Is AlanE right? YOU decide!

[LACS]

This follows Karl's post about a two stag hounds killing a magistrate's terrier. The hunt offered compensation provided the owner sign a confidentiality clause. When the owner refused the hunt's solicitors paid compensation anyway.

AlanE's response was:

No, haven't heard of this, but it does make me concerned for the independence of the judiciary. Here was a magistrate offered compensation who only wanted publicity against hunting. Did she deliberately put the terrier in that position, I wonder? It does seem to suggest she cared nothing for the animal, and says more about her uncaring attitude to the attempt to recompense her for a genuine accident, doesnt it?

 

[severnmiles]

I haven't voted as I neither agree nor disagree (trust me to be a difficult c*w!). Antis, (and I'm not aware as to whether she is an active anti as are some people in her position or whether she has no opinion but would vote 'against' if forced) will go to any lengths to cause trouble and bad press for hunts, (as can some pros - for sabs obviously), at 14, its unclear as to what condition her terrier is in. I also haven't read anymore on that post so I don't know if hounds were where they shouldn't be.

I think its highly unlikely that she would put her terrier in a position where it would come to harm just to prove a point (but you never know, seeing as it was PTS due to its injuries it could have been a publicity stunt that went horribly wrong). None of us on this forum were there, none of us witnessed the incident so I feel none of us can fairly comment. We all know how the press twist things, exagerate e.t.c.

I also find it hard to believe that these incidents actually happen. Fair enough with a couple of lurchers who are sight hunters but hounds hunt by scent, if the terrier was stood still/on a lead whatever it would carry little scent and the scent wouldn't even be comparible to that of a fox.

 

[allijudd]

I havnt voted either, but surely if this woman is a magistrate and the hounds were doing something illegal she would have persued the issue through the courts. She didnt, but she was also happy to accept the compensation offered.
I feel the hunt did the right thing and had the hounds destroyed because they killed a dog unnecessarially. We have to remember that all animals are living and have a will of their own, they can all be trained BUT accidents happen. Pet dogs with the sweetist nature have been know to turn on people / children and the owners are gobsmacked, the dog has always been gentle........ Accidents happen. Unfortunately in todays society there is no such thing as an accident, only compensation and blame.
I think hypothesising on a situation which nobody witnessed is crazy on both sides of the argument.

 

[combat_claire]

Hear Hear, the compensation has been accepted, the two hounds whose nature is now under suspicion have been put down. Surely this should be the end of the matter and the associated idle speculation.

 

[flying_change]

Though it was a pro (AlanE) who raised the idle speculation..... to the point of making things up as he went along....

....not having a dig, honest....

RS

 

[AlanE]

Since its pretty clear thaT I am asking other board members their opinions on this one,-see question marks- then I conclude you merely wish to post something with your 'name' on it. Is that the case?

By the way, do you represent LACS as a spokesman, and if not are they aware you are using their name?

 

[AmyMay]

I also find it hard to believe that these incidents actually happen

Unfortunately they do. I have seen serveral cats dispatched by fox hounds when out hunting.

Not trying to add any fuel to the fire, and I am most definately pro. But lets not be under any illusion about what fox hounds are capable of when not properly controlled.

 

[severnmiles]

I'm not sure thats to do with control.

I think hunts should be more careful in this day and age where they place their hound pups. Its good for pups to be brought up with other dogs, chickens, cats, horses, other farm animals. Meet lots of people e.t.c.

Our 05 hound pup never once looked at our chickens and played all day with the other dogs. It would surprise me if he ever took a cat or a dog.

 

[LACS]

"hounds hunt by scent"

You clearly know little about hounds. They may may hunt by scent during most of the chase but not during the final stage.

 

[severnmiles]

Go on, fill me in on your knowledge.

If a fox lays still in a covert, hounds may pass it by, run over it. They hunt by scent.

Explain to me how the one we were hunting up a sloping hill got away then, we'd hunted him up from a wooded valley, hounds were right on his arse and then just lost it, the scent not the sight, why didn't they carry on hunting him seeing as they are sight hunters (in your opinion)?

 

[LACS]

But the fox in your scenario isn't moving. If it started moving a couple of feet in front of hounds I don't think it would last long.

Hounds use sight in the final stage of a chase. They see the fox. At this point they are hunting by sight not scent. This isn't a difficult concept - or even a surprising one.

 

[severnmiles]

Duuuhhh, are you blonde by any chance?

Re-read my post! I've seen it more than once when hounds lose a fox when the fox is in sight.

Lurchers would nab it though...

 

[Hercules]

Duuuhhh, are you blonde by any chance?

Re-read my post! I've seen it more than once when hounds lose a fox when the fox is in sight.

Lurchers would nab it though...

That is because a lurher s a sight hound whereas a foxhound is a scent hound.

However, foxhounds hunt by scent and kill by sight.

 

[LACS]

Just because they see it doesn't mean they'll catch it. But in the final stage the hounds are hunting by sight not scent.

It's hardly surprising that a lurcher would have a better chance of "nabbing" a fox it can see because lurchers are far quicker than hounds, which are bred for stamina rather than speed. I can't understand why you're disputing this.

 

[AlanE]

So,LACS what is the answer to my question?

 

[LACS]

"It does seem to suggest she cared nothing for the animal, and says more about her uncaring attitude to the attempt to recompense her for a genuine accident, doesnt it?"

No, it doesn't. Only the most deranged and fanatical cult hunter would think this.

 

[severnmiles]

I'm asking why the hounds completely went off when the fox was in front of their noses. C'mon clever clogs, perhaps Hercules can help too.

They didn't slow up and then lose the fox, they almost completely stopped and milled around searching for the scent, why would they do this when they (according to you) hunt by sight just before the kill?

 

[severnmiles]

Duuuhhh, are you blonde by any chance?

Re-read my post! I've seen it more than once when hounds lose a fox when the fox is in sight.

Lurchers would nab it though...

That is because a lurher s a sight hound whereas a foxhound is a scent hound.

However, foxhounds hunt by scent and kill by sight.

I know that Hercules, thanks anyway.

 

[LACS]

"I know that Hercules, thanks anyway. "

Oh dear oh dear oh dear. I have you in my sights severn but I'm gonna let you go this time because I'm sorry for you.

 

[severnmiles]

Go on.....

Hercules said they kill by sight, not 'they hunt the last few metres by sight.' which is what you said. If they did why did they lose that fox due to poor scent.

C'mon, I'm getting impatient. I'm forever waiting on you...

 

[Nigel]

Hi Alan,

LACS is not a Lacs spokesman/women too clever, Lacs is just a cover. I would suggest IFAW probably in PR or higher up. I recognize their postings anywhere.


Cheers


Nigel

 

[wurzel]

They may may hunt by scent during most of the chase but not during the final stage.



Jesus Christ !!