Ipsos mori poll

[VoR]

So it seems that LACS have commissioned a poll which 'proves' that 80% of the British public are against fox hunting, the question was introduced with the line;

"Now a question about sports where animals are set on other animals to fight or kill them....."

So not an emotive question then! The interesting thing is, that there aren't 80% of the public who understand the reasons for hunting and when it is placed in the same category as dog fighting and badger baiting as it was in this survey AND the question is asked in this was, hardly surprising that the outcome is so against!

So, I've done my own 'straw poll'. Yesterday, at Boxing Day meet there were huge crowds on foot who saw us off with loud cheers and applause.....so that's a good number in support. On the way to the first 'draw' we travelled along a busy road, roughly 100 cars passed us on the way, I estimate 70 of the occupants were smiling, waving and taking photos.....hardly anti....20-28 either ignored us completely or simply acknowledged that we moved over for them....lets call them 'don't knows', 2 gave not very complimentary hand gestures and or looked pretty angry.....unclear if that was because we held them up or because we were 'hunting'.

Hardly seems to back up the massive swing against hunting with hounds now does it!! :wink4:

 

[VoR]

Oh and this was a HUGE poll of 1983 people.......................in a population of over 60million!!!???

 

[Countryman]

And of course, their definition of "rural areas" might well be the one used by some agencies, to mean almost everywhere that isn't an officially recognised city...

 

[pansy]

For what its worth - I went on foot to Boxing Day meet yesterday - the hunt has recently merged & had 2 meets there were an awful lot of people there showing support, I have also seen pictures & videos on fb from the other meet & another local Hunts meet they also looked very well supported x

 

[marianne1981]

You can pretend all you like, but the majority of the public in the UK are against it. In essence, although emotively worded, in fox hunting, you are indeed setting one animal on another!

 

[Sherston]

It is interesting how the LACS always rely on "a majority of the population..........." as the basis for their position. Other important issues are never resolved by a "majority of the population........" position, such as economic and foreign policy because the population are not suitably educated to make an informed decision.

In the instance of fox hunting I would say that less than 1% of the population actually know enough about hunting with hounds or its alternatives to make an informed contribution to the debate (and the 99% actually includes quite a few people who do hunt), as Marianne proves with her inept simplification, not that she hunts of course.

The problem is that when you present an uneducated 99% with an uninformed 80% reaction most people are not even in the conscious incompetence position but are in the position of unconscious incompetence.

As the Labour party admitted (Prescott)- "the fox hunting ban had nothing to do with foxes", and Skinner "that's one back for the miners".

 

[Countryman]

I suspect if a truly representative survey were done, without skewed weighting of voting intention, definitons of rural areas etc, it would be more like 60% against in urban areas, and 80% for in rural areas. Of course, of the 60% in the cities who might be against, only 10% actually care about it enough to even sign a petition or cross the street to read a leaflet, most who claim to be against it are fairly indifferent.

In any case, we do not have absolute democracy-thankfully! That would result in tyranny by majority.
After all, if 51% of the population voted to execute all illegal immigrants in England, the government would not carry it through - thankfully.

 

[marianne1981]

Can I just ask, do you really, seriously think that there is an actual chance of legalising chasing a wild animal with hounds til it's death, in this century?!! I would love to get inside your heads sometimes to see exactly what is happening in there to deem this as acceptable behaviour. I have tried since childhood to understand you, but when all is said and done, I just dont and cant get the mentality of it. I believe the majority of you (though not all) have been brought up in this way of life and so do not question it. As unpleasant as it sounds, on a basic level, you are indeed setting one animal on another, or at least supporting that mentality as a follower.

 

[Countryman]

Can I just ask, do you really, seriously think that there is an actual chance of legalising chasing a wild animal with hounds til it's death, in this century?!! I would love to get inside your heads sometimes to see exactly what is happening in there to deem this as acceptable behaviour. I have tried since childhood to understand you, but when all is said and done, I just dont and cant get the mentality of it. I believe the majority of you (though not all) have been brought up in this way of life and so do not question it. As unpleasant as it sounds, on a basic level, you are indeed setting one animal on another, or at least supporting that mentality as a follower.

No Marianne-Hunting is not about setting an animal on another. It is about setting an animal on the scent of another. That is what hunting is about.

 

[Judgemental]

QUOTE=Countryman;12224509]No Marianne-Hunting is not about setting an animal on another. It is about setting an animal on the scent of another. That is what hunting is about.[/QUOTE]

This whole subject has not been thought through to the end, because and in the very unlikely event a repeal of the Hunting Act 2004 was enacted by both the House of Commons and House of Lords. The aftermath would be hideous.

The Sabs and Antis would become even more militant.

Once given their 'holy chalace' of a ban, they will fight with venomous agression to regain that which they had.

Frankly I would not wish to be anywhere near a pack or a participant in any pack of hounds hunting a live quarry post repeal. Largely for my own safety.

Those who peddle the notion of a repeal are deluding themselves and many others. I suspect for financial gain.

 

[Patterdale]

This whole subject has not been thought through to the end, because and in the very unlikely event a repeal of the Hunting Act 2004 was enacted by both the House of Commons and House of Lords. The aftermath would be hideous.

The Sabs and Antis would become even more militant.

Once given their 'holy chalace' of a ban, they will fight with venomous agression to regain that which they had.

Frankly I would not wish to be anywhere near a pack or a participant in any pack of hounds hunting a live quarry post repeal. Largely for my own safety.

Those who peddle the notion of a repeal are deluding themselves and many others. I suspect for financial gain.

I actually agree with this.
Having hunted lots I was very worried about what would happen post ban. But now that the ban is firmly here, surprisingly I don't think that hunting has been in a better place for years.
It is seen as more inclusive, modern, and less divisive than ever before. More people are hunting now than pre-ban.

Plus, I think that the point about sabs becoming dangerously militant if the ban was repealed is a very good one. They've killed at least one hunt supporter while the ban is in place - how many more if it were repealed?

The only loser to the ban that I can see is the fox. They still need to be controlled, but now it is far less selective and far more die. Some farmers will resort to putting snares out at lambing time and more and more foxes are being shot (and not always cleanly).
At least hunting with hounds is selective, and helps to promote a healthy but controlled fox population.

 

[Alec Swan]

I once lived with a lady who managed a large Market Research company. To achieve the results that they wanted, certain sections of the population were targeted, and questioned. When the drinking habits of those who imbibe were needed, for instance, then pubs were the target area.

Such research was never intended to be all encompassing, and it clearly wasn't. The lacs have a targeted and carefully selected group, and to now claim that their results are the general view, of the general public, is nonsense. And before anyone offers Mori up as being above suspicion of collusion, then we need to ask the question "Who were funding the research, and would it be conceivable that parameters were issued along with the opening agreement"? Of course they were, and to suggest that this is a justly achieved or accurate report, is nonsense.

Once again the lacs are wasting money on biased, worthless and distorted "research".

Alec.

 

[Judgemental]

I actually agree with this.
Having hunted lots I was very worried about what would happen post ban. But now that the ban is firmly here, surprisingly I don't think that hunting has been in a better place for years.
It is seen as more inclusive, modern, and less divisive than ever before. More people are hunting now than pre-ban.

Plus, I think that the point about sabs becoming dangerously militant if the ban was repealed is a very good one. They've killed at least one hunt supporter while the ban is in place - how many more if it were repealed?

The only loser to the ban that I can see is the fox. They still need to be controlled, but now it is far less selective and far more die. Some farmers will resort to putting snares out at lambing time and more and more foxes are being shot (and not always cleanly).
At least hunting with hounds is selective, and helps to promote a healthy but controlled fox population.

For some time I have been thinking that it might be better to forget about any repeal.

Just accept the position and tell the 'movers and shakers' in Parliament that there is no appetite for any repeal.

The too right of right, vain glorious drivers for repeal, will be redundant which will present hunting in a far better light.

In which case I believe the pressure from 'Hunt Monitors', Sabs and Antis will simply diminish.

If the war is over and peace has broken out, what is there to fight about. Indeed I am certain that all hunts who follow a trail will have far more enjoyable days.

 

[VoR]

Can I just ask, do you really, seriously think that there is an actual chance of legalising chasing a wild animal with hounds til it's death, in this century?!! I would love to get inside your heads sometimes to see exactly what is happening in there to deem this as acceptable behaviour. I have tried since childhood to understand you, but when all is said and done, I just dont and cant get the mentality of it. I believe the majority of you (though not all) have been brought up in this way of life and so do not question it. As unpleasant as it sounds, on a basic level, you are indeed setting one animal on another, or at least supporting that mentality as a follower.

The problem is that, when hearing any argument or explanation human nature will always be that your own views and opinions will override them and largely, due to many things within your past which have made you what you are will mean that any arguments will be futile.

For what it's worth I wasn't born in to a hunting family or within a particularly 'hunt focused area' although it was rural. My background is extremely working class, my parents ultra-staunch socialists, therefore I understand how and why the class issue affects any views on hunting, just look at any discussion forums outside HH to see comments about 'Toffs' and so on. I have in the past mixed with others who have anti-bloodsport, highly animal rights supportive views, so can understand their views and feelings.

That said having started to ride late in life and finding hunting slightly later, I have been exposed to those that hunt, listened to their views and on balance, feel that hunting is not as 'cruel' as people believe, that the strong healthy fox will, on most occasions 'out-wit' the hound and therefore believe that the majority of foxes that would be 'taken', should hunting be allowed, would be the ill and aged, those in fact that are most likely to cause a 'nuisance' to stockholders. Furthermore, most I have met within hunting circles cannot be described as 'Toffs' and for the most part have a healthy respect for wildlife and the environment.....maybe NOT what you want to hear.

Whilst a repeal would be good I agree a) it is unlikely and b) might lead to carnage as those with 'extreme' views would appear from the woodwork, ably supported by 'rent-a-mob' who fancied 'having-a-go' at the 'Toffs' and/or the Police. We should maybe let 'sleeping hounds lie'!!

Finally, those good people who feel that the hunting act has been a great success might like to speak to one or two 'young guns' I have heard about who are having a wonderful time running around the countryside in certain areas shooting foxes regardless of health or age........35 in a week is apparently their current record locally. Would this have happened pre. ban? Who knows, but farmers might be less welcoming of them if hunting were allowed perhaps.

 

[Alec Swan]

Can I just ask, do you really, seriously think that there is an actual chance of legalising chasing a wild animal with hounds til it's death, in this century?!! I would love to get inside your heads sometimes to see exactly what is happening in there to deem this as acceptable behaviour. I have tried since childhood to understand you, but when all is said and done, I just dont and cant get the mentality of it. I believe the majority of you (though not all) have been brought up in this way of life and so do not question it. As unpleasant as it sounds, on a basic level, you are indeed setting one animal on another, or at least supporting that mentality as a follower.

The problem I suspect, is that along with others, you want the world that we live in to be sanitised, and acceptable to you, and you believe that it's your views, and yours alone which matter, regarding how I live my life, and I assure you, that for as long as I have breath in my body, I will resist your attempts at such tyrannical structure.

Do you eat meat? Assuming that you do, would you be prepared to acquiesce to the wishes of those who would have us all living a meat free life, and whilst we're at it, perhaps you could consider the views of the most extreme of vegans. Let's face it, they have views which would cover your perceived and evil ways. How would you justify your behaviour to a vegan (assuming that you'd bother)?

Your point that most of us have grown up without questioning what we appear to condone, is a long way off the mark. We do (those of us with a conscience), question what we do, constantly some of us, and it's those questions which have modelled our level of conduct and we refer to it as our standards, which also cover our attitude towards our prey. I wouldn't expect you to now have a clue what I'm on about. That isn't intended as a patronising remark, even if that's how it sounds, it's just born of listening to those who refuse to, themselves listen.

In your post you accept that you don't understand, there are things in life which I don't understand either, but I accept them for what they are, perhaps you could do the same.

Alec.

 

[Judgemental]

. We should maybe let 'sleeping hounds lie'!!

Wise and prudent words.

 

[marianne1981]

I am a long time vegetarian (20yrs since 12), not vegan as I do eat cheese but dont eat fish, gelatin etc. For those of you who say that hunting takes out the sick and old-what about the many healthy foxes that simply go to ground and are dug out and shot by the terriermen anyway, even after outwitting the hounds? That isnt right, there is no sporting chance there!! As I had said some time ago, if foxes were such a threat to livestock, why would anyone be stupid enough to introduce them to the Isle of Wight? To hunt them of course!! I dont get that do you?!!

 

[Alec Swan]

I am a long time vegetarian (20yrs since 12), not vegan as I do eat cheese but dont eat fish, gelatin etc. .......

So as you're just a modest veggie, how would you counter the argument of the vegan? How would you explain to the vegan that you are right, and that they are wrong?

Serious question, and I'd be grateful for your explanation.

Alec.

 

[marianne1981]

I can see a vegans point of view, but also a meat eaters (although I do not wish to be part of that). A vegan doesnt want anything that comes from animals- you dont need to kill an animal for cheese, milk etc, which is why I find it acceptable for myself to consume these products. As long as the animals are kept in good, humane conditions. I will pay more for example, to make sure my eggs are truly free range, not just "barn fresh". What I object to is the manner in which hunting is carried out. What do you think, Alec, about foxes being introduced to the Isle of Wight if they are a pest more than anything? By the way Alec and Judgemental I do admire your posts as you speak very well about this.

 

[MrsNorris]

I can see a vegans point of view, but also a meat eaters (although I do not wish to be part of that). A vegan doesnt want anything that comes from animals- you dont need to kill an animal for cheese, milk etc, which is why I find it acceptable for myself to consume these products. As long as the animals are kept in good, humane conditions. I will pay more for example, to make sure my eggs are truly free range, not just "barn fresh". What I object to is the manner in which hunting is carried out. What do you think, Alec, about foxes being introduced to the Isle of Wight if they are a pest more than anything? By the way Alec and Judgemental I do admire your posts as you speak very well about this.

You may not need to kill an animal to eat dairy products, but as any vegan will tell you, the dairy industry is responsible for the large-scale slaughter of very young male calfs, which are of no use, in order to keep the cows producing milk.
There are far worse abuses of all types of food animals going on worldwide which, IMO, would be far more deserving of peoples attention, rather than the death of a relatively small number of foxes, who, after all, have lived a wild and free life, and are killed quickly once caught.

 

[Starbucks]

I would really like to know where all these people come from. I used to be scared of telling people I hunt but I don't know why. I work in finance with city folk and general responses tend to be 'awesome' or 'I don't give a *****/care/understand enough to make a comment'

Fox hunting is so the least of my worries in terms of animal cruelty. I really think people are just stupid!

 

[Alec Swan]

........ I work in finance with city folk and general responses tend to be 'awesome' or 'I don't give a ****/care/understand enough to make a comment'

Fox hunting is so the least of my worries in terms of animal cruelty. I really think people are just stupid!

I think that this Hunting section of HHO should carry that as a banner heading! Well said.

Alec.

 

[Pale Rider]

FFS hunting is a criminal activity, get over it.

 

[CaleruxShearer]

FFS hunting is a criminal activity, get over it.

But it's not! Even the daily mail had to point out on Boxing Day the ways in which hunting is in fact legal! Hence why at every single meet you will hear the master say 'today we will be hunting within the law'.

 

[Judgemental]

FFS hunting is a criminal activity, get over it.

You are correct. Indeed one is criminalised by association.

As I have advocated for some considerable time, only the use of the Statutory Instrument will ameliorate the situation.

However and sadly, those who drive the 'vehicle' are as thick as two short planks put together with a six foot gap in the middle. Thus any sort of accomodation is highly unlikely.

 

[marianne1981]

It says it all, that not one pro hunter on here can explain, that if the fox was a pest, why it was introduced to the Isle of Wight. To hunt!!! I very much doubt that the hunting ban will ever be lifted, it would seem a real step back in time, and I think this is why David Cameron is so reluctant to touch it (even though many pros blindly voted for him simply because he promised repeal). He knows how out of touch he would appear to the majority of the British public. I know it's been banned in Germany for decades, it would be interesting to see how they now control foxes, or if they need to.

 

[CaleruxShearer]

It says it all, that not one pro hunter on here can explain, that if the fox was a pest, why it was introduced to the Isle of Wight. To hunt!!! I very much doubt that the hunting ban will ever be lifted, it would seem a real step back in time, and I think this is why David Cameron is so reluctant to touch it (even though many pros blindly voted for him simply because he promised repeal). He knows how out of touch he would appear to the majority of the British public. I know it's been banned in Germany for decades, it would be interesting to see how they now control foxes, or if they need to.

I have just been googling this Marianne as I didn't realise there were no foxes on the Isle of Wight until they were introduced and it would appear you are absolutely right, they were introduced purely for hunting - although there was hunting on the island for many decades previous to the introduction of the fox. For those interested this is quite a good read: http://www.iwfoxhounds.com/history.php

I have to say, as much as I love my hunting I actually agree with you with regards to repeal, I suspect we won't see the ban lifted for the reasons you state. I am currently studying for an Agricultural Management degree and a couple of the guys on my course are from Germany, I shall ask them about methods of control there as they farm over there, one in the north and the other in the south. I didn't actually know it was banned in Germany as well.

 

[marianne1981]

Yes can you believe, Hitler banned it, I dont get how he could think more of animals than people. It has been banned ever since! It's interesting, apparently they were introduced to America purely for hunting too!! Although the Americans do surprisingly give the fox a sporting chance, and if it goes to ground then it is left alone. You see, if if UK hunting was more like this, I may have more sympathy with it. An exhausted, healthy fox which has simply gone to ground, evaded the hounds, should not be dug at and shot anyway. That is not a sporting chance!! It goes to show though, if fox hunting was purely for fox control as many defend it, it would be lunacy to literally introduce them to a place that they wernt native to before, just for the "fun" of hunting. That is not conservation!

 

[Countryman]

It's true and fascinating that in centuries past, in some areas foxes were practically an endangered species-so it's true they introduced foxes on the IOW to hunt. They also did lots of other immoral things that nobody would consider now!

Marianne look you need to understand-you say hunting isn't pest control, but then, in the USA, where it is purely sport, you agree with it?

Digging out only occurs if the landowner requests it, eg with a 'problem fox'. Essentially digging out=the pest control element, hunting with hounds=the selector management f the species, and the riding=the sport.

 

[Alec Swan]

Reply to Thread
Post a reply to the thread: Ipsos mori poll
Preview
Re: Ipsos mori poll
"Originally Posted by marianne1981
It says it all, that not one pro hunter on here can explain, that if the fox was a pest, why it was introduced to the Isle of Wight. To hunt!!! ........"


Whilst there will be hill areas where the depredation upon hill lambing sheep means that foxes have to be killed, and by any legal means possible, never run away with the idea that the fashionable packs are solely in place for vermin control. The hunting of the fox is sport, pure and simple, and the reason why foxes were introduced to the IOW, was for the very same reason that in the Quorn, the Pytchley and in the country of others, the coverts were heavily protected and all for the promotion of hunting, and quite rightly so, in my opinion. A healthy fox population was to the benefit of all, including curiously, the fox!

I worked, back in the mid 1970s at Cornbury Park, as a game keeper, and my employer was Lord Rotherwick. Lordy was joint master of the Heythrop, and the killing of foxes was frowned upon. We (the 'keepers), still did it, but didn't actually publicise the fact!

The debate which surrounds hunting is a pointless exercise. Those who are opposed, either through welfare or perceived ethical grounds, when laying out their stall, will list simple facts which cannot be denied. They are reliant upon those facts, and for those who hunt to wriggle and squirm their ways around the facts, achieves nothing. No sensible conclusion can be reached without Hunting being considered as part of a complete picture, and as such and when seen in it's entirety, then hunting is a positive thing, and the countryside benefits form the pastime.

Those who separate the differing issues of the debate, and rely upon them solely, have a flawed and weakened argument. It may interest those who are opposed to hear that I don't hunt, I never have, and I never will, but that doesn't prevent me from seeing the benefits to the countryside.

Alec.