Is Otis Ferry fox hunting's worst enemy?

Hear, hear Salimali.
I gave up upon hearing what the (then) CA's CEO was raking in per annum - which really was a totally obscene salary pro rata.
Also, one particular (now ex) CA Official was spending far, far more time making a quid or two whilst dealing in Ireland, than on any CA work.
The current incumbent does not appear to be any more honourable - but just loves wearing "the CA Hat" to show off.
The CA should not be a gravy train for salaried employees. However, the "volunteers" I know cannot be faulted in any shape or form.
 
Salimali
You're right, I know that's not the case but Otis Ferry does more for the antis cause than the HSA & their ilk could ever do, they must love him!
If he wants to help he needs to wind his neck in.
 
YES - one does have to know someone personally to form an honest opinion of their character.
Hearsay - most of the time, is mendacious.
What some people post on here does not necessarily portray how they treat their family, friends, animals, charities, waifs and strays, et al.
 
How would fox hunting people feel about splitting off from the CA? Might you have a better chance of repeal of the ban on hunting with hounds if it was not linked with hare coursing and shooting game birds? I would have thought so, myself. I know that the idea was strength in numbers and to present a united voice for "The Countryside", but I don't think it's working well for fox hunters, whose sport does have a serious purpose at heart.
 
I think calling him vile is a bit strong, he might be a perfectly nice person but he comes across in the press as a bit of a cartoon like character.
I'm not sure where the Pete Doherty comparison came from, as far as I know he's not a junkie is he?
 
as i've said before,the CAdoesn't represent the ordinary man of the country anymore, its gone very glossy, costs a fortune to be a participant, and seems to support the shooters and fishing folk more than the hunters- i've thought this since the ban came in, if they carry on as such i will be pulling out. we as family belong to theunion of country sport workers who have a cracking little magazine out every so often- well worth it!!
 
Afraid CA has gone the way of the CLA and the NFU. They only look after the big names and those with plenty of dosh. When you want simple advice they are as much use as a fart in a bottle!! and very expensive to boot!
 
I think calling him vile is a bit strong, he might be a perfectly nice person but he comes across in the press as a bit of a cartoon like character.
I'm not sure where the Pete Doherty comparison came from, as far as I know he's not a junkie is he?
Click to expand...

I'd agree with most of that. I like Otis, or what I know of him, and I believe he is genuinely passionate about his cause. Whilst he doesn't always put his point of view across in the most constructive manner (!), I certainly think that calling him vile is a little strong - I may disagree with someone's views, but that doesn't mean I have any issue with them as a person.
 
It might depend on Turkana's ethnicity and whether or not she actually read the article whether she is entitled to call Otis Ferry "vile" or not. He also referred to not wanting "Mrs Punjab" to have the right to come and live in Britain, strongly inferring that Asian people living here are at least partly responsible for spoiling the way of life in this country. Someone needs to shut him up if you want to hunt fox legally again!
 
Well, he's undoubtedly a prat. Invading the House of Commons could easily have shown the way for less silly but much more dangerous individuals. We may dislike many Members of that House but, thank God, we British have more peaceful means of protest and a democratic system that will soon put them to the test. Many country votes will go to those whom Mr Ferry opposes and, in South East Cambridgeshire, they may go to the undersigned who will be on an independent and anti-hunting and anti-hare coursing ticket.

http://woollard4southeastcambs.blogspot.com/

Geoffrey Woollard
 
Mr Woof! You don't comment on someone who leave a post with every revolting swearword under the sun in it, and then call a man who leaves a civilised posting with nothing remotely provocative in it "not a gentleman". Come on now, that's hardly fair is it?


edit: I see the post to which I am referring has been removed, and if you did not see it then I withdraw that part of my comment.
 
..... nothing remotely provocative .....

You read this post the same as I did.
Exactly whose corner are you fighting here?
I know you are a member of the "lurex brigade" but I have now, sadly, come to the conclusion that you really are an anti.
What I was objecting to was the fact that this prospective MP, who appears to be anti everything countryside-ish, actually had the bloody cheek to "campaign" on the HHO website.
 
Report him if you think he' s used the board wrongly, but he wasn't impolite. He's campaigning as an anti - that's a fact, and his right, but his post is not provocative. He didn't even use it as a chance to justify his views. He states that he is anti hare coursing and fox hunting. You extrapolate that to "everything countryside-ish", an interpretation which is unreasonable unless you know more about Mr Woollard than he writes. HHO and H&H have many users who will agree with his point of view. I would myself be unhappy about a resumption of hare coursing.

I'm not fighting anyone's corner. I'm on the side of a free and open discussion without unnecessary rudeness. I've had great fun while snowed in during this awful weather by joining in discussions on HHO. I have learned stuff that has made me understand where fox hunters are coming from even if I still wouldn't want to join them.

I'm trying now to work out what happens next. One of two things:

1) The law is not repealed.

In this case, I predict that the LACS or the RSPCA will take over prosecutions under the hunting act. I'm not sure whether people are aware that animal cruelty is not prosecuted by the state in this country, but by the RSPCA as a private prosecution. There is nothing to stop them prosecuting hunters, with the help of the LACS and increasingly sophisticated camera and recording equipment. Police time will not be taken up, but the Act will be upheld, the antis are simply not going to let the act wither and die now they have it in place.


2) The law is repealed.

In this case, I predict that we go back to the mayhem that we had previously, only worse. The Antis will go to war against fox hunters. Only with better and better technology they will have an easier time of causing disruption and upset (for example, all they now need to do to get hundreds of cars to impede your meet is to bulk text them a postcode to use with their Satnav app. on their Blackberry.)

I just can't see an end to your fight, no matter what happens to the law. It's not a comfortable vision of the future - has anyone got a better one?
 
ah ha!! having just read his blog Mr. Geoffrey Woollard is most definitely an anti- he is entitled to his views but am not sure this is the place!! i'd like to know why his post was aimed at me- perhaps he would like to enlighten me-
 
Yes, Mr Woollard is anti alright. Having seen fox hunting and hare coursing banned, he's anti them being 'un-banned' because he believes in progress. The Hunting Act 2004 must not be repealed or otherwise undone. If anything, it needs strengthening so that we can be sure that chasing and killing wild animals for fun is clearly and for ever unlawful and regarded by all with well-deserved revulsion. If Cameron, Hague, Herbert, etc., think that repeal of the Act would be a vote winner in rural areas, they are very much mistaken. They should, at the very least, let sleeping dogs lie.

And, as for this being 'the place,' he is grateful to Horse and Hound for it still allowing free speech. G.W.
 
Oh dear, still so many misconceptions about the hunting fraternity, and on this forum of all places.
For me, one of the biggest problems has always been that the hunting bill was seen as about the foxhunting fraternity. What the politicians who did not take part in the debates but still voted for the ban, did not understand was the VAST number of lurcher and terrier owners. Ordinary folk, living ordinary lives, in ordinary houses and taking their dogs out to do what dogs do naturally. I know this because my OH spoke to the MP for Chesterfield who sat on the hunting committee (previously they worked together) and when said MP was asked about how they would stop the lurcher or terrier man hunting post ban, the MP asked what a lurcher was. THIS is the kind of bigotry that was being faced and still is.
I started hunting when I was approx 20 and had argued the morality of it with myself (I am a softy at heart), I'm not born with a silver spoon in mouth, dad was a lorry driver and I begged and borrowed rides for years until I could afford to buy my own neddy. I LOVE to see dogs doing what they are supposed to do, whether it be a hound, lurcher, terrier or a Lab retreiving. The CA is right, the majority don't give a fig about hunting, and playing this repeal game is going to be a tightrope walk, not making too much of it but pushing it through quietly but firmly. Let's all do what we can?
(Sorry, finished waffling now)
 
"You very obviously are NOT a gentleman."

I just love this one. It reminds me of when I attended a pro-hunting, etc., 'fringe' meeting at a Conservative Party Conference several years back (before I left 'the nasty party' and started describing myself as independent). The meeting was chaired by the late Bill Deedes and others on the panel were Robin Page, whom I have known and liked for many years, and Henry Bellingham, M.P. I heckled one of them - it may have been Bellingham himself - and he remarked that I was 'not sound.' I have dined out on that one for years.

The thing is, is Henry Bellingham 'sound'? Answers on the back of a postage stamp, please.
 
What an interesting post.

I agree that OF probably does more harm than good, but I fear that that is the case of many pro hunters, many of whom I've felt upset by in this forum because they reinforce the belief that the hunting fraternity comprises pompous and aloof fools. On that note, I agree with Skiddaw Lad and the like who wish to see more normal country folk interviewed with regards to hunting, those with whom the masses of the voting public can relate to, and can dispel the myth that hunting is a pursuit for the toffs alone.

Having said that, I also get very upset when the "upper classes" get cursed for their involvement. Many of them do speak well (by which I mean fluently and sensitively rather than with silver spoon in their mouths) which makes for a better interview from the interviewers point of view. I sadly agree that the general public doesn't warm to the "toffs" and this public perception deeply saddens me as it is an extreme form of discrimination that would not be tolerated by any other minority group and would be deemed by the government as politically incorrect if it were any other minority that was treated as such.

With regards the Cambridge candidate (forgive me if you are already an MP, I can't refer back to it from this page), I agree that he has every right to his views but I also suspect that his campaigning would be deemed as a form of advertising and that, surely, is not acceptable on this public forum?

With regards CPTrayes (at least I think it was her/his?) post, what happens next? who knows? If the act isn't repealled, I don't believe that the RSPCA being prosecutors would make any difference as the law itself is flawed. So many cases have been raised and come to nothing because the government rushed it through (albeit wasting far too much parliamentary time in the process) in their dictatorial manner and, as a result, created a flawed and unworkable law. If the law is repealled, I agree that it could increase the level of friction only because the boot will be on the other foot, with the more law abiding fraternity now having the backing of the law. Having said that, even if the saboteurs do create havoc with a rentamob, what could they do without breaking any laws themselves?

Sorry, have got a bit carried away with this..... congrats if you've managed to read this much without falling asleep!
 
Since I posted last "saynotoharecoursing" has also replied and I have one question I'm interested to hear your reply to. You describe fox hunting as chasing and killing wild animals for fun yet seemingly ignore the importance of fox hunting for the benefit of the fox population as a whole. I am the biggest softee when it comes to animal welfare but I therefore believe in researching the facts in the greatest minutae.

The fox has no superior predator because the human population has wiped them out. As a result, if they aren't culled by humans their population will increase infinitely and their demise will thus be by disease offering them a nasty slow death without any respite from it by predation of the most natural kind, survival of the fittest.

So, to counteract this, there is no doubt that humans need to undertake some form of culling of the fox population. I would be delighted if someone could offer an alternative to hunting that provided the same swift and natural death, offered the natural opportunity for survival of the fittest and didn't risk any nasty slow and prolonged deaths from gangreen and the like which would result from methods such as shooting foxes.
 
A couple of points - it's a bu**er not being able to use quotes properly in this forum:

I think most people involved in hunting know where I stand on the subject - I hunted for years, I spent 6 years working for the BFSS/now CA as a Press Spokesman defending all well-run field sports - and my husband is an MFH (and he's not a toff!!)

Otis: He's passionate about his hunting, his horses and his hounds. He can't help having a pop star daddy and a priveleged upbringing, and he probably can't help the fact that his passion often over-rules his brain, letting his mouth go into over-drive! If he'd been an MFH at the time I was with the CA, he would have been GAGGED! Or at least required to undergo Media training!

For the benefit of those who don't know, particularly our newcomer - the anti-hunt Independent Candidate - the 'invasion' of the House of Commons was NOT planned. The intention was to find an empty office and stage a sit-in! Security at the House of Commons is SO cr*p that Otis and his colleagues stumbled unwittingly onto the floor of the House! Frankly, they did MPs a favour, because if a bunch of bumbling country lads could manage it by accident, I'm damn sure any bunch of terrorists who wanted to wipe out the PM could also have managed it!! As a result of the 'incident' security at the House has been tightened right up and MPs are far safer!

Ref the CA: a former short-lived CE of the CA sacked me (with the backing of the Board) so I have no particularly good reason to stand up for it. However, I WILL stand up for the current CE who worked his way up through the ranks (he started with the CA as an Area Press Officer) and is totally committed to hunting!!

Of course the CA has support from a lot of upper-crust toffs (who put a LOT of money into the cause.) But EVERY member of the CA can get the same excellent advice and help from the Legal Helpline or the various departments of the CA. The BFSS was always criticised for being TOO active on hunting - and not active enough where the other field sports were concerned. That was partly because hunting was the sport under attack - shooting and fishing were 'safe' as long as hunting continued. But shooting and fishing have the same enemies!

And as for taking hunting 'independent' of the other field sports, frankly, that's a crazy idea! It's been tried in the past (who remembers the National Hunting Club!) Hunting NEEDS the CA - and its excellent political office - JUST as much as the CA needs hunting!

And for Mr. Anti-hunt Independent Candidate - do you REALLY think you can win a seat on the anti-hunt platform?? The vast majority of voters may disapprove of hunting, but the vast majority wouldn't cross the road to sign an anti-hunt petition, let alone select a candidate on the issue!

Independent MPs are like hen's teeth. Yes, Richard Taylor got in on the 'Save Kidderminster Hospital' ticket - but EVERY voter in the Wyre Forest was behind him on that issue AND felt strongly about it! And he stayed in 2nd time around because he's a fantastic local MP. But a 'failed' (sorry, disillusioned!) Tory standing against a popular sitting Tory MP on very little more than the anti-hunt issue has NO show! But good luck to you - hope you don't lose your deposit!
 
"So, to counteract this, there is no doubt that humans need to undertake some form of culling of the fox population."

This is where we part company, I'm sorry to say.

I farmed until the mid-1990s some 900 acres and never found a need to do anything about foxes. I kept a flock of sheep and never, so far as I am aware, had lambs taken by foxes. Neither my other livestock nor my household pets were harmed or taken by foxes. There are foxes in the first-class farming area where I live now and nobody, so far as I am aware, takes any action against them.
 
Humph the death is not swift, there is frequently a prolonged chase before the kill. Not to mention putting terriers in to get a fox that has gone to ground. Hardly a swift end. And the natural opportunity for survival of the fittest is also an "opportunity" to have to run for your life time and time again until the day that you are too slow to win. It's not balanced to compare being cleanly shot with a one-off experience of being hunted. The fox that lives will be hunted again.

Good shooting and lamping is quick and clean, as experienced gunmen (one previously a fox hunter) on here have confirmed. Hunting will not stop bad shooting. As shooters have pointed out, most foxes were shot even when hunting was legal. If hunting would stop bad shots with inadequate guns half killing foxes, then you would have a very sound humanitarian argument, but that will still happen as it did before.

I haven't heard anyone yet argue against culling fox as vermin, but I haven't heard an argument that convinces me that it can be done better by using hounds than by a decent lamper. If anyone could provide one I would support the repeal wholeheartedly.

Salimali I do agree with you that Mr Woollard should not use this forum for campaigning for election, but I do hope that your statement "he is entitled to his views but am not sure this is the place" does not apply to his anti views? Plenty of H&H readers will be antis who have every right to hear them.
 
"But a 'failed' (sorry, disillusioned!) Tory standing against a popular sitting Tory MP on very little more than the anti-hunt issue has NO show! But good luck to you - hope you don't lose your deposit!"

Ouch!

There is also the little matter of Afghanistan (I support 'our boys' but I oppose them being there) and a number of local issues that are likely to make the election in South East Cambridgeshire (not Cambridge itself, please note) - how shall we say it? Ah, 'interesting'!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top