So National Trust have voted to ban trail hunting because …

[palo1]

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.

You should really check out the information about the history of LACS in terms of animal welfare at their Somerset sanctuary, their financial governance and sources as well as the recent case with Wild Justice to understand the relationship of these groups to animal welfare.

 

[Orangehorse]

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 totally agree with you, and I haven't always in the past regarding hunting!

We had the hunt over our land in the autumn, and I wondered if they would be coming up closer to home where there are several fields of stubble. The reply was that they don't like the railway line - but if they are hunting a trail can't they route it away from the railway line?

 

[palo1]

@Miss_Millie - have a look at this:

20 Sep 2019 by Tim Bonner


For those of us who know its history Baronsdown is a byword for the full cruelty and hypocrisy of the animal rights movement. Baronsdown is one of several parcels of land bought by the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS) from the 1950’s onwards as ‘sanctuaries’ from hunting most obviously for Exmoor’s red deer. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of red deer knows that without active management, i.e. culling, deer populations outgrow food resources and the health of the herd declines. LACS, however, is not just opposed to hunting with hounds it has an absolute opposition to any lethal management despite all the evidence of the consequences.
The refusal to cull any deer or work with neighbouring landowners on a deer management plan was in itself irresponsible and inevitably compromised the welfare of the herd, but worse was to come. LACS’s response to the obvious suffering of the deer was to feed them with hay and subsequently with concentrates. Far from solving the problem it exacerbated it by dragging even more deer into the few hundred acres controlled by LACS and creating a perfect storm of disease and starvation.
Eventually one of LACS’s own employees blew the whistle telling of the 107 deer he had found dead or dying in a 12 month period. Even then LACS refused to properly address the welfare of deer on its land and there have been recurrent stories of dead and dying deer in and around Baronsdown. The facts speak for themselves. For instance from 2000 - 2008 there were 88 confirmed cases of the debilitating disease bovine tuberculosis in deer in the whole of Devon and Somerset. 77 of those, 86%, were found within 2km of Baronsdown.
The appalling suffering of the deer was the reason many of you reacted with such anger to the news that Calor gas had awarded LACS £5,000 from its rural community fund to go towards an ‘educational hub’ at Baronsdown. Quite apart from the fact that LACS has completely alienated most of the ‘rural community’ the thought of an organisation that has failed completely to protect the welfare of the deer on its land ‘educating’ anyone about its views understandably caused concern. Thousands of you sent that message to Calor gas and in short order Calor admitted that mistakes had been made, that the application was “non-compliant” and that the award should not have been made. We are grateful to Calor for rapidly accepting that funding an organisation like LACS from a rural community fund was entirely inappropriate.


Also, this: https://www.countryside-alliance.org/news/2019/10/false-smear-attempt-by-league-against-cruel-sports

And this: https://countrysquire.co.uk/2021/08/04/lacs-continues-to-put-the-fake-in-fake-news/

In relation to the Hunt Saboteurs Association and Hunting Leaks you should enquire more closely into their financial governance too as Hunting Leaks and 'Stop the Cull' are run by convicted fraudster Jay Tiernan. *For the record, Jay Tiernan is a convicted fraudster and felon of manifold aliases, whose real name is Gamal Eboe, who was handed an 8 month suspended sentence in 2003 after submitting false claims for £3,000 to the Department of Education for training students, also found guilty of contempt of court because of nine breaches of an injunction granted to the NFU against campaign groups in 2013, receiving 6 months imprisonment suspended for two years.

The point of Hunting Leaks has been to 'out' businesses and individuals that are associated with hunting in any way (including for example, various pubs, hotels, insurance companies, banks and even Gardeners World Presenter Adam Frost who went on a hunt organised fun ride). This is called 'doxing' and is illegal.

Hunting Leaks has the full backing of the Hunt Saboteurs Association (HSA). The HSA posted on social media asking supporters to visit the Hunting Leaks site. The HSA is not a charity but uses HOWL, which is a charity, to attract tax free ‘donations’ on its website.

Charity trustees ought to know better than to get involved in criminal acts and they should certainly bear in mind the history and consequences of this kind of action:-

In 2004 doxing was carried out by anti-hunt groups which resulted in the Police 'Operation Achilles' - leading to the arrest of 184 animal rights extremists and the shutting down of doxing sites.

The lastest doxing has been 'arranged' to take place in Iceland where, very conveniently, the UK police cannot do much. Doxing remains a crime of course and Twitter very rapidly shut down the Hunting Leaks site which now uses 'other' channels to publish individuals and business personal information. That is still a crime that impacts directly on people. Please remember that.

Of course too LACS were in the news last year for the wrongful sacking of an employee who wanted to blow the whistle on charity matters - he won this landmark case as an ethical vegan (which I certainly approve of).

Please just bear in mind that the organisations that are dealing in anti-hunt activities do NOT have a history of ethical or legal behaviour either in relation to animal welfare or other aspects of their operation. The fact that the National Trust has been so influenced by their campaigns shows a degree of naivety and lack of due diligence that should concern NT members.

 

[Dizzy socks]

I don't think it's animal rights extremists that have caused this though?

It's just a very widely held (and growing) opinion + hunting having recently shot itelf in the foot.

 

[Miss_Millie]

You should really check out the information about the history of LACS in terms of animal welfare at their Somerset sanctuary, their financial governance and sources as well as the recent case with Wild Justice to understand the relationship of these groups to animal welfare.

I don't really see what this has to do with LACS tbh. The general public (myself included) can form their own opinions based on what they have seen in the papers and their first hand experiences.

The fact of the matter is that the majority of the British public are anti-fox hunting, they think it is cruel and barbaric to chase a fox across a field until it is too tired to run anymore. Legal trail hunting doesn't look much different to the public eye - they are still wearing the red jackets and have all of the dogs. So one little slip up is really going to get people's heckles up.

I can't think of another sport which is surrounded by so much controversy, with so many widely reported incidents every single year.

 

[Miss_Millie]

I don't think it's animal rights extremists that have caused this though?

It's just a very widely held (and growing) opinion + hunting having recently shot itelf in the foot.

Yeah exactly, if that were the case then all of us on this thread who think they've brought it upon themselves must be sabs undercover Maybe it's just obvious that this is the case.

 

[Miss_Millie]

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.

How did the pony die, did it colic? This is one of the worst things I've heard in relation to hunts hurting other animals

 

[palo1]

I don't think it's animal rights extremists that have caused this though?

It's just a very widely held (and growing) opinion + hunting having recently shot itelf in the foot.

There has been poor behaviour and weak governance of hunting for sure. The Hunting Act did no favours to either side either. However, what has happened is that LACS, the HSA and other animal rights/anti hunting groups have used charity status to (and some fairly significant but dodgy donations) to make a huge noise and attract public attention to their view. Hunts have not done this and the Countryside Alliance has made very weak and poor responses so the pro-hunt communications have not hit any kind of mark with the public. That is hunting's 'fault'. The ethical and legal issues have not changed. Because the majority of people in the UK now live in urban or semi-urban settings hunting per se is not important to them - it barely crosses their radar but when journalists like Rupert Evelyn report for ITV then the anti-hunt message becomes more mainstream, without a corresponding view from the pro-hunt support.

That may because animal rights issues are clickbait or it may be that, as the BBC are having to work through now, bias and lack of objective, fair reporting are a real issue for news coverage more generally. We live in an era of fake news and incredibly polarised debate, issue reporting, personal opinion and the value of 'offence' as communication tools.

Rural issues are not especially important for a great many people in the UK and in fact what most people want is access to the countryside for leisure purposes: horse riding, dog walking, picnicking, wild swimming, hiking/hill walking, mountain biking etc etc. More difficult issues are...just not interesting. We say we are a nation of animal lovers but in fact, our food production and attitudes towards pets, consumption and environmental management suggests that we are far from that.

 

[palo1]

I don't really see what this has to do with LACS tbh. The general public (myself included) can form their own opinions based on what they have seen in the papers and their first hand experiences.

The fact of the matter is that the majority of the British public are anti-fox hunting, they think it is cruel and barbaric to chase a fox across a field until it is too tired to run anymore. Legal trail hunting doesn't look much different to the public eye - they are still wearing the red jackets and have all of the dogs. So one little slip up is really going to get people's heckles up.

I can't think of another sport which is surrounded by so much controversy, with so many widely reported incidents every single year.

But you have just proved my point! You and the general public have formed their 'own' opinions based on what you see in the papers which is almost entirely from one point of view only. LACS pay for huge amounts of what you see and read. LACS statistic (which you have just referenced) about the majority of the British public being anti-hunting (no one should be hunting foxes since the ban) was created through one specific, highly targeted questionnaire that nowhere near approached any communication with the 'majority' of the British public. (in fact, probably less than 1% of it - respondents that were 'identified' in advance by LACS so not exactly 'objective' or unbiased.) That is a nonsense, unprovable statistic but so often repeated that it is becoming a case of the Emperors New Clothes. The majority of the British public don't even think about hunting; it has always been a minority issue.

I guess it doesn't bother you overly that there are illegalities and actual animal welfare issues related to the anti-hunt groups that have a voice. Yet both those things bother you in relation to the pro-hunt voice....

 

[palo1]

How did the pony die, did it colic? This is one of the worst things I've heard in relation to hunts hurting other animals

It is dire when hunts cause stock any distress but, umm, you should really read too about the deaths of deer under the direct control of LACS at Baronsdown. That is quite harrowing as well...

 

[Miss_Millie]

Palo, you keep blaming LACS as if people are being brainwashed by them, but the reality is that a hunt kill one cat, it is reported on BBC news, and they quickly become the most hated group of people in Britain. Because no animal lover wants to read about a pack of dogs mauling a beloved family pet in front of a family home in the suburbs. Oh, and then the hunt guy threw the cat over the fence before walking off...

It only takes one awful incident like that to make up people's minds. I remember watching a video many years ago where a huntsman was verbally threatening a sab woman with sexual assault, that was certainly enough for me to make my mind up.

 

[Miss_Millie]

But you have just proved my point! You and the general public have formed their 'own' opinions based on what you see in the papers which is almost entirely from one point of view only. LACS pay for huge amounts of what you see and read. LACS statistic (which you have just referenced) about the majority of the British public being anti-hunting (no one should be hunting foxes since the ban) was created through one specific, highly targeted questionnaire that nowhere near approached any communication with the 'majority' of the British public. (in fact, probably less than 1% of it - respondents that were 'identified' in advance by LACS so not exactly 'objective' or unbiased.) That is a nonsense, unprovable statistic but so often repeated that it is becoming a case of the Emperors New Clothes. The majority of the British public don't even think about hunting; it has always been a minority issue.

I guess it doesn't bother you overly that there are illegalities and actual animal welfare issues related to the anti-hunt groups that have a voice. Yet both those things bother you in relation to the pro-hunt voice....

Erm I don't even follow LACS. I have formed my own opinion based on how I feel about hunting as a general concept, and the many many incidents that have happened over the years since then.

You can't claim that everyone has been brainwashed by animal rights activists, I'm sure the meat farmers who absolutely hate the hunt aren't followings LACS on social media lol. They are probably very happy to shoot a fox themselves, it has nothing to do with the hunts portrayal in the media, much more to do with their first hand experience of them trespassing and killing their stock.

You seem to ignore every first hand experience post that someone makes about the hunt causing damage, like Red said earlier the local hunt killed a pony in its own field, I'm sure the owners of the pony hate the hunt because of what they did to their animal, not because of LACS propaganda.

 

[palo1]

Palo, you keep blaming LACS as if people are being brainwashed by them, but the reality is that a hunt kill one cat, it is reported on BBC news, and they quickly become the most hated group of people in Britain. Because no animal lover wants to read about a pack of dogs mauling a beloved family pet in front of a family home in the suburbs. Oh, and then the hunt guy threw the cat over the fence before walking off...

It only takes one awful incident like that to make up people's minds. I remember watching a video many years ago where a huntsman was verbally threatening a sab woman with sexual assault, that was certainly enough for me to make my mind up.

Yes, the killing of a cat was appalling. You have seen a video of a huntsman threatening a sab woman but there are equally accessible videos of sabs screaming at and abusing children and women who have done nothing illegal. The sexual threats and other very serious abuse handed out by sabs would also horrify you. Neither side should be using that kind of language or behaviour.

You say it only takes one incident...what about the incidents of sabs spraying dangerous chemicals in hounds eyes, spiking the ground under horses and of course, the rather tricky issue of their own starving deer at the LACS sanctuary?

You can say this is, of course, 'whataboutery' as deflection but that signals to me that you don't care about the 'issues' around the behaviour or animal welfare in relation to anti-hunt groups. They currently have the upper hand in the media but it changes nothing at all about those facts.

The reason the anti-hunt antics, abuse and animal welfare concerns have not offended you or helped you to make your mind up is because they are NOT reported by mainstream media who have been targeted (very successfully) by LACS and other groups. Please do not think that Rupert Evelyn among others are objective, unbiased journalists who will present all of the facts in an even handed way.

 

[Flowerofthefen]

I totally agree with you, and I haven't always in the past regarding hunting!

We had the hunt over our land in the autumn, and I wondered if they would be coming up closer to home where there are several fields of stubble. The reply was that they don't like the railway line - but if they are hunting a trail can't they route it away from the railway line?

I tried many times to find out which way the hunt was going so I knew whether to leave my horses out or not. They could never tell me!! Funny that!

 

[SO1]

Agree.

I think this is about most of the general public finding the idea of fox being chased and ripped apart by hounds as unpalatable. Trail hunts have not been able to stop this happening. Hunting in any format is so far removed from the lives of the average person that stereotypes of wealthy arrogant people just doing what they please remain in their heads. The press have not helped with this image.

The reputation of hunts is so poor now that sabs do not need to do much in terms of publicity.

Whilst fox and pets are still being accidentally killed in the name of sport this anti hunting movement will not go away. Animals rights is an area which is massively growing the number of vegan and vegetarians are increasingly, more people are choosing to eat organic and free range meat.

Landowners that also own business may no longer want hunts on their land as the association with hunting may damage their reputation. There will be people who boycott companies because of their association with certain activities. The rise of social media makes it harder for people to hide their actions and posts can go viral and really damage business.

NT is wise to think of their reputation. If a punter filmed a fox being chased or killed on their land and posted on social media it could be damaging for the NT. The job of NT is to preserve houses and land, they need the public behind them as this is costly to do so and they need donations. I do agree that is a problem when they have been bequeathed land that comes with conditions such as allowing hunt access.

I hunted as a child via PC and enjoyed it. As an adult it is not something I would want to be associated with however much fun.

I agree the sabs often behave badly but this should not distract from the debate.

I don't think it's animal rights extremists that have caused this though?

It's just a very widely held (and growing) opinion + hunting having recently shot itelf in the foot.

 

[GSD Woman]

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.

Holy Moley! That would make me angry. Here the most of the hunts are very respectful of private land and the owners or they wouldn't have anywhere to hunt.

 

[paddy555]

I tried many times to find out which way the hunt was going so I knew whether to leave my horses out or not. They could never tell me!! Funny that!

possibly the fox hadn't planned his route yet.

 

[Orangehorse]

Holy Moley! That would make me angry. Here the most of the hunts are very respectful of private land and the owners or they wouldn't have anywhere to hunt.

I'm very surprised that the hunts go without permission, our local hunt has always been very respectful about asking and then checking that it's ok for when the meet is near and likely to come over our way. Also at least two free evenings out with a good meal (OH never goes but son does sometimes).

But maybe it is because we have quite a few acres, although they don't cross many of them.

 

[Miss_Millie]

Yes, the killing of a cat was appalling. You have seen a video of a huntsman threatening a sab woman but there are equally accessible videos of sabs screaming at and abusing children and women who have done nothing illegal. The sexual threats and other very serious abuse handed out by sabs would also horrify you. Neither side should be using that kind of language or behaviour.

You say it only takes one incident...what about the incidents of sabs spraying dangerous chemicals in hounds eyes, spiking the ground under horses and of course, the rather tricky issue of their own starving deer at the LACS sanctuary?

You can say this is, of course, 'whataboutery' as deflection but that signals to me that you don't care about the 'issues' around the behaviour or animal welfare in relation to anti-hunt groups. They currently have the upper hand in the media but it changes nothing at all about those facts.

The reason the anti-hunt antics, abuse and animal welfare concerns have not offended you or helped you to make your mind up is because they are NOT reported by mainstream media who have been targeted (very successfully) by LACS and other groups. Please do not think that Rupert Evelyn among others are objective, unbiased journalists who will present all of the facts in an even handed way.

I do care actually, but the way I see it is that if hunts had kept a clean image this entire time and not killed even one fox, sabs would not exist. So it doesn't change my mind in the slightest. If there is no hunt there are no sabs, it's a win win situation.

 

[paddy555]

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...

but what if the vote had gone the other way. There may have been a lot of NT members saying the above. Today they would be writing, I am a member that is so I can visit houses and financially support their aims. That doesn't mean that I want them to give access to the hunt whose activities I am very much against.

You don't seem to accept that many people, be they town or countryfolk, simply want to see hunting banned. They have made their decision no doubt based on many things some of which are rubbish in your eyes, however it is everyone's right to make their own decision about activities and if they happen to be a NT member they also have a right to vote how they wish.
The activities of hunts over the years have probably simply reinforced those decisions.

 

[HashRouge]

You say it only takes one incident...what about the incidents of sabs spraying dangerous chemicals in hounds eyes, spiking the ground under horses and of course, the rather tricky issue of their own starving deer at the LACS sanctuary?

You can say this is, of course, 'whataboutery' as deflection but that signals to me that you don't care about the 'issues' around the behaviour or animal welfare in relation to anti-hunt groups. They currently have the upper hand in the media but it changes nothing at all about those facts.

You keep posting about the LACS and its misdeeds as though somehow all of us on this thread support them. We don't, we just disapprove of illegal trail hunting. Which we know is happening because a leading huntsman was literally recorded talking about how to pretend you're hunting legally and get away with it.

 

[Sandstone1]

You can talk about it til the cows come home. Fact is hunting foxes with hounds is illegal and because of the way Hunts have behaved trail hunting soon will be.

 

[Tiddlypom]

I suspect that if it comes to number crunching and ££££s, the National Trust, if they do go through with the ban, will win back many more former members who left precisely because the NT allowed trail hunts to hunt on their land than they will lose in pro hunt types who storm off in a huff.

You keep posting about the LACS and its misdeeds as though somehow all of us on this thread support them. We don't, we just disapprove of illegal trail hunting. Which we know is happening because a leading huntsman was literally recorded talking about how to pretend you're hunting legally and get away with it.

Beautifully and succinctly put, HR.

 

[Red-1]

How did the pony die, did it colic? This is one of the worst things I've heard in relation to hunts hurting other animals

Yes, was running round and round, sweated up, then coliced and died.

One of the horses turned in the electric fenced paddock did a tendon chasing round and going into the fence. Never truly sound since.

In tje first instance, the 'landowner' had about 2 acres. The second didn't have a whole lot more.

 

[Tiddlypom]

I've known of two mares slip foals, and one horse partially severed its own forefoot (had to be PTS) when charging about in exitement/panic on hunt days.

Also several colics.

 

[Surbie]

You don't seem to accept that many people, be they town or countryfolk, simply was to see hunting banned....
The activities of hunts over the years have probably simply reinforced those decisions.

I don't often post on the hunting threads, but just wanted to say I couldn't agree more. I personally think running a fox till it's exhausted then ripping it apart is unjustifiable. And no amount of 'whataboutery' is going to change that. Mismanaging a herd of deer has nothing to do with the ethics of wilfully torturing a completely different animal.

If hunting had wholesale switched to hunting a trail, to training dogs to follow an alternative scent than fox and had policed themselves properly, it wouldn't be in this situation.

 

[Miss_Millie]

Yes, was running round and round, sweated up, then coliced and died.

One of the horses turned in the electric fenced paddock did a tendon chasing round and going into the fence. Never truly sound since.

In tje first instance, the 'landowner' had about 2 acres. The second didn't have a whole lot more.

So sad, the owner of the pony must have been heartbroken

 

[paddy555]

So sad, the owner of the pony must have been heartbroken

the owners of all animals be they cats or equines but have been heartbroken when their animal was injured or killed.

Why is there no risk assessing by the hunt of their activities before that day's hunt starts? Many accidents could be preventable. If you go close to domestic properties there will be cats and dogs that could be hurt if you cannot control hounds. If you are in the countryside have you given sufficient warning to horse owners? have you warned riders they may suddenly meet the hunt coming down the road. If you don't publish meet details how are people to know? have you taken into account that going close to horses in paddocks may well freak them? I am afraid that over the years I have found that the hunt comes first and basically s*d anyone who gets in their way. Palo what risk assessing is there.

 

[maisie06]

Some hunts have brought this on themselves for being so arrogant they think they can do what they like. I am NT member and I also enjoy working gundogs and beating on a shoot, I joined the NT as we have some wonderful parks near us and costs me less to be a member than parking fees do over the year....also one of the nearby shoots had several drives absolutley ruined by the hunt charging through even though they didn't have permission to be in that area,,, the keeper was fuming.

 

[Bellalily]

Good! I may well have to start supporting NT now. It’s about time hunting, which although illegal, you wouldn’t know by all the ***** round here, was properly banned, and if it means we lose one other sport, well there are plenty of other activities which are fun. If they have nowhere to hunt of course, that is a fairly effective stopper too ?