Overwhelming support for the ban

[Hebegebe]

It's irrelevant whether the deer are chased as to whether they are flushed out or not. Flushing out and stalking are defined as exempt hunting by the Hunting Act.

Flushed out deer do not need to be chased in order for them to be dispersed as they will run away anyway and can be repeatedly flushed out top move them on.

However it is simpler to chase them too as you can move them further in one flush which is what I do as stated on Labour Space.

A piss take about chernobyl has nothing to do with it.

I am assuming you support the Hunting Act which requires as interpreted by the court a team of guns to be used to kill flushed out deer. If you don't fair enough but then again that means you basically agree with the campaign because that is what it is against.

 

[Hebegebe]

could you post your reasoning process behind your interpretation of the polls.

I am always fascinated by idiotic reasoning

cheers

 

[Hebegebe]

Also from the LabourSpace site:

"These are the dogs which flush out and chase the deer in my woodland."

 

[Bunce]

It's irrelevant whether the deer are chased as to whether they are flushed out or not. Flushing out and stalking are defined as exempt hunting by the Hunting Act.

The law makes it clear that animals can only be deliberately flushed out if it is in order to flush them to guns.

This is to prevent the hunts from flushing them out, chasing them and killing them with dogs in the old manner.

 

[Springback]

Whilst I take all of these points from both sides I really don't think POWA are in any position to stick up for animals, given that their monitoring tactics seem to involve scaring the crap out of them.

 

[Hebegebe]

True but at least they are honest enough to recognise that the Hunting Act is flawed:

POWA statement 2006:

"In response to Giles Bradshaw's latest missive (Your Say, October 31), I have at last cracked, and decided to reply... Though a hunt monitor for many years, and thus entirely on the other side of the fence from Mr Bradshaw, in this instance he has a point. There is an anomaly in the Hunting Act which requires that if you flush deer out with dogs, "as soon as possible... the wild mammal is shot dead by a competent person". It is apparently illegal just to let them run off, as Mr Bradshaw says he does most days of his life now, and, of course, he should not be prosecuted for this harmless activity…. Peter Bunce Haddenham Buckinghamshire"

POWA website:

"The truth is the Hunting Act is flawed"

 

[Eagle_day]

"Whilst I take all of these points from both sides I really don't think POWA are in any position to stick up for animals, given that their monitoring tactics seem to involve scaring the crap out of them."

... and killing people.

 

[Hebegebe]

Yeah the killing people seems a little too much by any standards

 

[Silverspring]

I think 71% against hunting is probably right.

i would agree, roughly 7 in 10 people I meet are ill educated and unable to think for themselves. :smirk:

 

[zigzagzig]

If you do indeed chase deer why not say so in you main post? I repeat, to say that "there is no need for the deer even to be chased" is dishonest, given that you do indeed chase them. I will go further. You say: "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." This is a lie. You've boasted on this forum about using your dogs to keep a deer at bay. This isn't what a casual dog-walker does. This is subjecting the deer to deliberate suffering.

I've said repeatedly that I don't support the Hunting Act. Please provide the link to where I say I support herds of deer being driven towards a team of guns. If you can't, why not simply say you either lied or made a mistake?

Your comment about Chernobyl wasn't a "piss take" when you made it, or indeed when you subsequently tried to back up your loony stance on here. You provided links to so-called "learned" journals which you claimed supported your position. When I provided you with material that showed that the ecological boom in Chernobyl-land wasn't as rosy as you claimed, even you had to effect a humiliating back-track and insist that you were joking all along. I've been hoping that you would do the same with your laughable "shooing is hunting" obsession, but hope springs eternal.

You may be a nice guy in real life, but you seem hopelessly bizarre in the way you conduct your deliberately dishonest, pointless campaign. The fact that the Countryside Alliance is sponsoring you, I'm afraid, suggests that it's a silly Micky Mouse outfit, and that's a shame for everyone who appreciates the countryside.

 

[Hebegebe]

nonsense anyone who walks their dogs through woodland off the lead will know that they will occasionally chase deer this is causing them no more disturbance than I do.

I'm glad you don't support the requirement in the law for hunts to shoot the deer they flush out. That's the whole point of the campaign, to remove that stipulation and I am glad you support it.

I don't really understand why you are arguing with me when you agree with my criticism of the Act.

POWA agree to. They bare on record as saying the law is an anomaly and should not be enforced.

How do you know what spirit my7 comment about chenobyl was made in?

It was to wind up dick heads on forums and it succeeded. I found the whole thing very funny.,

I don't think you get my sense of humour.

I find you very funny too.

 

[Hebegebe]

Zig zag you say my campaign is stupid but you support the contention that hunts should not have to shoot the deer they flush out. That's what the campaign is.

The law is anomalous and should not be enforced.

That is my position, POWA's position and yours.

My campaigning lead POWA to accept this.

 

[Hebegebe]

ps it's obviously got your back up ma bit which is good

 

[rafferty]

Hebegebe,

Although I agree with some of what you say, I'm confused by your motives. Firstly obviously you're a strong advocate of 'the hunt' however you are an intelligent man and so must realise that 'the hunt' kill animals. I don't really understand your position on this, your very rude to the antis on this forum and in general (your post about scumbag monitors springs to mind) yet you seem to share more in common with them than with the hunt supporters.
I'm not being patronising but I would really like to know your way of thinking. it seems you care about the wildlife on your farm from some of what you have said but also condem those who also share your views.
Out of intrest would you if legal, allow stag hunting on your land.

 

[rafferty]

Just to point out the conservatives are not promising to bring back hunting but just to allow a free vote.
This is what labour did and the vote for the ban was 400 to 150 ( I think) in other words a lot of MPs would have to lose their seats and pro hunting MPs take their place.

its not going to happen.

 

[Hebegebe]

hardly any tory MPs voted for a ban. if there is a substantial tory majority and there is a free vote it will get repealed

 

[Hebegebe]

Ugly Dog,

I am middle way.

I think the first question is do we need control/management. The second question is what is the best way of accomplishing it with respect to the end result and the welfare impact.

I agree with the Burns report that it cannot be said that shooting is more humane than hunting.

I think in many circumstances hunting is better. This is because it mimics predation because it tends to select weaker animals and it does not wound. Hunts are in an ideal position to monitor wildlife and have an interest in a thriving population of their quarry at a level that does not unduly impact landowners.

I think we should have a law that regulates all means of killing wildlife according to the same criteria. I also think we should favour wildlife management over pest control,

At the end of the day I will not stop what I do because I know it works and is humane.

I will never obey the hunting act and that is unconditional.

I will not be persuaded by idiotic arguments.

My use of dogs is the best and most humane method and it is more humane than shooting them.

I am not going to do something I regard as more cruel because of a stupid law passed by bigoted idiots.

 

[rafferty]

Thank you, I'm in agreement with you there.

 

[rafferty]

I bet some one has done the math, would be interesting to know. I think the conservatives will win but maybe not by the majority we think.

 

[Hebegebe]

Well good for you.

Quite a lot of antis are starting to realise how misconstrued the law is.

It's a slow process but we are getting there.

 

[rafferty]

I'm not actually an anti I just think its a 2 way arguement.
I don't like animals suffering on the other hand I do believe that the only way forward is to work with those who actually can benefit wildlife. Hedgerows and woodland need to be provided and maintained, without a habitat there is no sustainable population. I would like both sides to come to a compromise. We all know hunting still goes on and I think foxes probably are worse off now in many ways.
I think foxes get a bad press and the idea of anything being torn apart by dogs by sickens me but I'd rather that and a healthy population than widespread use of poision and snares.
I know some farmers don't allow hunts but wont tollerate any foxes on their land and shoot the lot. surely thats worse.
I'm sounding like a pro tonight which I'm not keep up the good work Bunce and Zig zag.

 

[Hebegebe]

Well we can agree to differ as to whether hounds kill a fox by tearing it apart but I am sure we will both agree that a rifle bullet does. It's not the neat entry and exit holes you see in holywood.

The crucial difference is that the fox caught by hounds will die quickly. The fox whose leg is half torn off by a rifle bullet can take a much longer time to die.

I think where we all agree is that the Hunting Act is a bad piece of legislation. POWA have gone on record to say that the requirement for hunts to gun down the animals they flush out is an anomaly and should not be enforced. Zigzag opposes the law too although he seems to have some strange hag up about Chernobyl.

It's ironic that people preach about everyone having to obey the law when in fact I think we all would acknowledge it should nit be obeyed because we don't agree with it.

In fact no one does. They all know it is flawed.

Overwhelming support for the Hunting Act? Maybe, but certainly not from Zigzag, you, POWA or me.

 

[Hebegebe]

Just to summarise

Zizzag - opposes Act - opposes requirement for hunts to shoot animals they flush out

POWA - "The truth is the hunting act is flawed"

Ugly_dog - thinks their shyould be a compromise

me opposes ban

scratchline - accepts the Act should be changed

last rebel - ditto

CPS - Act is "Wholly unworkable"

where is this overwhelming support?

 

[Eagle_day]

"where is this overwhelming support?"

Just LACS, I think. Extract from their website:

With the support of 75 per cent of the public and 59 per cent of Tory voters, the Hunting Act is in a stronger position than ever. The vast majority of the public do not want to turn the clocks back to a time when cruelty and killing for pleasure under the guise of hunting with dogs was legal, making the case for repeal extremely weak.

Despite loud protestations from the hunting lobby, there is no doubt the Act is working with 68 prosecutions to date and a number pending testifying to this. Over 150 MPs have signed Early Day Motion 481 calling for better enforcement and the only people calling for repeal are the small minority who enjoy killing for sport.

 

[Hebegebe]

...and all outstanding prosecutions against hunts dropped by the CPS and LACS on account of the CPS declaring the law 'virtually unenforceable'



you couldn't make it up!!!!!

 

[rafferty]

It's there.
I dont know a single person who supports hunting.
This includes my father in law and his merry gang who go shooting. Several friends with horses and a family of farmers.
I agree they may not know the whole story or understand all the facts but they are entitled to an opinion.
And please dont say that only country people should be allowed to have an opinion on this as it sounds a bit elitist.

and their Tories one and all.

 

[Hebegebe]

No mention of those who signed edm 122 critisizing the law

 

[Hebegebe]

When the Tony Wright appeal judgment came out LACS put out a statement welcoming it and saying that it now meant prosecutions could continue.

In the following weeks all those prosecutions including one by LACS were dropped.

Do you think this organisation has any credibility whatsoever?

 

[Scratchline]

" The vast majority of the public do not want to turn the clocks back to a time when cruelty and killing for pleasure under the guise of hunting with dogs was legal, making the case for repeal extremely weak.

Hi all )

Eagle_Day, I dont think it wise for anyone to doubt the reality of the words written above. I believe the hunting act should and will be ammended and rightly so. Many cases have proven this is necessary.
I have no doubt whatsoever though that we have seen the end of hunting animals with dogs. Chasing and killing. The Countryside Alliance think they have a large voice and believe they have plenty of support. IMHO we aint seen nothing yet! Many thousands of people in this country were forced to accept hunting as was because at the time it was legal. We had no choice. Regardless of how utterly opposed to it we were, we put up and shut up. Sadly and to our shame we turned our backs on it and let the pomp and ceremonial slaughter of foxes continue. We saw, we knew yet we did nothing and let others make a stand against it in our name, often in the face of unnaceptable abuse both verbal and physical from those legal hunters.

Well now its illegal. Now it is banned. What is desired by some is a return to that type of hunting. The massive difference is this time it would be about all of a sudden allowing people to chase and kill wild animals with dogs. If any government tried to allow it once more everybody who in the past didnt complain will. Everybody who turned their backs will not. No hunt will ever be legally allowed to hunt as was. Because if the government will not stop them and tries to allow the return of a bloodsport that was banned on cruelty grounds then I kid you not, people like me will. I will not be quiet this time and I will not let foxes be chased and killed in that way ever again!
Think the antis made life difficult for hunts before? This time the general public will stop it in its tracks before it even gets going. And pushing the masses about with your horses aint going to work, I kid you not! You will be suprised just how few of us are bunny huggers who will let you get away with it old boy ))

 

[Scratchline]

if there is a substantial tory majority and there is a free vote it will get repealed

There is no way on this earth bud that any government will be allowed by the people of this country to introduce an illegal blood sport. The protests would be on a scale previously never seen in this country I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever.