So National Trust have voted to ban trail hunting because …

[Koweyka]

I once filmed a fox kill, we had everything needed we had the huntsman encouraging the hounds with hounds chasing the fox and eventually killing the fox while the huntsman stood over it. Filmed on many cameras, we retrieved the two pieces of the Fox and had a post mortem done to prove how the Fox died, it definitely wasn’t a swift nip to the neck, the police took it to the CPS. Two days before the CPS had to decide whether they would prosecute (The CPS have a habit of waiting until the six months summary time is practically up) a tape of a trail apparently being laid surfaced, not even the area the fox was killed and we had seen no trails laid at all.

The CPS decided not to prosecute. It gave us no time to prove this trail hasn’t been laid where the fox died as the owner of the land had already previously banned them from it, he was overseas and his statement wouldn’t arrive before the deadline.

But this is the trail hunt smokescreen, the chance of success rate in court for hunting cases is much higher.
It’s so difficult to prove, the hunting act needs to be strengthened not rescinded.

It needs a recklessness clause added to it. If you lay a trail of fox urine into a covert where foxes live and a fox is killed well that’s reckless. I know enough huntsman and they all know where the foxes live, if they kill a fox in these circumstances then they should be charg

Animal based scents have to be banned.

Trails should not be laid in areas foxes are likely to live, they don’t need to run adjacent and through coverts, hoping to pick up a Fox and claim accident.


Terrier men have no place on a trail hunt, if the land owner chooses to have foxes killed why do they have to do it the same

Publish the meets and the routes.

If you are transparent and open invite monitors to watch when we know hunts are acting within the law and
killing they do get left alone.

Its the same hunts that kill time and time again and they are the ones sabbed and monitored.

I find the terminology being banded about such as ethnic cleansing and terrorists disgusting.

In the summer I gave evidence to the crown court about an horrendous assault suffered by a member of our group. So blatant it went to crown court. This is the fifth conviction for violence and threats made to us from the hunts in the last three years alone, not one conviction or investigation against our group.

 

[palo1]

I think, sadly, that hunting will slowly die out. I love the spectacle of it and spent many, many years of my life going as often as I could.
The countryside is now so crowded in most places that it is very difficult for there to be enough space for everyone.

I think hunting could survive but only if hunts come out with greater transparency and less (understandable) defensiveness as well as a reduced number of hunts that utilise more open areas of country.

As I have said a number of times, where there is plenty of open country we are welcomed; it is far more difficult for hunts on intensively farmed land and where there are suburban areas.

 

[Gallop_Away]

If you are transparent and open invite monitors to watch when we know hunts are acting within the law and
killing they do get left alone.

Its the same hunts that kill time and time again and they are the ones sabbed and monitored.
.

Sorry but this is pure tosh!!

 

[Koweyka]

Sorry but this is pure tosh!!

Really, so the fact it is already happening with a fair few hunts tells me you really have no idea what really goes on so errrr gallop on eh …

 

[Gallop_Away]

Really, so the fact it is already happening with a fair few hunts tells me you really have no idea what really goes on so errrr gallop on eh …

Well aren't you just so polite .....

It is certainly not happening with my hunt who have invited sab groups to accompany our trail layers on many an occasion. They've declined.

They continue to harass and disrupt our LEGAL hunting activity on a regular basis, despite not one shred of evidence of illegal hunting. They simply say that we are only hunting legally due to their presence. We really can not win.

They are nothing but masked thugs who only care about "sticking it to the toffs"(their words btw). You may not like the term terrorist but hey if the shoe fits.....
so please do not attempt to patronise me and tell me I don't know what is going on.

 

[Tiddlypom]

Sorry but this is pure tosh!!

From her (?) earlier comments, Koweyka must operate in a similar area to mine. In these parts, the sabs and monitors do back off when a hunt goes legit. They continue to keep an eye on them, but don't otherwise interfere with the hunting day.

Unfortunately, from yours and others comments, some legit packs are still being sabbed, even when hunting legally. That's not good, but it's not what happens here.

Sabs, if you are reading this, do back off if a hunt is doing its best to hunt legally and to not kill any foxes.

 

[Gallop_Away]

From her (?) earlier comments, Koweyka must operate in a similar area to mine. In these parts, the sabs and monitors do back off when a hunt goes legit. They continue to keep an eye on them, but don't otherwise interfere with the hunting day.

Unfortunately, from yours and others comments, some legit packs are still being sabbed, even when hunting legally. That's not good, but it's not what happens here.

Sabs, if you are reading this, do back off if a hunt is doing its best to hunt legally and to not kill any foxes.

I realise this does seem to be the case in Cheshire and I really do hope its a sign things are changing.
Legal hunts need to do more to show that they are acting within the law but equally sabs need to also show willing and back off when hunts are clearly not committing any crimes. That does nor mean they shouldn't continue to monitor, but the violence trespass and disruption to legal hunts must also stop!!

 

[Koweyka]

Well aren't you just so polite .....

It is certainly not happening with my hunt who have invited sab groups to accompany our trail layers on many an occasion. They've declined.

They continue to harass and disrupt our LEGAL hunting activity on a regular basis, despite not one shred of evidence of illegal hunting. They simply say that we are only hunting legally due to their presence. We really can not win.

They are nothing but masked thugs who only care about "sticking it to the toffs"(their words btw). You may not like the term terrorist but hey if the shoe fits.....
so please do not attempt to patronise me and tell me I don't know what is going on.

Oh I’m sorry not sorry, another one who tries to dish out but can’t take it when it’s passed back.

Start putting your meets on line even the most hardline Sabs will stop and think hang on if they are being open there is nothing to hide. If you aren’t killing they move to a hunt that is. But there must be something that’s making them doubt your integrity. That’s just how it is …..

 

[Gallop_Away]

Oh I’m sorry not sorry, another one who tries to dish out but can’t take it when it’s passed back.

Start putting your meets on line even the most hardline Sabs will stop and think hang on if they are being open there is nothing to hide. If you aren’t killing they move to a hunt that is. But there must be something that’s making them doubt your integrity. That’s just how it is …..

Our meet list WAS previously online. It made no difference. I can assure you there is not one shred of illegal hunting taking place in our hunt and i find the insinuation insulting.

The fact you automatically assume we must be doing something wrong just proves my point perfectly. We really can not win with you people.

 

[Sandstone1]

"you people" Says it all really.

 

[Fred66]

It's not a terrible indicator though? In the absence of a vote? Better than anything else I've seen posted so far, anyway?

The poll was commissioned by LACS and basically asked (paraphrased):
The following activities where an animals is set upon another to kill it are currently illegal do you think this should be changed for, badger baiting, dog fighting, cock fighting, fox hunting, hare coursing.

This type of questioning is not allowed in any reputable poll as it leads the person to the answer you want.

Any minority activity is unlikely to gain majority support, so personally I think the new cancel culture needs to be stamped on.

 

[Clodagh]

I think hunting could survive but only if hunts come out with greater transparency and less (understandable) defensiveness as well as a reduced number of hunts that utilise more open areas of country.

As I have said a number of times, where there is plenty of open country we are welcomed; it is far more difficult for hunts on intensively farmed land and where there are suburban areas.

Hopefully I’m being unecessarily negative, there’s nothing like it for getting a young horse thinking, if nothing else!
I agree in the wild places it’s viable, but coming from Essex you could see the struggle.

 

[Gallop_Away]

"you people" Says it all really.

Seriously.... that's the one thing you wish to pick out of my post?

After watching a group of sabs corner two 12yo girls on the opening meet recently, and call them "murdering c***s" there are far worse things i could say about sabs.

I utterly condemn illegal hunting and I feel disgusted that we have been dragged down with them. But I also feel sabs who behave like thugs towards riders, horses and hounds are no better...

 

[Sandstone1]

Seriously.... that's the one thing you wish to pick out of my post?

After watching a group of sabs corner two 12yo girls on the opening meet recently, and call them "murdering c***s" there are far worse things i could say about sabs.

I utterly condemn illegal hunting and I feel disgusted that we have been dragged down with them. But I also feel sabs who behave like thugs towards riders, horses and hounds are no better...

As said before there are good and bad on both sides, however your turn of phrase does not help.

 

[palo1]

I once filmed a fox kill, we had everything needed we had the huntsman encouraging the hounds with hounds chasing the fox and eventually killing the fox while the huntsman stood over it. Filmed on many cameras, we retrieved the two pieces of the Fox and had a post mortem done to prove how the Fox died, it definitely wasn’t a swift nip to the neck, the police took it to the CPS. Two days before the CPS had to decide whether they would prosecute (The CPS have a habit of waiting until the six months summary time is practically up) a tape of a trail apparently being laid surfaced, not even the area the fox was killed and we had seen no trails laid at all.

The CPS decided not to prosecute. It gave us no time to prove this trail hasn’t been laid where the fox died as the owner of the land had already previously banned them from it, he was overseas and his statement wouldn’t arrive before the deadline.

But this is the trail hunt smokescreen, the chance of success rate in court for hunting cases is much higher.
It’s so difficult to prove, the hunting act needs to be strengthened not rescinded.

It needs a recklessness clause added to it. If you lay a trail of fox urine into a covert where foxes live and a fox is killed well that’s reckless. I know enough huntsman and they all know where the foxes live, if they kill a fox in these circumstances then they should be charg

Animal based scents have to be banned.

Trails should not be laid in areas foxes are likely to live, they don’t need to run adjacent and through coverts, hoping to pick up a Fox and claim accident.


Terrier men have no place on a trail hunt, if the land owner chooses to have foxes killed why do they have to do it the same

Publish the meets and the routes.

If you are transparent and open invite monitors to watch when we know hunts are acting within the law and
killing they do get left alone.

Its the same hunts that kill time and time again and they are the ones sabbed and monitored.

I find the terminology being banded about such as ethnic cleansing and terrorists disgusting.

In the summer I gave evidence to the crown court about an horrendous assault suffered by a member of our group. So blatant it went to crown court. This is the fifth conviction for violence and threats made to us from the hunts in the last three years alone, not one conviction or investigation against our group.

I am very sorry to hear of such a serious assault. I hope that individual is recovered now. Families of activists of all kinds suffer when violence comes into it and it is both traumatic and incredibly socially destructive. Awful.

 

[Gallop_Away]

As said before there are good and bad on both sides, however your turn of phrase does not help.

Perhaps not but neither does the attitude that all hunts that are being sabbed MUST be doing something wrong....

 

[Fred66]

1. I'm sorry but that sounds pretty overly dramatic to me. I think it's been well established on this thread that both sabs and hunters have been involved in their fair share of violence, be it verbal or physical. If sabs are terrorists then so are hunters.

Can you tell me how you would describe a group of people who hide their identity by wearing of masks, set out to intimidate others including young children, arm themselves with chemicals and whips, and do this whilst invading someone else’s property?
There is no place for vigilantism.
One teenager from our hunt who is a lovely young girl probably a size 10 had an unflattering photo taken by sabs who then proceeded to post it on Facebook with some very nasty comments on her size and looks. This caused her a lot of distress but fortunately she has close family and friends who supported her, otherwise the sabs actions could have had untold consequences.

 

[palo1]

I cannot imagine any other sphere of life where a legal activity would be allowed to be disrupted by a group that the government itself has identified as a serious threat in terms of terrorism. In my local area during my most recent PREVENT training (which I am not a fan of!) it was made clear to us that animal rights activists are likely to be one of the most serious issues (along with a particular Christian church).

Although hunting may be chucked under the bus, the last 17 years will have been just the warm up when AR activists try to take on shooting and farming. I suspect that angling is just too popular to take a hit in the near future though.

 

[Koweyka]

I am very sorry to hear of such a serious assault. I hope that individual is recovered now. Families of activists of all kinds suffer when violence comes into it and it is both traumatic and incredibly socially destructive. Awful.

It took a while for him to get full use of his leg back, but it was awful at the time.

 

[Sandstone1]

I cannot imagine any other sphere of life where a legal activity would be allowed to be disrupted by a group that the government itself has identified as a serious threat in terms of terrorism. In my local area during my most recent PREVENT training (which I am not a fan of!) it was made clear to us that animal rights activists are likely to be one of the most serious issues (along with a particular Christian church).

Although hunting may be chucked under the bus, the last 17 years will have been just the warm up when AR activists try to take on shooting and farming. I suspect that angling is just too popular to take a hit in the near future though.

The big problem with your comment is that its not a legal activity is it? Otherwise why would you need a " smokescreen" That you think sabs are terrorists really is a joke. How about the verbal and physical abuse handed out by pro hunters? what do you call that?

 

[Miss_Millie]

Can you tell me how you would describe a group of people who hide their identity by wearing of masks, set out to intimidate others including young children, arm themselves with chemicals and whips, and do this whilst invading someone else’s property?
There is no place for vigilantism.
One teenager from our hunt who is a lovely young girl probably a size 10 had an unflattering photo taken by sabs who then proceeded to post it on Facebook with some very nasty comments on her size and looks. This caused her a lot of distress but fortunately she has close family and friends who supported her, their actions could have had untold consequences.

That's really awful, and I've never said I condone any kind of aggressive or violent behaviour. If you had read my post, you would see that I said sabs and hunts are just as bad as each other.

Invading someone else's property is something that hunts are notorious for, just head over to the farming forums and read how many farmers are fuming about trespass from hunts, having their crops trampled and their fences cut, livestock killed by hounds etc.

One farmer who had his car burnt out by hunters when he banned them from using his land.

So it is a bit pot calling kettle black, to say that sabs are terrorists. Wouldn't it be fair to acknowledge that there are sabs/monitors who intervene peacefully, in the same sense that there are hunters who are genuinely trail hunting within the law? And likewise there are aggressive sabs, but there are also hunters who are violent and don't give a damn about anyone else?

 

[palo1]

1. I'm sorry but that sounds pretty overly dramatic to me. I think it's been well established on this thread that both sabs and hunters have been involved in their fair share of violence, be it verbal or physical. If sabs are terrorists then so are hunters. As pointed out a fair few times before, if legal trail hunting had kept a clean image all this time, there would be absolutely no need for sabs to exist. However, various hunts continue to prove that this is not the case, by being caught on camera hunting fox.

2. Whether you like it or not, the majority of the British public voted to end fox hunting. Most people find the idea of it disgusting, animal activist or not. Ask the average person on the street if they think fox hunting should stay illegal and they will answer yes. I also think that most regular people would not mind trail hunting to continue if it kept a completely clean image, if every hunt respected the property of others and stayed away from their livestock and pets. It is incidents like cats and lambs getting mauled and killed that really sway the opinion of the public - hunting needs a completely fresh image if it wants to survive.

I am sorry @Miss_Millie as I know you are an animal lover and are very well intentioned but you are wrong.

PETA and some other groups are identified as a 'risk' under PREVENT guidelines which means that individuals can be referred to the anti-terrorist Channel group. Trail Hunters are not identified as extremists in any way.

As for your references regarding the majority of the British public and the opinion poll carried out by LACS, other posters have identified why this is not an accurate statement.

 

[Gallop_Away]

I cannot imagine any other sphere of life where a legal activity would be allowed to be disrupted by a group that the government itself has identified as a serious threat in terms of terrorism. In my local area during my most recent PREVENT training (which I am not a fan of!) it was made clear to us that animal rights activists are likely to be one of the most serious issues (along with a particular Christian church).

Although hunting may be chucked under the bus, the last 17 years will have been just the warm up when AR activists try to take on shooting and farming. I suspect that angling is just too popular to take a hit in the near future though.

Myself and my husband have had this conversation many times. Once hunting is gone what will they turn their attention to next?

Vigilantes taking the law into their own hands is never acceptable. It is the job of the law enforcement to tackle crimes and punish accordingly. It would never be acceptable in cities to be roaming around wearing masks and intimidating people so why is it acceptable in our countryside??

 

[palo1]

The big problem with your comment is that its not a legal activity is it? Otherwise why would you need a " smokescreen" That you think sabs are terrorists really is a joke. How about the verbal and physical abuse handed out by pro hunters? what do you call that?

I don't 'think' that sabs are terrorists: they belong to a group of activists, either directly through membership or more loosely by association that the government has specifically identified as of concern in relation to the Terrorism laws.

That isn't my opinion; it is the view of the government who provide terrorism related training to professionals including myself.

 

[Koweyka]

I cannot imagine any other sphere of life where a legal activity would be allowed to be disrupted by a group that the government itself has identified as a serious threat in terms of terrorism. In my local area during my most recent PREVENT training (which I am not a fan of!) it was made clear to us that animal rights activists are likely to be one of the most serious issues (along with a particular Christian church).

Although hunting may be chucked under the bus, the last 17 years will have been just the warm up when AR activists try to take on shooting and farming. I suspect that angling is just too popular to take a hit in the near future though.

Well you know I hate shooting ! But I think you are correct in your assumptions….

Now the whole of the UK is in avian flu lockdown I don’t know what the impact on the shoot season will be. Though the birds will be the losers whatever happens.

 

[palo1]

Well you know I hate shooting ! But I think you are correct in your assumptions….

Now the whole of the UK is in avian flu lockdown I don’t know what the impact on the shoot season will be. Though the birds will be the losers whatever happens.

Yes, the concern about Avian flu is awful and not likely to go away anytime soon. I hate having my usually free-range chooks shut up and it doesn't help the rat problem either. If we have another prolonged lock in for birds I will not get in any more hens tbh which will be a real shame as I love them and very much appreciate their eggs. The rats like me keeping them too but I suspect they will survive almost anything!

The violence and vitriol that has been seen over trail hunting will look like child's play once the big money and employment involved in shooting is affected by anti-field sports activists. Farmers already experience issues but as far as I can see, if not next year, the NT will soon have to consider what exactly they can use their pleasure grounds for.

It is beyond ironic that the capital they hold in land and houses is very largely as a result of our historic passionate interest in rural sports and animal farming. It is a very hard circle to square...

 

[Fred66]

The big problem with your comment is that its not a legal activity is it? Otherwise why would you need a " smokescreen" That you think sabs are terrorists really is a joke. How about the verbal and physical abuse handed out by pro hunters? what do you call that?

I don’t condone any abuse from either side. However I can understand how frustrating it can be to people trying not to react to the abuse and taunts, to ask people to leave your land or at least move onto prow, frequently this generates more abuse. When you try and remove them then (reasonable force is allowed) in the heat of the moment this can result in physical abuse.
The only thing I would say is that the hunters have as yet not taken to following sabs home and harassing them on their property, if sabs came and abided by the law and watched/monitored without verbally abusing people then I believe 95% of any conflict would disappear.

 

[Koweyka]

Yes, the concern about Avian flu is awful and not likely to go away anytime soon. I hate having my usually free-range chooks shut up and it doesn't help the rat problem either. If we have another prolonged lock in for birds I will not get in any more hens tbh which will be a real shame as I love them and very much appreciate their eggs. The rats like me keeping them too but I suspect they will survive almost anything!

The violence and vitriol that has been seen over trail hunting will look like child's play once the big money and employment involved in shooting is affected by anti-field sports activists. Farmers already experience issues but as far as I can see, if not next year, the NT will soon have to consider what exactly they can use their pleasure grounds for.

It is beyond ironic that the capital they hold in land and houses is very largely as a result of our historic passionate interest in rural sports and animal farming. It is a very hard circle to square...

My hens have a loft, so it’s not a small area but they are far happier digging out the stables and causing mayhem.

 

[Rowreach]

... as far as I can see, if not next year, the NT will soon have to consider what exactly they can use their pleasure grounds for.

It is beyond ironic that the capital they hold in land and houses is very largely as a result of our historic passionate interest in rural sports and animal farming. It is a very hard circle to square...

And best not to ask where all the money for these big estates came from either.

A lot of people think that the NT is government funded, but it's not, it's a charity, and it relies on membership and visitors to keep these places in existence. And renting out farms and land. In the last week they have announced a lot of tree planting which will mean farm land and open space is lost, which will probably include areas that have previously been hunted.

A lot of members who have realised that these estates were built on the proceeds of slavery, industrialism, imperialism have left the NT. They will lose more members over hunting. Soon they won't have enough money coming in to fund the properties. A lot have already been mothballed due to Covid.

It's hard to see how as a charity it will survive long term.

 

[Koweyka]

I don’t condone any abuse from either side. However I can understand how frustrating it can be to people trying not to react to the abuse and taunts, to ask people to leave your land or at least move onto prow, frequently this generates more abuse. When you try and remove them then (reasonable force is allowed) in the heat of the moment this can result in physical abuse.
The only thing I would say is that the hunters have as yet not taken to following sabs home and harassing them on their property, if sabs came and abided by the law and watched/monitored without verbally abusing people then I believe 95% of any conflict would disappear.

That is not true, I have been followed and had shooters come in my fields and fire at my home, I have a marker on my address due to threats. One sab has had videos of her home posted online, the was an incident in where ”hunt people” got the wrong house, sab lived next door and they trashed the house of and elderly couple.