horses.

So, when we lay a trail for trail hunting, we try to do it so that it replicates the element of hound-work for the non-mounted followers, who make up, of course, the vast majority of those who follow and fund traditional hunting.

For a day’s trail hunting, we clear access to many more farmers’ land than is necessary for an average day’s drag hunting. This gives the trail layer the freedom and the room to choose his own course entirely and ensures that a trail hunt is still a demonstration of actual hunting.

The field master then has to use his expertise and experience to find a route for the mounted field that gives them the best possible ride that is available from the trail – but he has the benefit of knowing that most people following are actually there to see houndwork. Jumping hedges is just a bonus.

Therein lies the difference.

 

[Xlthlx]

I wrote to Defra about this and they made it very clear. It is according to them not against the law for a hound to hunt a fox, merely for someone to hunt a fox with a hound.

Just because a hound is hunting a fox does not mean any crime is committed.

 

[cptrayes]

Thanks Herne, interesting to read that.