Repeal vote imminent ?

[Exploding Chestnuts]

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

The fox lives in an "earth", but many will lie in other places, I don't think smoke would do much good., Some people use cyanide gas to kill them I believe, which sounds dreadful.
"lamping" is probably a reasonable method of fox control. but there are a lot of poachers who use these methods illegally, it's probably very dangerous to have random criminals scouring the countryside at night with shotguns, very scary for residents.

 

[Alec Swan]

Bonkers 2,

It's illegal to use cyanide gas (commercially sold as Cymag) to gas foxes. 'Lamping' is the most indiscriminate method of controlling fox numbers, as no thought is given to gender or the time of year. When we stop considering our vulpine population as 'vermin' or 'pests', then we'll stop night shooting vixens whilst they're nursing cubs, and we'll stop killing cubs which have barely had a chance to grow and to learn the art of survival. The near constant killing of cubs after harvest fails in its purpose in that it disrupts the staged and natural evolvement of the fox as a species. If only those who are so totally opposed to Hunting could see the devastating level of damage which they have done. They can't see it though, and there's a reason for that, they don't actually care!

Alec.

 

[Herne]

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.

How could I forget...

Especially as any use of a Statutory Instrument cannot disable any act of parliament.

How true.

Got anything to say to me...?

 

[JanetGeorge]

I'm certainly hearing more noise from the antis than the pros.

IMHO, that is due to the fact that organisations like League Against Cruel Sports have better PROs and are much more committed to getting hunting banned than the Countryside Alliance who is short of good PROs - and IF it is dedicated to saving hunting, it is using FAR too subtle a set of techniques to stand a chance!

It's also incompetent in basic PR tools - I TRIED to visit it's 'new' website tonight and discovered very quickly that it was IMPOSSIBLE to access more than a quarter of its contact in Firefox because the navigation tool bars were useless,

I have a LITTLE bit of hope that the new Chief Executive Tim Bonner will have a bit more success than every Chief Executive who has done the job since 1998 (it wouldn' need much from hunting people's point of view.) But - of course - even if Tim has a high level of competence, his success (or otherwise) depends very heavily on the current Board (and it has proven over the past 17 years - at least to me - that the Board isn't much help to anyone.)

I remember a number of Board members from way back in 1995 to 1998 although the vast majority of them weren't Board members then. A few of them were perfectly nice - but NONE of them do I consider particular clever!

Good luck to Tim Bonner - he'll need it - as do hunting people who want the hunt ban lifted. I personally don't care that much - I'm only still a member of the CA because I stayed in it while my husband was an MFH (until 2013). And there is VERY little chance I'll hunt again.

 

[Herne]

Got anything to say to me...?

Answer came there none.

Not that much of a surprise, I suppose....

 

[Judgemental]

Answer came there none.

Not that much of a surprise, I suppose....

Well Herne, there was no reply, because I was of the opinion at the time, that the Government Business Secretary was ill advised to promote the use of the Statutory Instrument so soon after the election.

In other words his timing, probably at the behest of 'Call me Dave' was wrong.

They should have waited until 'Call me Dave' had effectively compromised Mrs Sturgeon.

Also the whips were able to compromise the Blue Foxes and others.

Furthermore they should have waited until the outcome of the Labour Leadership Election was known, coupled to the identity of the Shadow Minister of Agriculture who is a Vice President of the League Against Cruel Sports.

Bearing in mind I was not the OP, I could not see any point in commenting because it was a waste of time, largely because these matters and overall strategy need greater time and maturity.

 

[Judgemental]

Well Herne, there was no reply, because I was of the opinion at the time, that the Government Business Secretary was ill advised to promote the use of the Statutory Instrument so soon after the election.

In other words his timing, probably at the behest of 'Call me Dave' was wrong.

They should have waited until 'Call me Dave' had effectively compromised Mrs Sturgeon.

Also the whips were able to compromise the Blue Foxes and others.

Furthermore they should have waited until the outcome of the Labour Leadership Election was known, coupled to the identity of the Shadow Minister of Agriculture who is a Vice President of the League Against Cruel Sports.

Bearing in mind I was not the OP, I could not see any point in commenting because it was a waste of time, largely because these matters and overall strategy need greater time and maturity.

Herne I would hate for you not to feel I had been wholly objective but in my opinion, a 'pigs ear' has been made of the issue.

In fact as far as I can see, the chances of success are about as easy as rolling a 'barrel of pork' up hill to St Catherine's Chapel at Abbotsbury (Cattistock Country).

Or to put it another way, it seems unlikely that the Government are going to 'bring home the bacon' concerning the Hunting Act 2004.

 

[Herne]

Well Herne, there was no reply, because I was of the opinion at the time, that the Government Business Secretary was ill advised to promote the use of the Statutory Instrument so soon after the election.

I was referring to our many previous conversations during which I attempted to explain to you the limitations of Statutory Instruments, whilst you maintained, with some vigour, that a Secretary of State could use one to make any changes that he chose, and, indeed, proposed various changes that would in fact have been ruled ultra vires if attempted.

You appear to have changed your position - in the light of which I was wondering whether you might have anything to say to me?

 

[Judgemental]

I was referring to our many previous conversations during which I attempted to explain to you the limitations of Statutory Instruments, whilst you maintained, with some vigour, that a Secretary of State could use one to make any changes that he chose, and, indeed, proposed various changes that would in fact have been ruled ultra vires if attempted.

You appear to have changed your position - in the light of which I was wondering whether you might have anything to say to me?

I changed my position when I saw that the SNP were not going to do the decent thing and opt for English Votes for English laws.

Had the Government stood back from the issue and waited for a bargaining chip or two to materialist with the SNP. Then things would be different but the lack of maturity in the Conservative ranks, caused them to rush into the subject, somewhat prematurely

Ideally the Barnett Formula, could have been used as a fulcrum to persuade Mrs Sturgeon to maintain the status quo of English Votes for English laws and abstained on the hunting issue, which she said during the General Election Campaign that was the SNP's policy.

Since you have decided to seek my opinion, I do have to point out that I started the thread on this forum, "SNP to hold the balance of power". Really in the belief that Mr Sturgeon has no intention of being helpful unless cornered.

 

[Alec Swan]

The Pope'll marry Jordan before the Hunting Act is repealed.

Alec.

 

[Goldenstar]

The Pope'll marry Jordan before the Hunting Act is repealed.

Alec.

Nice thought , off to do some house work that thought will amuse me .

 

[Herne]

I changed my position when ... no intention of being helpful unless cornered.

Nope, you just can't bring yourself to do it, can you...

Humility is a rare commodity these days.

 

[Herne]

The Pope'll marry Jordan before the Hunting Act is repealed.

"Nothing can be done, so there's no point in trying to do something" - a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Some people think they can, some people think they can't - they are usually right...

 

[Herne]

Kaufen, you cannot understand it because you do not wish to understand it. You have decided that hunting people are terrible people out for sadistic thrills and you only acknowledge the aspects of the argument that correspond to your desired conclusions and ignore the rest.

There are lots of things you can enjoy about hunting other than the kill - otherwise why would people go drag hunting?

If you can accept that there are good reasons why people enjoy going drag hunting and you can accept that there are good reasons why farmers might want to shoot foxes - then it is sheer deliberate obtuseness to assume that instead of hunting being a way of combining all the good points of both into one, suddenly all of the points you accept about each individual activity go out of the window and the only possible reason for doing the combined version is sadism. it is flawed thinking.

Your reasoning also falls down because the majority of fox-shooting is done by people who enjoy shooting. If a farmer does not enjoy shooting, then rather than bothering himself he will get someone in who wants to do it.

As for a pack of dogs ripping an animal to pieces, the Labour Government's Burns Inquiry carried out autopsies of hunted foxes and concluded that insensibility and death occurs within a matter of seconds. If we were into hunting for sadism, where on earth would be the point in that? All that expense and effort for the suffering to be over in seconds? Simply makes no sense whatsoever. Sadists would choose something else.

 

[FFAQ]

There have been a few comments about how the anti's campaign seems to be better run and organised than the pros. Could that be because the ban is a bit of a joke anyway? It's my understanding that hunting carries on in exactly the same way as before, but nobody admits to it! A couple of years ago, I witnessed a member of staff at the local hunt kennels beating one of the dogs with a length of blue pipe which holding the dog by it's tail. I called the RSPCA immediately who said that they would go and have a word but it was pointless because hunts are never prosecuted. Perhaps that is why the pro-hunting groups aren't appearing too bothered about whether the ban is repealed - they think there will never be a prosecution anyway?

 

[Countryman]

There have been a few comments about how the anti's campaign seems to be better run and organised than the pros. Could that be because the ban is a bit of a joke anyway? It's my understanding that hunting carries on in exactly the same way as before, but nobody admits to it! A couple of years ago, I witnessed a member of staff at the local hunt kennels beating one of the dogs with a length of blue pipe which holding the dog by it's tail. I called the RSPCA immediately who said that they would go and have a word but it was pointless because hunts are never prosecuted. Perhaps that is why the pro-hunting groups aren't appearing too bothered about whether the ban is repealed - they think there will never be a prosecution anyway?

What nonsense. Name the hunt and I might believe you. To suggest "hunts are never prosecuted" is to show a total lack of knowledge of the issue. In fact, the RSPCA and others actually make it a point to prosecute hunts at every possible opportunity -the complete opposite of your allegation. Interestingly critics have pointed out how you cannot fail to plead guilty, even if you are not, if the alternative is risking £1 million in court costs, however unlikely the risk.

There has been a political campaign against hunting, with private prosecutions used by some not for their intended purpose but purely to score political points.

 

[FFAQ]

It was Silverton hunt in Devon. I must admit, at the time I wasn't very impressed with the RSPCA's response - they just seemed like they couldn't be bothered!

 

[Countryman]

It was Silverton hunt in Devon. I must admit, at the time I wasn't very impressed with the RSPCA's response - they just seemed like they couldn't be bothered!

Which is precisely why I'm afraid I don't believe you. The RSPCA would have jumped on any possible hint of wrongdoing by a hunt.

 

[FFAQ]

Rude!