person charged with murder

[lastrebel]

Mother Hen wrongly or rightly I genuinely beleive that saying you are not aware the law gets broken week in and week out and even if you have never even seen a fox whilst out on a hunt let alone been there for the kill and even if you really believe terier men are goood country people taking there little dogs for a nice day out. Then that is still no excuse. if you want to kid yourself that's fine but dont expect any respect.
I wont retract my statement about Holocaust denial and a blinkered view of hunting as I find both repugnant.

 

[lastrebel]

No complaints from me

 

[the watcher]

lastrebel, I am not so blind as to not be aware that occasionally the law will be broken. what I object to is your assumption that everybody who hunt/trail rides now, call it what you will, is in it for the kill. You are very mistaken and the generalisation is offensive to hundreds of people

 

[lastrebel]

But if that is the case and Hunting is more popular than ever why do so many of you go to such lengths to bring back the killing part.
I'm honestly confused.

 

[the watcher]

Not all of us do - in fact the vast majority don't. Although at the time I would have been in favour of the licensing suggestion and can still see an arguement for it.

the fact is that nearly all of the time hunts are genuinely following a pre laid trail. Yes the hounds sometimes divert to live quarry, sometimes there may not be a tearing hurry to get them back on line and on large private estates i suppose they can pretty much do as they please, being mindful that most of their followers are intending to hunt within the law - so that keeps them in check as much as any 'anti' activity.

i am sure there are still terrier men, and there will be a minority of hunt staff and masters who say that they will continue to hunt foxes irrespective of the law ( and we all know how badly research and written that was). They are not representative of the majority.

 

[lastrebel]

mother hen, I find it very hard to fall out with you.
you do talk a lot of sense, which is quite infuriating for us Antis.

I agree the law is a mess and licenced hunts with monitors and no terrier men would have been better all round.

 

[Hebegebe]

hebegebe I can assure you when hunting was legal the police always sided with you.

well of course they did! The police should always be on the side of what is legal.

The warwickshire hunt are hunting legally.

 

[JanetGeorge]

But if that is the case and Hunting is more popular than ever why do so many of you go to such lengths to bring back the killing part.
I'm honestly confused.

Several reasons:

1. Whether a hunt is operating within the law or not, it is STILL likely to be harrassed by monitors/sabs. There ARE times when - no matter how carefully a hunt is trying to hunt an artificial trail - hounds will riot onto a fo (it is, after all, what they have been bred for over hundreds of years.) Then the huntsman risks prosecution - which can be expensive, worrying and time-wasting!

2. Many hunts are now killing FAR more foxes than they did before the ban - just not as part of the day's hunting. This is because in sheep and poultry areas, most farmers WANT foxes killed. It's why they let hunts onto their land. So the hunts have an arrangement with farmers - we'll kill foxes LEGALLY on Tuesday - and come trail hunting on Saturday. Using hounds to flush foxes to guns is a VERY efficient method of killing a LOT of foxes quickly! A morning's fox control - by hunt staff and a dozen licenced shotgun shooters - can kill anything from 10 - 30 foxes in a morning!! It's totally unselective - but it keeps the farmers happy - and that's what hunts must do if we are to be welcomed onto their land.

Foxes were FAR better off the old way - one or two of the older, less healthy foxes would be caught and killed - and the rest of the population was 'safe' for another couple of months.

In some areas - particularly those that are well keepered also, this type of fox control is decimating the number of foxes. No-one who hunts wanted foxes exterminated - but in some areas it's going that way. And all TOTALLY within the law.

 

[Girlracer]

Nice to see some nice sensible discussion.

I'd just like to put my point across as i think it may be of some benefit to the discussion. Now up until the ban i was extremely anti, as is my dad. I was one of these that joined every group that was against hunting i spoke so negatively about it and had a very stereotypical opinion of all that went hunting. I have to say i wasn't at all pro-active in going against hunting, i was more one of these that bitched about it on the internet and that was aabout it. All coming out now isn't it. However i have to say i hugely regret having this assumption of it all.

It wasn't until the ban was enforced my interest in hunting grew. My mum had always spoke about going hunting/drag hunting (she's more middle ground doesn't entirely agree but nor does she entirely disagree) and how much of a thrill the riding is.

Then i looked after a friends hunter in 2006 over new years in return she said i could take her hunting. I was a bit dubious at first, in going to support something i had been so totally against. But i was convinced into it after talking to a friend.

Now i wouldn't say in that one day i suddenly turned pro, ofcourse not. However i thoroughly enjoyed the day and was shocked by how friendly and close net it was. After that i decided to take my horse out to a local meet. Early '07 i think. Other than the fact my horse was a total idiot the whole time i had yet another enjoyable day.

It was then i started looking into hunting more, i started re-searching about it... speaking to people who hunted. Making friends who i'm now very close with. I have to say at that point i started to get turned around. I was now middle ground, my opinion was changing but i still didn't fully understand it.

Cue no hunting, interest fadeing then came along Lantern. A horse that had hunted every season since a 9yo. He had '07/'08 season off with me then i decided i'd hunt him for the '08'09 season. This was a real turning point for me. Going out on a regular basis ment i met people who were a real part of the hunting community. I wiggled my way in there and so far i've not met one person i've dis-liked.

Once i started talking to the people who's livlihood is hunting i began to realise, no it's not a bunch of people killing for the fun of it it's for a reason. Then i began to understand that actually 'proper' pre-ban hunting was infact better for the fox than post-ban. Now don't get me wrong i am not saying if i saw a fox being killed i'm not saying i'd like to see it.

However i do believe it's a more natural method of control than just shooting any fox you find. I'm not saying it's more comfortable for said fox however i think controlling it is important and IMO this is the best way to do it.

That does not mean ofcourse i don't love animals, infact i love foxes but i also love lambs and a healthy countryside. The fox should never be taken away, but why would a hunt do that? Then they definately would loose their livlihoods.

I think some people have to realise not all of us are out there because we want to see foxes killed in front of our eyes and get a huge amount of pleasure from it. However i will keep supporting hunts and the repeal of the ban forever. (although all that said there are ofcourse a few that are in it for the wrong reasons IMO and that i don't agree with)

I'm expecting to get ripped apart for this post. However as i said already i don't expect everyone to agree with me.

 

[lastrebel]

Lanin and Janet, very good posts by both of you.

 

[horseygal90]

I'm not quite sure whether my opinions will be welcomed around here or not (I actually said to myself I wouldn't come into this section when I joined this board for good reasons, but hey) but I thought I might as well add them into the melee.

I'm anti hunting, always have been, always will be. Likewise, I'm anti fur, anti badger baiting, anti hare coursing, anti bear baiting, anti animal cruelty and anti whale hunting. Basically, anti anything that kills an animal without just cause or reason. To put that more simply - If I don't get something worthwhile out of the kill, like food, or clothing (not for fashion, if I needed furs to survive) then I don't kill it and I won't support people who do kill it. (Even spiders, I'm horribly arachnophobic!)

Anyway, enough about my stance... Anti/pro hunting debates irritate me, because very few people are prepared to say 'Yeah, actually, I can see where you're coming from, and whilst I still have my opinion, I respect yours'. I hate to say it but most pro arguments I have seen consist of recycled arguments and most anti arguments seem to take the moral high ground.

I just don't understand hunting to kill tbh... Fair enough, it's a great day out with your horse and it's fun all round, good training etc. however we're meant to be animal lovers. I just know that I couldn't live with myself knowing that I'd killed an animal for fun.

Not sure what the point of this post was but just thought I'd get it out... Lol. Argh, it's late!

 

[wurzel]

Claire

putting our differences aside for a moment.
I agree the hunting act in its present form is no use to man nor beast (excuse the pun).
However as far livelihoods go and I dont know any figures but from what I have seen since the ban more people are hunting.
I would take a guess these people are those who didnt want to be involved in chasing foxes but now feel drag hunting is acceptable.
This is a positive for anyone involved in the hunting industry. could it not be possible that a repeal of the ban would mean some of these people would no longer hunt.
Therfore jobs could really be lost.
From what I have seen and its not much over the last 4 years and only concerns two particular Hunt, foxes are still being chased and killed and not by accident or chance but by design.
For example why are terrirer men still following hunts.
The truth is the ban has not really changed anything and if like a lot of posters say the 'Kill' is not important why is there such an uproar over it.

Why do you think the ban was worded as it was?

And why do you think LACS agreed with the way it was worded initially only to change their mind later?

 

[jrp204]

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/en/ukpgaen_20040037_en_1
Use of dogs below ground to protect birds for shooting
29. The first condition in sub-paragraph (2) is that the stalking or flushing out is undertaken for the purpose of preventing or reducing serious damage to game birds or wild birds which are being kept or preserved for shooting. Game birds and wild birds are defined by reference to section 27 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (see paragraph 22 above).


30. The second condition in sub-paragraph (3) requires the person doing the stalking or flushing out to carry written evidence either that the relevant land belongs to him or that he has been given permission to use it for that purpose by the occupier or, in the case of unoccupied land, by a person to whom it belongs. This evidence must be shown to a police constable immediately on request.

31. The third condition in sub-paragraph (4) is that only one dog is used below ground at any time to stalk or flush out a wild mammal.

32. The fourth condition in sub-paragraph (5) requires that:


- reasonable steps are taken to ensure that as soon as possible after being found the wild mammal is flushed out from below ground;


- reasonable steps are taken to ensure that as soon as possible after being flushed out from below ground the wild mammal is shot dead by a competent person;


- the dog used is brought under sufficiently close control to ensure that it does not prevent or obstruct the shooting of the wild mammal;


- reasonable steps are taken to prevent injury to the dog; and


- the dog is used in compliance with any code of practice which is issued or approved by the Secretary of State for the purpose of this exemption.

These conditions replace those applicable under paragraph 1(7) to stalking and flushing out not involving the use of a dog below ground

I may just add that i do not personally hunt, we have chickens and sheep on a commercial basis. Out of interest i looked at the 04 Act after some of the comments about the terrier men. I actually feel if a fox had gone to ground during a hunt it should be left but do understand that some landowners do request the terrier men to dig out a fox in order to protect game or stock. I wouldn't hesitate to use an animal (ferret or dog) to flush out rabbits or rats, andwhen we recently had a fox problem, after badgers dug under our stock netting allowing a fox through which went onto kill 30 hens in broad daylight i contacted the terrier men who came along and within the law the fox was dispatched. Does that make me blood thirsty or just someone who is trying to make a living in a business that is struggling anyway?

 

[the watcher]

jrp204

I do take your point about terrier men and why digging out might be required. The conflict for me, I suppose, is about the basis on which people hunt foxes - whether that is mounted or with a gun. I always felt, following a mounted hunt, that if the fox got away then it deserved to be free and that digging out really wasn't 'sporting'. I can't rationalise that but make no apology for it. In the same way 'stopping up' seemed equally wrong.

However if one looks at it from the perspective of vermin control then of course the hunt should continue to the ultimate conclusion - otherwise how can you justify the exercise at all?

Knowing this doesn't make the final end, being trapped underground, any less unpleasant to consider.

 

[JanetGeorge]

The conflict for me, I suppose, is about the basis on which people hunt foxes - whether that is mounted or with a gun. I always felt, following a mounted hunt, that if the fox got away then it deserved to be free and that digging out really wasn't 'sporting'. I can't rationalise that but make no apology for it. In the same way 'stopping up' seemed equally wrong.

This is where confusion reigns!

There are two parts to mounted foxhunting:

1. Pest control: and that is solely the preserve of the hunt staff, the hounds, and the terrierman. It is done for the farmers - they are the ones whol allow the hunt on their land and while some are just generous in allowing the use of their land without expecting to gain, the majority want something in return. In MANY cases, that something is fox control!

2. The 'sport' of following hounds - whether on foot or on a horse. Hound work is fascinating and watching it is seriously interesting - whether or not you do it from the back of a horse - or on foot. (Actually, the foot followers tend to see more of the hound work than the mounted followers who are too busy trying to stay on top and in control.

You can't usually have one without the other. There's nothing for the farmer in draghunting - so many don't allow it. And the mounted followers pay for the upkeep of the hounds, hunt horses and hunt staff. Most mounted followers (and many foot followers) would rather not SEE a fox killed - although they appreciate that fox control is why the hounds are there.

Of course, now that the fox cannot be hunted in the 'traditional' way - he still has to be controlled. And most hunts are arranging fox control - within the law - as a quid pro quo. It's just become somewhat separated.

 

[Hebegebe]

It's a strange one because what they thought they were legislating against was all the people on horses but in fact nothing they do is really against the law and it's hard to see how it could be.

The times I have been hunting on horse back I spent the whole time concentrating on staying on. Maybe if I had been a really good rider I might have given some thought to complying or otherwise with the law but it really didn't cross my mind at all.

TBH once everyone galloped off I didn't really have much option but to follow them all.

 

[combat_claire]

Claire

putting our differences aside for a moment.
I agree the hunting act in its present form is no use to man nor beast (excuse the pun).
However as far livelihoods go and I dont know any figures but from what I have seen since the ban more people are hunting.
I would take a guess these people are those who didnt want to be involved in chasing foxes but now feel drag hunting is acceptable.
This is a positive for anyone involved in the hunting industry. could it not be possible that a repeal of the ban would mean some of these people would no longer hunt.
Therfore jobs could really be lost.
From what I have seen and its not much over the last 4 years and only concerns two particular Hunt, foxes are still being chased and killed and not by accident or chance but by design.
For example why are terrirer men still following hunts.
The truth is the ban has not really changed anything and if like a lot of posters say the 'Kill' is not important why is there such an uproar over it.

More people are indeed following but as yet there has been no survey of the reasons behind this - certainly in recent years there has been more of a focus on PR and getting people involved through newcomers days, I would hazard a guess that significant numbers now hunting are people who don't like being pushed around by prejudiced parliamentarians who have no idea how the countryside worked and in general refused to even come and see for themselves what happens there.

We are fortunate that the law gave us so many exemptions that we can hunt legally, still provide pretty much everything that happened pre-ban and not make many people redundant, but it could have turned out very differently.

As for the terrierwork, dogs may still be used below ground under the terms of the Act for use in protecting gamebirds and with the written permission of the landowner. I am as baffled as you are as to why gamebirds deserve greater protection than lambs and other livestock, but then when did any part of this Act make any sense whatsoever.

 

[Girlracer]

I'd have to agree hunting is a lot more accesible now than it has been in the past, and that's definately contributed to the rise in numbers.

I think links to pony clubs is a big thing too, we get so many pony clubbers out on weekends and in school holidays. Sometimes it pretty much doubles the field!

 

[JanetGeorge]

I am as baffled as you are as to why gamebirds deserve greater protection than lambs and other livestock, but then when did any part of this Act make any sense whatsoever.

Nothing baffling about it! Labour had spent years sucking up to BASC and assuring them that shooting was safe in an attempt to divide the shooting sports (numerically stronger) from hunting! The exemption for gamekeepers to use terriers was part of the deal!

The bill never DID have anything to do with animal welfare!!

 

[majicmoment]

But if that is the case and Hunting is more popular than ever why do so many of you go to such lengths to bring back the killing part.
I'm honestly confused.

What is most amusing from this sentence is the killing part has not stopped - there are exemptions and the government realise that the fox population need to be controlled.

The law needs to be repealed becasue it is ill founded legeslation which puts law obiting people at risk of prosecution. NOT becasue people want to kill foxes, to be honest that goes on anyway under the exemptions (flush to gun, bird of pray, terrier rule....as well as the increased usage of shotguns/snares)

NO FOXES have been saved as a result of the Hunting Act, and therefore it is completely pointless, has not done what it set out to do and should be repealed.

 

[Vicki1986]

Sab's could really do with a decent PR person to sort them out. I cant feel myself being won over any time soon by the aggressive ramblings and images conjured up by people who think its ok to say someone deserved to die in the wake of it being announced they have been murdered !! Cause or beliefs set aside, still a person at the end of the day, and if your sitting on the fence i would rather side with someone who has a bit of compassion albeit they kill a fox, than someone made out of stone who thinks its ok to murder someone to save a few vermin.

 

[lastrebel]

majicmoment,

We were generalising, I cant remember who it was but someone had posted how clever it was to go around killing foxes like before the law, whilst idiot Joe public thought it had stopped.
So I was saying if the public believe it has stopped and hunts and sabs no it hasnt why the fuss to bring it back.

Anyway Just to confirm my convictions. Its ok to say repeal the law but replace it with what.

 

[lastrebel]

Vicki, I must confess I came on here just to upset a few people. As I had preconseption about people who hunted.
this was nothing to do with PR or media. it was through first hand experience.
However although the people I wnated to be here Like Claire and horseguy were, there were also people like Mother hen and Lanin who have come across as decent people.
I'll ignore your last sentence.

 

[Hebegebe]

"Its ok to say repeal the law but replace it with what. "

a law against deliberate cruelty to any wild animal howsoever caused.

That was proposed beforehand but rejected by anti hunt MPs

 

[lastrebel]

Sounds good to me, but try and sell it to majic et al

 

[Hebegebe]

Sounds good to me, but try and sell it to majic et al

well that was basically the policy of the CA last rebel

it was the anti hunt MPs that blocked it.

why do you think they did?

 

[Kevin]

Having read this long thread I feel vindicated in having come down on the pro side of the argument
after a prolonged period of fence sitting.A person is a person at the end of the day whether pro or
anti and no one deserves to die over an issue like fox hunting. Human life,in my opinion,should
take priority over animal. The anti side,with which I once sympathised,seems to have lost sight
of that fact.The pro`s on here have not.

 

[lastrebel]

Kevin, If this thread can make you change your opinion then your opinion was not very strong.
most antis are soft and cuddley both sides have their extremes.
The thing I always say to people is make your own mind up, dont be swayed by something hear or read.
think it through then decide.

 

[Hebegebe]

what and ignore the evidence?

 

[lastrebel]

this should be a new thread now