Overwhelming support for the ban

[zigzagzig]

17 February 2008
http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw_united_kingdom/media_center/press_releases/02_17_2008_4467.php

(London) - New polling figures released on the third anniversary of the ban on hunting with dogs reveal that the vast majority of people do not want hunting wild animals - foxes, deer and hare - with dogs to be made legal again, and think hunters should obey the law.
The Ipsos MORI polls, released today by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), the League Against Cruel Sports and the RSPCA, show that more than seven out of ten people in Britain (71 %) believe that hunters should not be allowed to break the law.

Furthermore, 73% do not want fox hunting to be made legal again. Eight in ten, 81%, were opposed to bringing back deer hunting, and 82 % were opposed to changing the law to allow hare hunting or coursing.

Sir Robert Worcester, Founder of MORI, said “These latest polls show clearly that the British public still feels strongly about this issue. Public perception remains for many that hunting wild mammals with a pack of dogs is cruel. Before the ban was introduced, public support for a ban in our surveys typically ranged between 2:1 to 3:1 in favour – so this latest figure suggests that this pattern is continuing.”

A MORI poll conducted in January 2002, before the ban was introduced, also revealed that 72% of the public think fox hunting should be illegal – showing that support today is at the same level as 6 years ago.

Robbie Marsland, UK Director of IFAW, said: “This news will come as a bitter blow for the hunt lobby, which is desperate to promote their cruel sport. This shows that the overwhelming majority of the British public has no tolerance for hunters who believe they are above the law.”

John Rolls, RSPCA Director of Animal Welfare Promotion, said: "This shows support for a ban on hunting is not just strong, it is rock solid. The British public strongly supports the ban, they want it to stay, and no amount of distraction has changed that. It's high time that pro-hunting campaigners gave up the chase and realised the public strongly supports the ban."

However, one prominent hunt supported, who declined to be named, was furious: "Why should I have to shoot deer I've flushed from my copse using my dogs? I don't chase the deer, just shoo them. I mean... yes, I DO chase them and make them stand at bay, because it's fun and I like to see the fear in their eyes when my dogs snap at them. This poll is absolute b*ll*cks because everyone knows that what I do is completely harmless, even when I do it only wearing green wellies. I hate this govenment so much, they're no better than the Nazis and Pol Pot put together!!! THEY'RE the weirdos, not me!"

 

[spaniel]

Given who commisioned this survey it would be very interesting to see the wording used whilst questioning the public before taking this at face value.

 

[Hebegebe]

The polls which count are the ones on election day and if the Tories get voted in having promised to allow a free vote on repeal then clearly that is what they should do.

If the majority of MPs vote for repeal then that is what will happen.

If support for a ban is 'overwhelming' then obviously the Tories do not stand a chance.

I suspect it is not high on many people's agendas but we will see.

Personally I support repeal or reform but I won't be voting Tory because of it.

 

[zigzagzig]

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/_assets/graphics/huntingtopline.pdf

 

[peakpark]

A poll requested by IFAW is hardly going to come out in favour of hunting!

 

[Hebegebe]

weird how they asked the question about dog fighting, what was that all about?

 

[zigzagzig]

"Even people who consider themselves Conservative voters do not want to see the ban on hunting repealed, a controversial poll to be released tomorrow will say.

The Western Daily Press can reveal a new MORI poll shows a majority of Tory supporters want to retain the Hunting Act, despite the party itself pledging a repeal as soon as it gains office."

 

[zigzagzig]

Remember the CA's 59% support hunting campaign?

"A poster advertisement for pro-hunting pressure group, the Countryside Alliance, which claimed that "59 per cent say keep hunting", has been withdrawn due to its misleading content.

The withdrawal of the advert, which appeared on advertisement bicycles, was ordered by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), following a complaint by The League Against Cruel Sports.

The League claimed the opinion poll quoted in the ad was based on flawed methodology and unreliable results.

The advertisers argued that it was publicising its contention that the majority of the public did not support a ban on hunting. It said the 59 per cent figure had been obtained from a recent poll conducted by NOP (National Opinion Poll).

However, the ASA discovered that the Countryside Alliance arrived at the figure by adding together the responses from two different questions in a NOP survey, which "portrayed hunting as a civil liberties issue."

"The survey's questions were phrased in broad terms and that respondents who had agreed with the third statement could have interpreted it in many ways and agreed with it for many different reasons," said the ASA."

 

[zigzagzig]

The CA has been rigging polls for years - see the story below.
Why can't they just say: we know the majority of people don't like hunting, but a large minority do and it's our choice. Resorting to these childish games (and it's happened ever since, with every seemingly every single tv and radio poll provoking manic repeat-dial voting from hunters) just seems pathetic. There's a sort of dishonesty about it which, I'm afraid, seems pretty engrained in the hunting community.
__________________________________
"Hunt supporters cheated in TV poll

MARIE WOOLF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT

Sunday, 18 July 1999

ITV HAS dropped a national opinion poll on fox-hunting after hunt supporters tried to rig the vote.

The television company suddenly stopped this month's national poll on hunting after it discovered an organised multiple-voting campaign by those opposed to a ban.

Executives at ITV Teletext, which carries regular polls on current affairs issues, decided to scrap the poll after it found hundreds of "no" votes being dialled from the same numbers.

"We keep an eye on our polls and we discovered that there was multiple voting from the same numbers for the noes," said an ITV spokeswoman. "We took the poll off air and investigated it. We could see from the numbers that there was multiple voting going on."

The Countryside Alliance, which is spearheading the campaign to save fox-hunting, had contacted supporters about the ITV poll. It told them how to vote "no" in the poll and instructed them "to start phoning now".

The Independent on Sunday has obtained an e-mail from the alliance that includes the phone number for a "no" vote.

The e-mail, sent throughout the pro-hunting network, from Henny Goddard, who works at the Countryside Alliance's headquarters, reads: "Please phone the following number ... Teletext vote following Prime Minister's latest statement on hunting last night. Please distribute far and wide. Please start phoning now for ITV Teletext poll on page 326: Should hunting be banned."

Last week the Countryside Alliance distanced itself from a similar operation involving a chain letter urging hunt supporters to use polls to "turn the tables" on "a well-organised campaign against us", "through sheer weight of numbers".

Last night the alliance admitted that it had contacted supporters, telling them to vote in the poll.

"We do let people know when these phone polls go on," said a spokesman. "Henny did send out this e-mail about the Teletext poll. She forwarded it to friends, and they sent it to other friends, who sent it on to other friends. But these are real people that are calling in."

Earlier this month Tony Blair announced his intention to bring in legislation before the next general election to ban fox-hunting.

He surprised MPs by announcing on BBC's Question Time that "we will get the vote to ban as soon as we possibly can". But it is now likely that local regions will be able to hold referendums about whether to retain hunting or not.

The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) said that the pro-hunting lobby's attempt to rig opinion polls, which consistently show a majority of British people in favour of a ban, was a desperate measure.

A recent MORI poll found that 68 per cent of people who lived in the the country were opposed to hunting and that 53 per cent of Conservative voters were opposed to hunting with dogs.

"This is an absolutely desperate attempt to rig democracy," said an IFAW spokesman. "We know that the strength of public feeling is firmly against hunting. They are trying to manipulate the polling and they have been caught out."

 

[rafferty]

I think 71% against hunting is probably right.
We all know the CA have huge pots of money to throw at this issue, we also know they have hijacked the the whole rural issues cause to champion foxhunting.
Problem is the ban has caused more problems than it has solved. I'd love for foxes to have the same rights as any other dog in this country does but it won't happen.
The wildlife in this country will only benefit from everyone who cares working together to find a solution. I don't see how polls really help. They'd be better off asking how a better solution could be achieved.

 

[Hebegebe]

It really depends how you phrase the question.

If you said "do youthink it is better to

a) givie millions of wild mammals poison that makes them take several weeks to die in horendous agony

or

b) kill them quickly

they'd probably vote b)

 

[Bunce]

What the poll clearly shows is that the vast majority of the British public equate fox hunting and dog fighting.

 

[Bowen4Horses]

What the poll clearly shows is that the vast majority of the British public equate fox hunting and dog fighting.

i'm not sure it says that anywhere...

it might also have something to do with how the questions were asked. merely asking questions about dog-fighting in the same questionnaire as fox-hunting makes the general public draw a link between them. which is nonsense.

 

[Hebegebe]

I think that is a pretty weak argument.

 

[Hebegebe]

What the poll clearly shows is that the vast majority of the British public equate fox hunting and dog fighting.

i'm not sure it says that anywhere...

it might also have something to do with how the questions were asked. merely asking questions about dog-fighting in the same questionnaire as fox-hunting makes the general public draw a link between them. which is nonsense.

Indeed.

Wouldn't a better option be just to present the three legislative options

a) do nothing
b) licensed hunts
c) total ban

and see what people vote for.

 

[zigzagzig]

Having listened to hunters quite carefully for a while, I'm disappointed to find how much lying and dissimulation they use. Issuing warnings on hunting sites not to discuss openly how they flout the ban, faking poll results, rigging telephone polls, blatant lying about the Hunting Declaration. Even on this site you have proven, documented liars like Giles Bradshaw. I prefer the up-front hunters like Tom Faggus who openly admit they lie. There is, bizarrely, at least a kind of honesty in that.

 

[Hebegebe]

Where is it proven and documented that I lie?

Could you post proof please?

Oh no sorry your argument is that you assumed I meant something therefore I said it.

you are such a ####

 

[Bunce]

What the poll clearly shows is that the vast majority of the British public equate fox hunting and dog fighting.

i'm not sure it says that anywhere...

it might also have something to do with how the questions were asked. merely asking questions about dog-fighting in the same questionnaire as fox-hunting makes the general public draw a link between them. which is nonsense.

It's simple maths.

look at the results. Most people voted for fox hunting and dog fighting. They are equivalent. The poll proves that

 

[Hebegebe]

The poll no more proves that than I said on Labourspace that my dogs never chase animals.

 

[Hebegebe]

ZigZagZig thinks that this statement is saying that I don't chase deer with my dogs lol:

"I take the dogs into the wood, if deer are present in the wood this flushes them out and the dogs then chase them out of the wood."

This is what he calls documented proof that I did not claim on Labourspace that I chase deer with my dogs.

 

[zigzagzig]

You've declared - pompously - that you're going to ignore my posts. Why are you now responding to them? Another broken promise. You're dishonest, a liar.

Why do pros lie so often? It's just silly and rather pathetic.

 

[Hebegebe]

How don the words


"I take the dogs into the wood, if deer are present in the wood this flushes them out and the dogs then chase them out of the wood."

mean that I do not chase deer?

 

[Bunce]

How don the words


"I take the dogs into the wood, if deer are present in the wood this flushes them out and the dogs then chase them out of the wood."

mean that I do not chase deer?

Who is suggesting that they do?

 

[Hebegebe]

Zigzag claims that I lied on the Labourspace site by denying I chase deer on it.

I've asked him to point out where I have denied that but he can't so now he is in a bit of a huff because he's been found out.

In fact it clearly states that the dogs do chase deer.

 

[Bunce]

It does say that you do chase deer. However your campaign is irrelevant.

If your actions are harmless then the police will nit enforce the law so it really does not matter if what you do is illegal or not.

 

[Hebegebe]

Thay I think is the nub of the issue.

If everyone agrees the law is bollox then does it really matter?

If people don't agree with it and break it and the police don't agree with it so don't enforce it then is that a problem in anyway.

I would say that absurd laws reduce our respect for the law as a whole and devalue the currency of crime as a concept.

However maybe I am just a fuddy duddy and should go with the flow. These people are complete dick heads after all. F uck their laws

 

[Bunce]

looking at it the whole thing about calling you a liar seems a little childish.

I wish people could debate the issues rather than resorting to such slurs in lieu of making a substantive point.

 

[zigzagzig]

This is what you said on labourspace:

"I feel a great affinity towards these deer especially the red deer. My control methods are extremely gentle. THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE DEER EVEN TO BE CHASED [my caps]. It is extremely important to me that they do not suffer nor are harmed. What I do causes the animals no more disturbance than any one else does by walking dogs through woodland."
http://reformthehuntingact.labourspace.com/view_campaign?CampaignId=93

As I've said several times now, this creates the strong impression that you don't chase the deer you flush out from your copse. If you do indeed chase the deer, you're being dishonest.

But elsewhere on that site you say that whether you chase the deer or not is irrelevant. Here you say it highly relevant. Where are you wrong, here or there?

You refer endlessly to DEFRA who you claim support your interpretation of the law. But on this site you say what DEFRA say is irrelevant. Why then make these pointless references?

You claim the CA's expensive doomed legal foray to the House of Lords established as law your interpretation of the Hunting Act. This simply isn't true. It's another deliberate lie. However, the Wright case did establish that what you did wasn't "hunting" and therefore not illegal. In a desperate attempt to shoehorn your shooing into the Act you place increasing emphasis on the alleged chasing of deer, even though you say this is irrelevant...

You claim I support the practice of driving herds of deer to teams of guns. I've asked you provide a link to where I say this. Again, you can't, because you were lying.

In fact the only thing you've freely admitted to is your ultra bizarre claim that the Chernobyl disaster was an ecological "godsend". And the person who says this is having his potty legal pantomime sponsored by the CA in the European Courts! It's hilarious.

 

[Hebegebe]

What you have quoted DOES NOT SAY I DON'T CHASE THE DEER (my caps).

You have not quoted from this bit also on LabourSpace WHICH DOES SAY I CHASE THE DEER (my caps)

"This is willow coppice regenerating. Coppicing is an extremely ecological practice. Not only is it carbon neutral but it also has a very beneficial effect on bio diversity. The presence of deer if controlled can be useful because they slow down the regeneration providing a window for the life cycle of rare woodland butterflies and also keep down under growth and generate path ways through the coppice. However if the deer are allowed to be in the coppice too much they can eat all the green shoots of the trees effectively killing the coppice. I use a non lethal means to regulate the presence of the deer in the wood. I take the dogs into the wood, if deer are present in the wood this flushes them out and the DOGS THEN CHASE THEM OUT OF THE WOOD (My caps). The Hunting Act only allows me to continue this if I then kill the deer."


Are you totally thick?

 

[Hebegebe]

To ,me the fact that i say that the dogs chase the deer creates the strong impression that you are talking total bollox.

What do you reckon?