Latest poll (well, I say latest..........)

[endymion]

.......it was actually out in Feb. So this is just for those of you a bit behind the times, like me!

Mori

Public Attitudes Towards A Ban On Hunting With Dogs
18 February 2007

A new poll by Ipsos MORI conducted on behalf of the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), the League Against Cruel Sports, and the RSPCA, shows public opinion is more than 3:1 in favour of the hunting ban remaining.

In the latest survey, 58% supported the ban remaining in place, against 17% per cent who wished to see the Hunting Act repealed. The 17% is made up of nine per cent who 'strongly supported the ban being scrapped', and an additional eight per cent who 'tended to' support the ban being scrapped. A total of 25% were either neutral or did not know.

3:1, I thought you guys said attitudes were changing? This article http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2007/ifaw.shtml]web page says the lowest ratio has been 2:1 in favour so that implies support for a ban is actually higher than in past times.

 

[Tinkerbee]

but what if two of those three are completely uneducated on the matter, dont understand the whys and wherefores....

 

[endymion]

oh they would have to be wouldn't they? otherwise they would definitely be pro. Tad condescending I think.

 

[Tinkerbee]

of course :grin:

im just saying, many "antis" actually have no reason for being so, they know no facts...etc..

 

[southgate1975]

You want to play 'what ifs' ?

OK

what if the one of those three are completely uneducated on the matter, dont understand the whys and wherefores....

 

[Eagle_day]

One out of three? I shouldn't think one person in ten has any first-hand experience of hunting whatsover.

If you want a meaningful measure of support for hunting compare the numbers that hunt every weekend over the winter - tens of thousands at least - to those that actively campaign against it - a few dozen at most.

Statistically, Endy is a +0%.

 

[Tinkerbee]

I agree, tbh, theres a lot more who campaign FOR hunting that are ACTIVELY against

most just couldnt give a toss

no experience, no opinion...IMO lol

 

[severnmiles]

Where was this poll conducted?

 

[soggy]

.......it was actually out in Feb. So this is just for those of you a bit behind the times, like me!

Mori

Public Attitudes Towards A Ban On Hunting With Dogs
18 February 2007

A new poll by Ipsos MORI conducted on behalf of the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), the League Against Cruel Sports, and the RSPCA, shows public opinion is more than 3:1 in favour of the hunting ban remaining.

In the latest survey, 58% supported the ban remaining in place, against 17% per cent who wished to see the Hunting Act repealed. The 17% is made up of nine per cent who 'strongly supported the ban being scrapped', and an additional eight per cent who 'tended to' support the ban being scrapped. A total of 25% were either neutral or did not know.

3:1, I thought you guys said attitudes were changing? This article http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2007/ifaw.shtml]web page says the lowest ratio has been 2:1 in favour so that implies support for a ban is actually higher than in past times.

LOL

Still peddling the same old BS.

Hardly what you could call an objective survey.

 

[the watcher]

Where was this poll conducted?

that would be quite relevant..a poll in a rural market place would throw up a quite different outcome to one collated in a city centre

 

[Sooty]

I suspect most people who approve of the ban live in towns, think all people who hunt are toffs, think killing a fox with hounds is cruel (far kinder to bungle a shot and let it run around on three legs for a few months in agony) and think meat is a plant that grows in a polythene wrapper. With so much real animal cruelty in the world, and the UK, it is a shame the KFC munching masses don't find out some facts before responding to a poll.

 

[smallbutgreat]

Aren't Mori polls controlled to check they are conducted across a typical cross-section of the population ... age, education, earnings, social class and where they live included?

 

[wrighty]

"I suspect most people who approve of the ban live in towns, think all people who hunt are toffs, think killing a fox with hounds is cruel (far kinder to bungle a shot and let it run around on three legs for a few months in agony) and think meat is a plant that grows in a polythene wrapper. With so much real animal cruelty in the world, and the UK, it is a shame the KFC munching masses don't find out some facts before responding to a poll"

Why does that argument come out every time a poll goes against hunting?
Isn't it possible that most people have had enough evidence from both sides over the last few years to make an informed decision?
I am quite surprised that you pick on the KFC eaters though, usually the atacks on the Antis are aimed towards veggie tree hugging hippies.

 

[Eagle_day]

"Isn't it possible that most people have had enough evidence from both sides over the last few years to make an informed decision?"

No. Because a huge majority of the UK's population don't really give a fig about hunting.

If you think hunting should be banned, why don't you organise a march? If you get more than 400,000, then fair enough, enact a ban that will work. But of course you won't.

 

[southgate1975]

"If you think hunting should be banned, why don't you organise a march? "

Why bother. It **is** banned.

 

[endymion]

The fact is there will never be a mass protest against hunting because being an antis does not automatically affiliate you with an organized lobby group.

For example take a completely different subject, say the teaching of creationism in american schools as an alternative to evolution. There are lots of pro-creationist groups willing to fight tooth and nail to make this happen (it has happened in some places). Now, the overwhelming majority of Americans oppose religion in the science class but do you think that Joe Bloggs is gonna organize a lobby group and all those opposed are gonna join? It just doesn't happen like that. Look at the disproportionate membership numbers between LACS and the CA compared with the public opinion polls. There are probably more people as members of the Religious Right than there are members of opposition groups (I can't even name an oppostion group).

Just for the record (to everyone who has replied to me), it's supposed to represent a cross section of society, and it's an independant poll - unlike the CA ones!!

 

[Paul T]

"If you think hunting should be banned, why don't you organise a march? If you get more than 400,000, then fair enough, enact a ban that will work. But of course you won't. "


How funny - I assume you mean 'If you think the ban should stay in place...'!!

You claim most people don't give a fig about hunting. The latest poll asks:

"Q Now a question about hunting with dogs (that is fox hunting, deer hunting, hare hunting, mink hunting and hare coursing).

As you may know, a ban on hunting with dogs was introduced in 2005 after many years of debate. This means that hunting with dogs is illegal in most circumstances.

Which statement on this card best describes your own view of the ban on hunting with dogs?"

The results were:

A) I strongly support the ban staying in place 43
B) I tend to support the ban staying in place 14
C) I neither support nor oppose the ban 19
D) I tend to support the ban being scrapped 8
E) I strongly support the ban being scrapped 9
(A+B = Total Support for Ban Staying in Place) 58
(D+E = Total Support for Ban Being Scrapped) 17
Don't Know 2
No Opinion 3
Refused *


In terms of people expressing a strong opinion, the proportion of those strongly supporting the ban being scrapped are outnumbered by those strongly supporting it staying in place by almost 5:1. Only 3% expressed no opinion.

 

[Eagle_day]

"The fact is there will never be a mass protest against hunting because being an antis does not automatically affiliate you with an organized lobby group."

Nor does being a pro.

Your point about creationalism is completely irrelevant. The numbers who actively oppose hunting are not there. Whether it was the pathetic attempt at a march several years ago; the numbers of sabs/monitors you put into the hunting field each day; or, say, the comparative memberships of LACS against the total of each individual hunt, every time the number of activists against are dwarfed by those for.

You make a lot of noise, you have some very rich benefactors and ... er, that's it.

 

[Eagle_day]

" 'If you think hunting should be banned, why don't you organise a march?'

Why bother. It **is** banned.

How funny - I assume you mean 'If you think the ban should stay in place...'!!"

Now if you two believe that, would you like to buy a used Volvo, 100,000 miles but good as new ....

 

[endymion]

Pros hunt, that is something that links them. Being an anti does not give you anything in common with other antis at all, besides your opinion on hunting. Antis across the U.K do not get together a few days a week to talk about how they are against hunting. We do not have anti's events. We do not have a uniform. We do not have rules under which we carry out 'anti-ism' (e.g MFA for hunting). We do not have organizations who give us advice on how to be a good anti for the sake of the press (C.A.) ect ect.

Being a hunter is to be part of scene, a group. Being an anti is just having an opinion.

The creationism analogy was perfectly suitable as it demonstrates how huge opposition to certain other groups actions or beliefs often fails to show itself in public (in terms of demos ect) as it is often made up of a scattered, unorganized population of people who bear no relation, or have no commonality with each other. Its the silent majority.

you have some very rich benefactors

The irony of a pro saying that to an anti, hahaha!!! A sport which boast royalty among it participants! (and no I'm not saying you are all toffs but there is a LOT more money in hunting than the anti blood sports lobby).

 

[wrighty]

"why don't you organise a march?"
Marches are a good way of showing support but they are a very poor way of getting things that you want, as your march proved.

 

[Eagle_day]

"why don't you organise a march?"
Marches are a good way of showing support but they are a very poor way of getting things that you want, as your march proved.

There's more than one way of skinning a cat ...

Sure, the marches didn't stop the passing of the Hunting Act, but then the parliamentary battle was not one we were ever likely to win. But they were good PR, and the PR battle has gone well: eg. The Mirror is now the only anti-hunting paper on the streets.

But where the marches really achieved their success, was in helping to politicise and energise hunting people to fight for their sport. Here we are more than 2 years after the ban and hunting is thriving - that's fact, not CA propaganda. If a ban had come in 1997, would we have just rolled over? I don't know.

 

[Paul T]

"Sure, the marches didn't stop the passing of the Hunting Act, but then the parliamentary battle was not one we were ever likely to win. But they were good PR, and the PR battle has gone well: eg. The Mirror is now the only anti-hunting paper on the streets."

Depends what you mean by good PR. What did you ultimately want to achieve: directly influencing political opinion against a ban (at the stage of the marches it was too late to change public opinion and use this as a method of halting legislative progress towards a ban) or influencing public opinion in favour of repeal of the inevitable ban?

Mori polling suggests that the demonstrations failed on both counts. Sounds as though you'd given up trying to prevent the ban, so how 17% in favour of repeal (just 9% strongly in favour of repeal) can be regarded as success is beyond me.

Yes, the demos served to rally the troops, but many of the pro hunting activists I've heard from don't seem to rate the abilities of the CA (if they did why all the splinter groups?) Most of the time it's seemed like herding cats. I'm not sure the more barmy supporters did themselves any favours (PR wise) with the Parliament Square riot and the storming of the House of Commons. The public (and politicians) remember incidents like that just as much as the large London demos.

I don't think you can in all honesty say hunting is thriving. Some hunts are sticking two fingers up and carrying on much as before but others have tried to adapt and if Ronnie Wallace were alive to visit those packs now I doubt he'd agree with your statement. Many are hanging on in the hope that the Tories will have a working majority in a couple of years, but given recent events I wouldn't bank on that!

 

[Eagle_day]

"Being an anti does not give you anything in common with other antis at all, besides your opinion on hunting. Antis across the U.K do not get together a few days a week to talk about how they are against hunting. We do not have anti's events. We do not have a uniform. We do not have rules under which we carry out 'anti-ism' (e.g MFA for hunting). We do not have organizations who give us advice on how to be a good anti for the sake of the press (C.A.) "

You have all of these things, Endy, it's just a matter of degrees. LACS/Huntwatch DO give advice on how to be a good anti (my advice might differ!) along with general guidance on hunting customs, the law and the like. As for uniforms: the combats, hoodies, balaclavas and piercings define the sab as much as a red or black coat define the mounted follower.

And of course being an anti is to be part of a scene ... that's human nature.

 

[Eagle_day]

Where was I?

I think creationalism is perhaps stretching an analogy too far ... but if you were comparing it to hunting, wouldn't it be a case of the majority being apathetic or tolerant until an issue affects them directly? Whether it's the literal interpretation of Genesis being taught in schools to the exclusion of any other theories, or the hunt blocking the road and impeding the casual passer-by.

The silent majority are silent because they don't give a damn. They're watching 'Big Brother'.

 

[Eagle_day]

"I don't think you can in all honesty say hunting is thriving."

I can and I will. If you want to believe the opposite, and act accordingly, that's absolutely fine by me. Really.

But why don't we ask Endy? I visited a Suffolk pack last season and had a cracking day. Endy, I believe, visited several more in Suffolk and Essex over 2006-2007. What does he think?

 

[wrighty]

"There's more than one way of skinning a cat"

No need for me to comment about that, too easy.

 

[Eagle_day]

You can quote LACS-organised polls to me 'til the cows come home and I won't take the slightest notice. I imagine you pay similar regard to CA polls. So let's go back to the last independent poll, paid for by the BBC:

"Hunt ban support is 'in decline'

Support for a ban on hunting has fallen in the past six years, a poll suggests. Less than half the UK wants a ban compared to almost two-thirds in 1999, the MORI survey of 2,000 adults for BBC One's Countryfile programme suggests."

Link on: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4270475.stm

Oh, and there wasn't a riot in Parliament Square. I was there, were you? And, remind me, were there ANY convictions for riotous behaviour on that day? Stick to facts, not casual smears.

 

[Paul T]

The fact that LACS/IFAW paid for the poll doesn't prevent the polling company carrying it out independently. I don't criticise CA funded polls simply because they were funded by the CA. However, I will criticise them if the polls in question ask leading questions or the findings have been misinterpreted by the CA.

If you can find legitimate fault with this poll, come on let's hear it. Otherwise you'll continue to sound blinkered and uninterested in facts.

The poll you referred to was carried out over two years ago, this latest poll supersedes that one. Interestingly, since then support for the ban has increased from 47% to 57% and opposition to the ban has declined from 26% to just 17%. Most of the increase in support for a ban has been amongst those strongly supporting it - from 32% in Feb 2005 to 43% in Feb 2007. Strong opposition to the ban has declined from 13% in Feb 2005 to just 9% in Feb 2007.

Oh, I think you'll find it was a riot. A riot is a 'noisy, violent, and uncontrolled public gathering'; given that your friends were intent breaking through police barricades to storm Parliament, chucking various missiles at the police in the process, there's no doubt it was a riot. Thankfully the police responded appropriately.

 

[Paul T]

I believe what I see, and I see hunts hanging on in the desperate hope that the Tories will win the next election and overturn the ban. Meanwhile the criminal convictions of your fellow followers continue to grow (two more today).

As I say, I doubt dear old Ronnie Wallace would call it thriving if he were here today!