Repeal vote imminent ?

[Lizzie66]

Apparently there might be vote next week, the article is ambiguous though. It implies the vote might be to bring England and Wales in line with Scotland, in that you can use an unlimited number of hounds to flush to guns rather than the current two.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33440330

If this is an interim measure then great, if not then it is a very watered down version of the Conservative manifesto, which was a free vote on repeal of the Hunting Act.

 

[ROG]

I know nothing about horses or hunting but I used to see loads of dogs chasing a single fox and I found that somewhat unfair

Had it been a single dog chasing a fox then to me as a lay person that would seem fair

I suspect that the general public also view it that way ..................

 

[Countryman]

This would be an excellent interim measure-but it cannot be compared to an alternative to repeal. Clearly though, the antis are running scared-its already come up in PMQ's today!

 

[Lizzie66]

I know nothing about horses or hunting but I used to see loads of dogs chasing a single fox and I found that somewhat unfair

Had it been a single dog chasing a fox then to me as a lay person that would seem fair

I suspect that the general public also view it that way ..................

The problem is if you have a wood that covers say an acre of land or more and you put two hounds in, then the chances of you being able to get those hounds to flush the fox out to where the guns are is remote. Whereas if you put 30 hounds in then the fox can be moved in a certain direction.

Also if this were a sport I would be tempted to agree with you but there is a serious aim to control fox numbers, either by killing them or by dispersing them. There is no intent to eradicate foxes just to keep their numbers down to what the land can reasonably sustain.

 

[Countryman]

I know nothing about horses or hunting but I used to see loads of dogs chasing a single fox and I found that somewhat unfair

Had it been a single dog chasing a fox then to me as a lay person that would seem fair

I suspect that the general public also view it that way ..................

I think the majority of people don't really care either way-though if you pushed them, they might-without knowing anything about it-assume it is cruel.

I know I used to, before I decided to find out for myself.

The fact is, foxhounds are scent hounds, bred to work as a pack. Each hound has his own expertise -e.g, scenting over fallow fields etc. . A single hound on its own would never catch a single fox because it would lose the scent. The idea that it is unfair is incorrect.

As it is, even a full pack of perhaps 30-35 hounds only catches around 1 in 6 foxes that they chase!

You might say well what's the point-but this means that the sickest, weakest, most injured and suffering 1/6th of the fox population are culled in a swift and humane manner, putting them out of their misery.

 

[fburton]

Also if this were a sport I would be tempted to agree with you but there is a serious aim to control fox numbers, either by killing them or by dispersing them. There is no intent to eradicate foxes just to keep their numbers down to what the land can reasonably sustain.

How much would the fox population increase if they were not hunted? Does anyone know?

And what factors determine how much the land can sustain?

 

[Lizzie66]

How much would the fox population increase if they were not hunted? Does anyone know?
And what factors determine how much the land can sustain?

The type of area, the wild prey numbers, the proximity to farmed prey etc.

I wasn't planning on making a scientific study from it. A lot of it is around what the local landowners etc have to say on fox numbers. ie they will soon be on the phone to the hunt if they are having a problem.

 

[ROG]

If lots of smoke is forced into a foxhole what happens ?

 

[Countryman]

I think the crucial thing to remember is that hunting isn't just a sport-its also a method of pest control in some areas, and most importantly, the only selective method of humane wildlife management

 

[Judgemental]

I have been very reliably informed that the matter will be dealt with via a Statutory Instrument and will be laid before the House of Commons, tomorrow Thursday 9 July 2015.

The debate of 90 minutes will take place the following Thursday 16 July 2015 followed by a vote.

Judging by the strong feeling on both sides it will be a 'close run thing' either way.

That said, I do have to point out and the old hands on this forum will know that I have consistently advocated a small measure taken by Statutory Instrument, rather than full blown repeal.

 

[horserugsnot4u]

You might say well what's the point-but this means that the sickest, weakest, most injured and suffering 1/6th of the fox population are culled in a swift and humane manner, putting them out of their misery.

Well I didn't realise you hunting lot were really being so kind to the ailing fox who needs to be put out of his misery, rather than enjoying yourselves chasing after him. I am sure he will be very grateful and as he is so weak and feeble, he will not be able to put up much of a fight. You can all go home happy after 10 minutes, job done.

 

[Sandstone1]

Pest control? Hum, so why has a hunt staff member recently been found to have 16 Fox cubs locked up in a barn? That all went pretty quiet didn't it.

 

[Judgemental]

I can't understand why folk are expressing dissent on the subject when Repeal was clearly detailed in the Conservative Manifesto and well trailed by the Prime Minister during the election campaign.

The British people voted for the Conservative party with a majority and therefore the majority voted for repeal.

The government have done the decent thing, by introducing the matter to the House of Commons with a modest number of changes via a Statutory Instrument. The mechanics of the Statutory Instrument where built into the Hunting Act 2004 by the LABOUR PARTY, it was therefore enshrined in law and the act.

The debate next week, on Wednesday not Thursday, (as stated in House of Commons Business for next week) as I previously indicated is going to be 90 minutes long, which is the standard length of time for amendments under the Statutory Instrument, indeed that is the length of time for any matter governed by Statutory Instrument.

Frankly I find the whingings wholly absurd, when the law under the act is being fully complied with! Especially as any use of a Statutory Instrument cannot disable any act of parliament.

 

[Tiddlypom]

Frankly I find the whinging of the Bunny Huggers wholly absurd when the law under the act is being fully complied with! Especially as any use of a Statutory Instrument cannot disable any act of parliament.

C'mon, JM, you can do better than this.

Anyone who refers to people with different views to their own as 'bunny huggers' does not pass Go and instead goes straight to jail. It's lazy and patronising terminology.

 

[Judgemental]

C'mon, JM, you can do better than this.

Anyone who refers to people with different views to their own as 'bunny huggers' does not pass Go and instead goes straight to jail. It's lazy and patronising terminology.

What Bunny Huggers,

I said:

Frankly I find the whingings wholly absurd, when the law under the act is being fully complied with! Especially as any use of a Statutory Instrument cannot disable any act of parliament.

Ha, you comprehensively shot your fox - (minor chuckle)

 

[Tiddlypom]

What Bunny Huggers,

I said:



Ha, you comprehensively shot your fox - (minor chuckle)

Good call to edit your post, JM !!

 

[EquiEquestrian556]

You might say well what's the point-but this means that the sickest, weakest, most injured and suffering 1/6th of the fox population are culled in a swift and humane manner, putting them out of their misery.

Without wanting to start an argument (I'm sure I'll fail miserably though.......) how do you define the words "swift and humane"? I'm certainly no anti, however I'm not really pro fox hunting either. I agree that it is necessary to keep numbers down in some areas, however I disagree that it done in a "swift and humane manner". Being chased till you are caught, or collapse, and then being shredded/ bitten to pieces is not humane, and I fail to see how people can think that it's kind. I'd much rather see them correctly shot than hunted - quicker and if done correctly truly humane. As I say, I don't have a problem with keeping numbers down, but it's also been turned into a sport, or game if you like, which is, in my opinion, immoral. I'm no anti, but the fact that their culling has been made into a game (aka sport) as well as a deed, I don't agree with.

I'm sure, in fact I know, that nature and animals would be absolutely fine without us humans interfering, but there we go. Just my opinion.

 

[{51248}]

Without wanting to start an argument (I'm sure I'll fail miserably though.......) how do you define the words "swift and humane"? I'm certainly no anti, however I'm not really pro fox hunting either. I agree that it is necessary to keep numbers down in some areas, however I disagree that it done in a "swift and humane manner". Being chased till you are caught, or collapse, and then being shredded/ bitten to pieces is not humane, and I fail to see how people can think that it's kind. I'd much rather see them correctly shot than hunted - quicker and if done correctly truly humane. As I say, I don't have a problem with keeping numbers down, but it's also been turned into a sport, or game if you like, which is, in my opinion, immoral. I'm no anti, but the fact that their culling has been made into a game (aka sport) as well as a deed, I don't agree with.

I'm sure, in fact I know, that nature and animals would be absolutely fine without us humans interfering, but there we go. Just my opinion.

I so agree.

 

[Tea Drinker]

I'm sure, in fact I know, that nature and animals would be absolutely fine without us humans interfering, but there we go. Just my opinion.

Well then you'd better ban all farming because that sure as hell stuffs up nature and animals! Irresponsible farming is the biggest threat (worldwide) to nature that there is. You can include deforestation in South East Asia and South America in that too. ~When humans interefere in the ecology, problems are caused which then require manmade solutions. Farming and foxes are one such problem that needs a manmade solution. Any natural predator to the fox was wiped out (by man) sometime ago here in the UK.

And referring to you wish to seeing foxes "correctly" shot ... then good luck on that one too. When man pulls a trigger on an animal, you can only hope that they will do it correctly every single time. Of course, the reality doesn't square up.

So you have a choice - do you go for a certain kill with hounds (there are no half measures) or percentage likelihood via gun?
On that basis, what do you think is more humane?
No animal ever died from breathlessness but plenty die a malingering death caused by shot wounds.

 

[Judgemental]

The proposed amendments under Statutory Instrument.


Draft Order laid before Parliament under section 14
(b) of the Hunting Act 2004 (c. 37), for
approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.
D R A F T S T A T U T O R Y I N S T R U M E N T S
2015 No. 0000
ANIMALS, ENGLAND AND WALES
The Hunting Act 2004 (Exempt Hunting) (Amendment) O
rder
2015
Made - - - - 2015
Coming into force in accordance with article 1(b)
The Secretary of State, in exercise of the powers c
onferred by sections 2(2) and 14(c) and (d) of
the Hunting Act 2004(
a
) and section 28(2)(a) of the Small Business, Enter
prise and Employment
Act 2015(
b
), makes the following Order.
In accordance with section 14(b) of the Hunting Act
2004, a draft of this instrument has been laid
before and approved by resolution of each House of
Parliament.
Citation and commencement
1.
This Order —
(a)
may be cited as the Hunting Act 2004 (Exempt Huntin
g) (Amendment) Order 2015; and
(b)
comes into force on the day after the day on which
it is made.
Amendment of Schedule 1 to the Hunting Act 2004
2.
Schedule 1 (exempt hunting) to the Hunting Act 200
4 is amended in accordance with articles
3 to 6.
Stalking and flushing out
3.
In paragraph 1 (stalking and flushing out), for su
b-paragraph (5) substitute—
“(5) The third condition is that the number of dogs
used—
(a) is appropriate, having regard to the terrain an
d any other relevant circumstances,
and
(b) enables the stalking or flushing out to be carr
ied out as efficiently as possible.”.
(
a
) 2004 c. 37.
(
b
) 2015 c. 26.
2
Use of dogs below ground to protect livestock, or b
irds for shooting
4.
For the heading to paragraph 2 (use of dogs below
ground to protect birds for shooting)
substitute “
Use of dogs below ground to protect livestock, or b
irds for shooting
”, and for sub-
paragraphs (2) and (3) of that paragraph substitute
—
“(2) The first condition is that the stalking or fl
ushing out is undertaken for the purpose of
preventing or reducing serious damage to—
(a) livestock, or
(b) game birds or wild birds (within the meaning of
section 27 of the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981 (c. 69)) which a person is kee
ping or preserving for the
purpose of their being shot.
(3) The second condition is that, if a constable as
ks the person doing the stalking or
flushing out to produce the evidence mentioned in s
ub-paragraph (3A), the person either—
(a) makes the evidence immediately available for in
spection by the constable, or
(b) before the end of the period of 7 days beginnin
g with the date on which the request
is made or as soon as is reasonably practicable, pr
oduces the evidence, in person,
at a police station specified by the person at the
time the request is made.
(3A) The evidence is written evidence—
(a) that the land on which the stalking or flushing
out takes place belongs to the person
doing the stalking or flushing out, or
(b) that that person has been given permission to u
se that land for the purpose by the
occupier or, in the case of unoccupied land, by a p
erson to whom it belongs.”.
Rescue of wild mammal
5.
In paragraph 8 (rescue of wild mammal)—
(a)
in sub-paragraph (2), at the end insert “or disease
d”; and
(b)
for sub-paragraph (4) substitute—
“(4) The third condition is that the number of dogs
used—
(a) is appropriate, having regard to the terrain an
d any other relevant circumstances,
and
(b) enables the hunting to be carried out as effici
ently as possible.”.
Research and observation
6.
In paragraph 9 (research and observation), for sub
-paragraph (3) substitute—
“(3) The second condition is that the number of dog
s used—
(a) is appropriate, having regard to the terrain an
d any other relevant circumstances,
and
(b) enables the hunting to be carried out as effici
ently as possible.”.
Duty to review
7.
—(1) The Secretary of State must from time to time—
(a)
carry out a review of articles 2 to 6;
(b)
set out the conclusions of the review in a report;
and
(c)
publish the report.
(2)
The report must, in particular—
(a)
set out the objectives intended to be achieved by t
he regulatory provision made in those
articles;
3
(b)
assess the extent to which those objectives are ach
ieved; and
(c)
assess whether those objectives remain appropriate
and, if so, the extent to which they
could be achieved in another way which involves les
s onerous regulatory provision.
(3)
The first report under this article must be publish
ed before the end of the period of five years
beginning with the day on which this Order comes in
to force.
(4)
Subsequent reports must be published at intervals n
ot exceeding five years.
Name
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State
Date Department for Environment, Food and Rural Aff
airs
EXPLANATORY NOTE
(This note is not part of the Order)
This Order is made under sections 2(2) and 14(c) an
d (d) of the Hunting Act 2004 (c. 37) and
section 28(2)(a) of the Small Business, Enterprise
and Employment Act 2015 (c. 26).
The Hunting Act 2004 makes it an offence to hunt a
wild mammal with a dog, unless the hunting
is within a class of exempt hunting specified in Sc
hedule 1 to that Act.
This Order amends Schedule 1 so as to vary certain
classes of exempt hunting, as follows—
in paragraphs 1 (stalking and flushing out), 8 (res
cue of wild mammal) and 9 (research and
observation) of that Schedule, by providing that th
e number of dogs which may be used is to be
that which is appropriate to the terrain and any ot
her relevant circumstance, and which enables the
activity to be carried out as efficiently as possib
le (
articles 3, 5(b) and 6
); the description of wild
mammal that may be hunted under paragraph 8 is now
extended to include any which the hunter
reasonably believes is or may be diseased (
article 5(a)
); and
in paragraph 2 (use of dogs below ground to protect
birds for shooting) of that Schedule, by
adding the protection of livestock as a purpose for
which that exemption applies, and by providing
that the existing requirement to make available, to
a constable who asks to see it, written evidence
of a person’s right to be on land where the activit
y takes place, may now be fulfilled, if not
immediately, then by the person’s producing such ev
idence at a police station specified by him
within seven days or as soon as is reasonably pract
icable (
article 4
).
As required by section 28(2)(a) of the Small Busine
ss, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (c.
26) the Order requires the Secretary of State to re
view the operation and effect of this Order and
publish a report within five years after it comes i
nto force and within every five years after that
(
article 7
). Following a review it will fall to the Secretary
of State to consider whether the Order
should remain as it is, or be revoked or be amended
. A further instrument would be needed to
revoke the Order or to amend it.
An impact assessment has not been produced for this
instrument as no, or no significant, impact
on the private, voluntary or public sectors is fore
seen.
4
£4.25
UK2015070815 07/2015 19585
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/ukdsi/2015/9780111
137628
© Crown copyright 2015
Printed and published in the UK by The Stationery O
ffice Limited under the authority and superintenden
ce of Carol Tullo,
Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office and Q
ueen’s Printer of Acts of Parliament.

 

[Alec Swan]

Thanks for that Judgemental.

I do though have a serious problem with the inferences and much of the content. Referring (by inference) to the Fox as vermin, or at best, a pest, is wrong. Again I'll stress the point; The Fox, when he's viewed as a valuable asset, will once more return to the point where there's a degree of reverence. Whilst we consider the Fox to be of no greater value to the countryside than a rat, so these flawed excuses to continue with or promote Hunting, will continue. Neither the Fox nor Man benefits from such an approach.

Whilst I accept that when dealing with politics and by necessity, all may not be as it seems, the simple fact is that it's both the well being of our national vulpine population, and man too who are the poorer for the nonsense which surrounds the arguments of those who will fail to listen to simple and logical common sense.

Alec.

 

[GoblinPony]

I disagree that it done in a "swift and humane manner". Being chased till you are caught, or collapse, and then being shredded/ bitten to pieces is not humane, and I fail to see how people can think that it's kind.

Judging from what you've written, you probably envisage the fox running for hours for its dear life, fully aware that it is being chased and thinking "OMG, I'm going to die!"
However, in reality the hounds follow the scent and the actual animal is, for the most part, not even in sight. It doesn't realize that it is being purposefully hunted, it is just trying to put some distance between itself and all the commotion, often at quite a leisurely pace. It would do the same with hikers, cyclists, dog-walkers. The part of the chase when the hounds can actually see the fox, and the fox realizes imminent danger, is really quite short. And then the first bite usually kills the fox. "Ripping to shreds" - the dramatic expression that the antis love so much - happens after the animal is dead, if at all.

 

[AmyMay]

Hunting has little to do with pest control, but much to do with the thrill of riding across country. I hunted for several years and loved every minute of it. So lets not, anyone, dress it up to be something it's not.

If people really feel there is a need to control the fox population with hounds - fine. But you don't need a field of 30 odd people following along for the 'sport' of it. Most of whom have no interest in controlling the fox population.

I would be very sad to see the act repealed.

 

[ExmoorHunter]

Hunting has little to do with pest control, but much to do with the thrill of riding across country. I hunted for several years and loved every minute of it. So lets not, anyone, dress it up to be something it's not.

If people really feel there is a need to control the fox population with hounds - fine. But you don't need a field of 30 odd people following along for the 'sport' of it. Most of whom have no interest in controlling the fox population.

I would be very sad to see the act repealed.

Hunting in all its forms has everything to do with wildlife management and only sometimes to do with riding across country. I have hunted for many years and still love it. It is an extremely complex issue but, essentially, is beneficial to the quarry species and the environment. It is not only about foxes as I've said previously.

 

[aran]

It's amazing how more prepared the antis are regarding this vote. They have organised and have been barraging MPs with anti-hunting lit via email, FB, and Twitter since they were elected. It's sad that many MPs are under so much anti-attack and very few pros are offering any support. Some are changing their vote due to the onslaught! It's going to be an interesting week!

 

[ycbm]

Ummm, have I missed something? It's not a repeal vote, is it, it's a vote to allow using a pack of hounds to flush to a gun.

I'm not sure, but I think that makes it a complete fudge by Cameron? So he can't be seen to be responsible for repealing a popular act, instead he makes it so that as long as someone somewhere on the hunt carries a gun, it will never be possible to get a conviction for returning to hunting with a mounted fieldthe way it was always done? Because it won't be possible ever to prove that the hounds were not flushing to a gun?

Is that how it's going to work?

 

[Countryman]

Ummm, have I missed something? It's not a repeal vote, is it, it's a vote to allow using a pack of hounds to flush to a gun.

I'm not sure, but I think that makes it a complete fudge by Cameron? So he can't be seen to be responsible for repealing a popular act, instead he makes it so that as long as someone somewhere on the hunt carries a gun, it will never be possible to get a conviction for returning to hunting with a mounted fieldthe way it was always done? Because it won't be possible ever to prove that the hounds were not flushing to a gun?

Is that how it's going to work?

No, that's not the case - the idea that this will make the ban unenforceable is (sadly) not true. The situation is no different to that currently enjoyed by some hunts under the falconry exemption - they can hunt within the law, but t is not traditional hunting.

With luck, once EVEL is secured, we may have a chance at actual repeal. This is really just what the official line is - a minor, technical amendment which will allow the gunpacks in Wales a better shot at pest control than they currently can.

 

[Lizzie66]

Ummm, have I missed something? It's not a repeal vote, is it, it's a vote to allow using a pack of hounds to flush to a gun.

I'm not sure, but I think that makes it a complete fudge by Cameron? So he can't be seen to be responsible for repealing a popular act, instead he makes it so that as long as someone somewhere on the hunt carries a gun, it will never be possible to get a conviction for returning to hunting with a mounted fieldthe way it was always done? Because it won't be possible ever to prove that the hounds were not flushing to a gun?

Is that how it's going to work?

This seems more of a test for the SNP MPs than anything else. DC is basically saying we want to change the law in England and Wales to be as it is in Scotland how are you Scottish MPs going to vote ?

They have no alternative but to abstain, the alternative is them being seen to insist that Scotland can determine its own laws but also stop E&W having the same law (or vice versa). This would bring all English and Welsh MPs from all parties having to vote for EVEL whether they want to or not. Not because the English and Welsh are massively bothered about fox-hunting (as in the main they aren't), but the publicity of the SNP say no to England and Wales matching them would force their hand.

 

[Tiddlypom]

It's amazing how more prepared the antis are regarding this vote. They have organised and have been barraging MPs with anti-hunting lit via email, FB, and Twitter since they were elected. It's sad that many MPs are under so much anti-attack and very few pros are offering any support. Some are changing their vote due to the onslaught! It's going to be an interesting week!

I'm certainly hearing more noise from the antis than the pros. This piece in the Mirror, headed 'Former fox hunter exposes full scale of bloodsport's barbarity as David Cameron seeks its return' was mentioned on this morning's R4 Today programme.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/former-fox-hunter-exposes-full-6054986

 

[EquiEquestrian556]

Deleted.