Yes I have, and as stated I believe halal/ kosher is something that needs addressing. It is valid in terms of the welfare act, but it’s not a valid argument for retaining trail hunting, which is what the pro-hunts are deflecting to.
Under the proposed law, which is around animal welfare it would be bizarre, logically, not to include Halal and Kosher slaughter tbh as they are including slaughter methods for pigs, living conditions for chickens etc. The number of animals impacted by Halal and Kosher slaughter is far, far greater than would ever be involved in hunting but opening a very serious can of worms about freedom to practice your religion is extremely unwise politically and socially in my view. I am deeply uncomfortable with ritual slaughter and with potentially banning it.
But in animal welfare terms the impact of ritual slaughter is far greater than illegal hunting which has had a tiny number of convictions in relation to trail hunting and which is why some people are discussing it. That seems very obvious to me!
As stated above, I believe halal/ kosher is something that needs addressing. It is valid in terms of the welfare act, but it’s not a valid argument for retaining trail hunting, which is what the pro-hunts are deflecting to and is what I wrote in my post.
And I’m not disagreeing, but people can’t use the argument “it’s not fair, they’re allowed to but I’m not” as a defence if you want trail hunting to continue.
To a degree I agree with you but fairness is an absolute necessity, along with proportionality, in a liberal, tolerant society. I don't think trail hunters are using it as a defence but more pointing out the illogicality and lack of proportionality in relation to those practices.
But, they have had 20 years to sort this.... Why continue to breed pups that wont have a job? Hunts shoot many hounds anyway so thats nothing new. Many people get made redundant from many industries. Its nothing to do with class, its welfare and it will happen.
They have had 20 years to follow the law, which explicitly allows for following an animal based scent. Right or wrong, that is The Hunting Act.
But they have not followed the law. Thats the point. Why would you use the scent of a animal you are not allowed to hunt???????????? Also why continue to hunt and kill foxes?????? Dont even bother to say it does not happen because it does. Every week.
Do you think ritual slaughter is matter of animal welfare? If so, it perhaps should be included in the proposed new legislation, though personally I think that would be disastrous in all sorts of ways...
Some hunts haven't followed the law because they have caught and killed foxes,not because of any particular scent which is what this law will likely deal with. Hunts that have used animal based scent have followed the law as long as they haven't deliberately hunted and killed a fox.
Its going to be banned so you may as well get used to the idea. Also trying to pretend trail hunting has not been used to continue hunting as pre ban is a waste of time. It has and we all know it. Trail hunts that have continued to break the law have brought this about so if you have any issue take it up with them because they have got you to this point. Its a waste of time continuing this because its all been said before. Pro hunters are clutching at straws. Its no point saying what about this or that. There is untold cruelty in this world and just because one thing is allowed to continue it does not mean something else should not be banned. Its deflection and it wont wash.
Because the law hasn't been written yet, so it is unknown what it will actually contain. So far a strategy has been released with consultation to follow, and the relevent section in that strategy simply talks about ending trail hunting.
Animal welfare strategy for England
www.gov.uk
I think the ministry of justice figures show that Trail Hunting offences are very few but are often conflated with hunting offences which includes quite a wide variety of things.
yougov.co.uk
I'm not disagreeing with you - fox scent was allowed because that helped the HA get through and many thought the ban would be overturned. Tony Blair or another key politician was on record as saying that they hoped all the loopholes would allow hunting to continue de facto whilst also keeping LACS happy. That was ridiculously naive of course and terrible, terrible law but signalled clearly to the hunting fraternity that they could choose to continue in the usual way. Other hunts were, or became far more circumspect. If you look at the very tedious and lengthy record for the Hunting Act, you will see all this.
The law currently allows for following an animal based scent. If the law allows for driving at 30mph that is what people will do even though most people recognise you are more likely to kill someone at 30mph than 20mph.
It is apparantly less than 50 convictions since 2004 for trail hunting though many other things will have been offences under the Hunting Act and those higher numbers are often used by sab/anti groups and those that don't realise that many activities are covered by the hunting act. Is less than 50 successful prosecutions over 20 years really a national priority for legislation? I absolutely do not contest the need to prove animal welfare by the way. I think it would be more impactful, for example if it were illegal for equines to be kept alone.
More whatabouty! We are talking about trail hunting. There are few prosecutions because they are the ones caught with enough evidence that a prosecution was able to get to court. In my area for one the police turn a blind eye.
So if numbers of foxes have declined does that not put the pest control element out for a reason to hunt??????
I should think it’s a more sustainable method of population control, due to being less indiscriminate. But it’s an interesting philosophical dilemma, what’s good for the individual fox (hunting ban) is not necessarily good for the species.
