So National Trust have voted to ban trail hunting because …

[canteron]

They believed it was being used as a smokescreen for ‘proper’ hunting.

Well done all those smug arrogant hunts who though they were above the law, you’ve ruined it for everyone!?

 

[teapot]

I thought results weren't out until the NT AGM?

 

[teddy_]

I thought results weren't out until the NT AGM?

The Countryside Alliance have released a statement on Facebook.

I shall be cancelling my National Trust membership .

 

[Sandstone1]

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-10-30/national-trust-votes-to-ban-trail-hunting-on-their-land

 

[ycbm]

ETA the vote has to be implemented at the AGM. The rest of this post assumes that it will be.

I feel so sorry for people who were hunting legally and have now lost their ground.

It was a sadly predictable outcome of the arrogance of people who thought they were above the law and the many in trail and drag hunting who knew but did nothing to stop them.

I don't think this will be the last ground lost because of the webinars.
.

 

[teapot]

The Countryside Alliance have released a statement on Facebook.

I shall be cancelling my National Trust membership .

Thanks!

It's here for anyone who hasn't seen it:

https://www.facebook.com/CountrysideAllianceUpdates/posts/4633954493309777

 

[Sandstone1]

Grasping at straws I think. It is just another nail in the coffin.

 

[palo1]

Well the NT don't have to abide by the vote in fact and it is tiny proportion of the membership that voted either way; it's not in fact a show of 'passion' from the membership on the resolution.

98% of members did not feel strongly enough to vote on the resolution so it's not exactly a ringing endorsement of the proposal.

I wonder who the NT's most extreme members will decide is not part of their 'For everyone, for ever' mission next...? Perhaps shooting and farming will be next in line. I guess 'everyone' isn't really everyone. Such a stupid, knee jerk reaction to a hugely divisive campaign run very successfully by a tiny number of extremists.

Still Wild Justice met their comeuppance in part in the last week or so. It's not all bad news in the countryside. Thank goodness we have nothing to do with the National Front Trust here.

As part of a diversity and inclusivity policy the NT have just scored an own goal. For those people who entrusted their estates to the charity with specific requests for sporting activities including hunting to be maintained this is a complete betrayal although the Trust will make a policy decision following the vote so they may at least pause for reflection on the situation they now find themselves in. I know many people working for the Trust who have their head in their hands at this development and others who have left because of the direction of travel...

I guess at least the HSA and others can have a mention on the front page though.

 

[DirectorFury]

The statement mentions “trail hunting, exempt hunting, and hound exercise” — does anyone know if this includes bloodhound packs who only “hunt” the clean-boot of a runner, and ergo cannot/do not ever hunt fox as they’re not trained on that scent?

 

[Rowreach]

Well the NT don't have to abide by the vote in fact and it is tiny proportion of the membership that voted either way; it's not in fact a show of 'passion' from the membership on the resolution.

98% of members did not feel strongly enough to vote on the resolution so it's not exactly a ringing endorsement of the proposal.

I wonder who the NT's most extreme members will decide is not part of their 'For everyone, for ever' mission next...? Perhaps shooting and farming will be next in line. I guess 'everyone' isn't really everyone. Such a stupid, knee jerk reaction to a hugely divisive campaign run very successfully by a tiny number of extremists.

Still Wild Justice met their comeuppance in part in the last week or so. It's not all bad news in the countryside. Thank goodness we have nothing to do with the National Front Trust here.

As part of a diversity and inclusivity policy the NT have just scored an own goal. For those people who entrusted their estates to the charity with specific requests for sporting activities including hunting to be maintained this is a complete betrayal although the Trust will make a policy decision following the vote so they may at least pause for reflection on the situation they now find themselves in. I know many people working for the Trust who have their head in their hands at this development and others who have left because of the direction of travel...

I guess at least the HSA and others can have a mention on the front page though.

It'll be interesting to see how it pans out here where hunting is still legal and we do indeed have NT places where the sporting rights, including the right for the hunt to use the land, have been retained by the donor fami!ies.

 

[ycbm]

Well the NT don't have to abide by the vote in fact and it is tiny proportion of the membership that voted either way; it's not in fact a show of 'passion' from the membership on the resolution.

98% of members did not feel strongly enough to vote on the resolution so it's not exactly a ringing endorsement of the proposal.

I wonder who the NT's most extreme members will decide is not part of their 'For everyone, for ever' mission next...? Perhaps shooting and farming will be next in line. I guess 'everyone' isn't really everyone. Such a stupid, knee jerk reaction to a hugely divisive campaign run very successfully by a tiny number of extremists.

Still Wild Justice met their comeuppance in part in the last week or so. It's not all bad news in the countryside. Thank goodness we have nothing to do with the National Front Trust here.

As part of a diversity and inclusivity policy the NT have just scored an own goal. For those people who entrusted their estates to the charity with specific requests for sporting activities including hunting to be maintained this is a complete betrayal although the Trust will make a policy decision following the vote so they may at least pause for reflection on the situation they now find themselves in. I know many people working for the Trust who have their head in their hands at this development and others who have left because of the direction of travel...

I guess at least the HSA and others can have a mention on the front page though.

What strikes me about this response is that there is no acknowledgement of the part illegal hunting or the lacklustre response of the governing body of hunting to the recent conviction played in this "stupid knee-jerk reaction".

IMO if trail hunting had made any significant move to condemn and distance themselves from illegal fox hunting that they were fully aware of, this would not have even been put to a vote.
.

 

[paddy555]

What strikes me about this response is that there is no acknowledgement of the part illegal hunting or the lacklustre response of the governing body of hunting to the recent conviction played in this "stupid knee-jerk reaction".


.

i agree, Palo's post just appears to try and blame everyone but the hunts and their governing body.

 

[Tiddlypom]

It's rather revealing that pro hunt, who knew just how important this vote was for the future of trail hunting itself, could only rustle up 38,184 votes to oppose the motion despite vigorous lobbying.

A total of 76,816 votes were cast for the motion, with 38,184 votes against and 18,047 abstentions.

It was only a small percentage of the overall NT membership who voted, for sure, but pro hunt were trounced.

 

[AShetlandBitMeOnce]

It's rather revealing that pro hunt, who knew just how important this vote was for the future of trail hunting itself, could only rustle up 38,184 votes to oppose the motion despite vigorous lobbying.

A total of 76,816 votes were cast for the motion, with 38,184 votes against and 18,047 abstentions.

It was only a small percentage of the overall NT membership who voted, for sure, but pro hunt were trounced.

I am a NT member (for now) and would have voted but I had no idea this conversation was even happening - so it can't have been advertised that well.. or I'm just that ignorant.

 

[Tiddlypom]

I wouldn't have expected someone who wasn't looking for it to be aware, but details of the AGM and the motions were in the mailing bumpf that was sent out recently. The bumpf that hardly anyone reads . There were quite a few other motions, too.

The pro hunt side, though, were very aware, and were trying to whip up support for the vote against.

OH and I did vote . It was easy to vote on line using our membership numbers.

 

[timefort]

I wouldn't have expected someone who wasn't looking for it to be aware, but details of the AGM and the motions were in the mailing bumpf that was sent out recently. The bumpf that hardly anyone reads . There were quite a few other motions, too.

The pro hunt side, though, were very aware, and were trying to whip up support for the vote against.

OH and I did vote . It was easy to vote on line using our membership numbers.

It will be interesting to see what the outcome of the AGM is. It always saddens me that so few of the membership vote in these things. From the number of email reminders and bumpff in the post it was almost impossible to ignore, and voting online was really easy. To my mind, one of the reasons I am a member is so that I can cast my vote regarding how the membership is run. I fully accept that my voice is only one among many and that votes may not go the way I hope, but at least I can't complain that I didn't have my say.

 

[palo1]

What strikes me about this response is that there is no acknowledgement of the part illegal hunting or the lacklustre response of the governing body of hunting to the recent conviction played in this "stupid knee-jerk reaction".

IMO if trail hunting had made any significant move to condemn and distance themselves from illegal fox hunting that they were fully aware of, this would not have even been put to a vote.
.

I think that is incredibly naive tbh @ycbm. Of course illegal hunting has caused a problem but you forget that the vast media noise and presence of anti-hunting extremists has far more to do with it than the incidents of illegal hunting which are, in animal welfare terms and incidents of illegality, numerically, absolutely tiny. The NT have far worse problems with all sorts of other illegal activities and incidents of animal disturbance and harrassment but that hasn't been taken up as a cause celebre. I have read report after report after report from sab groups which are just vitriol and speculation with nothing whatsoever to 'say' and absolutely nothing to prove in terms of illegal hunting. The 'noise' has been significant and clearly the antis are winning the social media war. When hunts don't hunt illegally sabs assert that they have 'prevented' foxes being killed rather than accepting that hunts are acting within the law whether sabs/antis like it or not.

In this instance I think you are somewhat blind to some of the realities as I know you will say I am.

ETA - I do get your point and agree that the news around hunting has been appalling and that there has undoubtedly been some very, very poor behaviour. The noise around that just isn't proportionate.

 

[palo1]

The statement mentions “trail hunting, exempt hunting, and hound exercise” — does anyone know if this includes bloodhound packs who only “hunt” the clean-boot of a runner, and ergo cannot/do not ever hunt fox as they’re not trained on that scent?

I think bloodhounds will be fine on NT property - no idea about draghounds.

 

[Miss_Millie]

Those that continue to hunt illegally have brought this upon themselves and only have themselves to blame.

The majority of people I know who have NT memberships just love visitings old houses and gardens, they are 'average' members of the British public, who don't really care about a small minority of people who want to ride horses all over the countryside. If post-ban hunting had maintained a clean image this whole time then I'm sure no-one would care either way, but hunting has had enough bad press (even if it truly is from a minority of rule breaking thugs) that the general public feel passionate about ending hunting all together.

A report on The Ecologist suggested that there were close to 500 reports of illegal hunting in 2020 sooo, that doesn't exactly sound like the odd incident to me

 

[palo1]

Those that continue to hunt illegally have brought this upon themselves and only have themselves to blame.

The majority of people I know who have NT memberships just love visitings old houses and gardens, they are 'average' members of the British public, who don't really care about a small minority of people who want to ride horses all over the countryside. If post-ban hunting had maintained a clean image this whole time then I'm sure no-one would care either way, but hunting has had enough bad press (even if it truly is from a minority of rule breaking thugs) that the general public feel passionate about ending hunting all together.

A report on The Ecologist suggested that there were close to 500 reports of illegal hunting in 2020 sooo, that doesn't exactly sound like the odd incident to me

Every time sabs go out they are likely to file a 'report' of illegal hunting; that certainly doesn't mean that illegal hunting is taking place - it is a tactic to inflate the incident reports. The NT told members only this year in relation to the proposed ban that trail hunting created no more disturbance to wildlife etc than any other activity and that the Trust itself were satisfied that all legalities around hunting were satisfactory; you should read the information they sent members.

I am not saying that there have not been some awful incidents for which illegal hunters should be rightfully prosecuted. I am saying that the NT have been sucked in to a narrative that is against their own constitution, against those donors who bequeathed estates with the maintenance of hunting rights as a proviso and in direct contradiction t their own, most recent mission statement that they are 'for everyone, for ever.' If the Trust goes ahead to action this result they will have failed me as a member as well as a great many others including some of their most influential estate donors (eg Beatrix Potter whose property is a huge money earner along with Troutbeck Park - specifically bequeathed with the hunting rights to remain intact) and will be on the frontline of some very difficult questions about their mandate holding certain properties.

I guess I don't matter. The Trust doesn't mean me when they say 'for everyone'; that is someone else. I wonder who, in fact, 'everyone' is...

Many of the NT's properties were created and maintained with wealth gained from all sorts of activities - which in spite of holding the properties as assets, the trust are now trying to sanitise and distance themselves from. That lack of integrity, openness and honesty isn't ethical, or in fact a decent business plan.

 

[Miss_Millie]

Every time sabs go out they are likely to file a 'report' of illegal hunting; that certainly doesn't mean that illegal hunting is taking place - it is a tactic to inflate the incident reports. The NT told members only this year in relation to the proposed ban that trail hunting created no more disturbance to wildlife etc than any other activity and that the Trust itself were satisfied that all legalities around hunting were satisfactory; you should read the information they sent members.

I am not saying that there have not been some awful incidents for which illegal hunters should be rightfully prosecuted. I am saying that the NT have been sucked in to a narrative that is against their own constitution, against those donors who bequeathed estates with the maintenance of hunting rights as a proviso and in direct contradiction t their own, most recent mission statement that they are 'for everyone, for ever.' If the Trust goes ahead to action this result they will have failed me as a member as well as a great many others including some of their most influential estate donors (eg Beatrix Potter whose property is a huge money earner along with Troutbeck Park - specifically bequeathed with the hunting rights to remain intact) and will be on the frontline of some very difficult questions about their mandate holding certain properties.

I guess I don't matter. The Trust doesn't mean me when they say 'for everyone'; that is someone else. I wonder who, in fact, 'everyone' is...

Many of the NT's properties were created and maintained with wealth gained from all sorts of activities - which in spite of holding the properties as assets, the trust are now trying to sanitise and distance themselves from. That lack of integrity, openness and honesty isn't ethical, or in fact a decent business plan.

Once again, if hunting had kept a clean image all these years and it was literally just horses and dogs running about the countryside, then I doubt anyone would care either way. But various incidents are always in the papers every year come hunting season, which does not go down well with the majority of Brits, a 'nation of animal lovers'. I have even seen people on farm forums say they deliberately trim the hedges on days the hunt are out to keep them away from their land, which suggests real resentment even from some who live in the countryside - it isn't even just a city vs country thing which I think highlights just how controversial the sport is.

 

[SO1]

I agree most NT members won't hunt or know people who do their main information on hunting will come from the press.

It will not just be the problem with illegal fox hunting but also the issue with the way hounds PTS and the sad death of a child. A lot of people will have found this coverage unpleasant and sad.

I expect trail hunting using fox scent will end up being banned due to risk of hounds picking up scents of foxes and going off piste and accidentally killing a fox. I am not sure why fox scent is still used and what the benefit of using it are in terms of the sort of experience people get when using fox scent compared to hounds trained to follow a different sent.

Hunting is very much a minority sport due to cost. There will also be people who think riding horses is cruel and I can see from an external viewpoint why people might think that. I think a lot of the general public would find it distressing to see a fox ripped apart by hounds or being chased whilst on their county walk even if it was accidental.

Although nothing to do with hunting the documentary about race horses and slaughter and the modern pentathlon debacle won't endear horse owners/riders to the general public.

Those that continue to hunt illegally have brought this upon themselves and only have themselves to blame.

The majority of people I know who have NT memberships just love visitings old houses and gardens, they are 'average' members of the British public, who don't really care about a small minority of people who want to ride horses all over the countryside. If post-ban hunting had maintained a clean image this whole time then I'm sure no-one would care either way, but hunting has had enough bad press (even if it truly is from a minority of rule breaking thugs) that the general public feel passionate about ending hunting all together.

A report on The Ecologist suggested that there were close to 500 reports of illegal hunting in 2020 sooo, that doesn't exactly sound like the odd incident to me

 

[GSD Woman]

Is there not private land where packs can drag hunt? I know I live in a different world but here many hunts hunt mostly on private land such as farms and hayfields. Of course, we're losing such land at a rapid rate and some of the hunts have had to move farther out to have access to such land.

 

[HashRouge]

I guess I don't matter. The Trust doesn't mean me when they say 'for everyone'; that is someone else. I wonder who, in fact, 'everyone' is...

.

You are being a bit melodramatic, no? You can still go and visit any of the many NT properties in this country and walk through their grounds/ gardens etc. You can probably even still drag hunt or follow the blood hounds across their land, based on the wording of the ruling. YOU aren't being excluded, just the controversial, minority sport that you participate in.

 

[Red-1]

Is there not private land where packs can drag hunt? I know I live in a different world but here many hunts hunt mostly on private land such as farms and hayfields. Of course, we're losing such land at a rapid rate and some of the hunts have had to move farther out to have access to such land.

Most hunting seems, in my area at least, to be over private land, but it is land belonging to a hotch potch of people. Sadly, in our locality, people are not being asked for permission for hounds/hunt to cross the land, they just go ahead and do it.

Sadly, IME, from trying 'hunting' after the ban, as opposed to the bloodhounding that I used to do, they are indeed hunting fox, making little effort to hide it to the field followers. Thus, the fox runs, hounds follow, field follows... over everyone's land, permission or no permission. Damage has been done, residents' horses injured (especially as they now no longer even inform people when they are in the area, in case of sabs) and one poor pony died. Died after the hunt crossed the land it was grazing on, twice in a day, with no permission. Horses turned out on strips of grazing with electric fence, injured because they run through the fencing, owners none the wiser that the hunt is visiting.

There may 'only' be 500 incidents reported... I have personally witnessed some, but how would I prove it? They would say it was an accident, hounds were being pulled away from the scent etc. How do I prove the intent?

I think that the ban on NT properties was inevitable, TBH. Because of the behaviour of some hunts. I think it is more than Palo believes though.

 

[ycbm]

Is there not private land where packs can drag hunt? I know I live in a different world but here many hunts hunt mostly on private land such as farms and hayfields. Of course, we're losing such land at a rapid rate and some of the hunts have had to move farther out to have access to such land.

They do hunt mostly on private land but this is a very symbolic move because of the status of the National Trust. Anything they do makes the papers. If they do ban it at the AGM, then it could strengthen the hands of any tenant farmers who are forced to allow hunts across their land by the landowner when they don't want them.

 

[paddy555]

They do hunt mostly on private land but this is a very symbolic move because of the status of the National Trust. Anything they do makes the papers. If they do ban it at the AGM, then it could strengthen the hands of any tenant farmers who are forced to allow hunts across their land by the landowner when they don't want them.

and when the landowner is the future king? not sure that is going to happen.

 

[Tiddlypom]

and when the landowner is the future king? not sure that is going to happen.

But it was my local affluent (and very pro hunt) sporting estate's actions who forced my local hunt to go legit. The estate own numerous tenant farms round here. The estate simply couldn't afford the bad publicity that kept being foisted on them by continuing to sanction/turn a blind eye to blatant fox hunting on their land.

So the hunt got an ultimatum. Go legit and stop the bad publicity, or you're banned.

 

[paddy555]

But it was my local affluent (and very pro hunt) sporting estate's actions who forced my local hunt to go legit. The estate own numerous tenant farms round here. The estate simply couldn't afford the bad publicity that kept being foisted on them by continuing to sanction/turn a blind eye to blatant fox hunting on their land.

So the hunt got an ultimatum. Go legit and stop the bad publicity, or you're banned.

I was replying to the point about Tennant farms and hunts over their land when they don't want them.

 

[ycbm]

I was replying to the point about Tennant farms and hunts over their land when they don't want them.

I'm sure the landowner TP commented on was receiving pressure internally from their farmers as well as externally from sabbing. Their most reliable information about illegal hunting will have come from their farmers.
.