So National Trust have voted to ban trail hunting because …

[Sandstone1]

Can anyone please explain to me, why if a hunt is " trail hunting" they have terrier men on a quad with terriers and spades? Also why they have a large Bird of prey? Any answers please as it baffles me and the local hunt have both.......

 

[HashRouge]

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.

Beautifully and succinctly put, HR.

I agree. National Trust membership currently seems to be in fine fettle https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...nal-trust-despite-claims-of-anti-woke-critics. I can't imagine a ban on trail hunting will change this - as others have said, most people who are members or visit National Trust properties do it because they enjoy visiting posh old buildings and lovely gardens.

 

[MagicMelon]

Fantastic news! Ridiculous these "trail" hunts have been allowed to carry on so the less places that allow them to happen the better

 

[palo1]

I agree. National Trust membership currently seems to be in fine fettle https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...nal-trust-despite-claims-of-anti-woke-critics. I can't imagine a ban on trail hunting will change this - as others have said, most people who are members or visit National Trust properties do it because they enjoy visiting posh old buildings and lovely gardens.

That's hilarious! A huge surge in membership was in part due to the encouragement of LACS and HSA to get their new members to vote against trail hunting.

 

[AmyMay]

That's hilarious! A huge surge in membership was in part due to the encouragement of LACS and HSA to get their new members to vote against trail hunting.

If that’s the case, it worked.

 

[canteron]

The last time I watched a local hunt (5 or so years ago) on a remote private estate, I saw 3 foxes killed.

That was the day I realised hunting’s days were numbered (and it will be). Too many pompous souls in the hunt leadership.

This is sad because I would have loved to take my cob to the local NT hunt meet - it’s beautiful country to ride over.

 

[HashRouge]

That's hilarious! A huge surge in membership was in part due to the encouragement of LACS and HSA to get their new members to vote against trail hunting.

Jesus you just don't stop do you? We get it, the LACS is the root of all evil

 

[Koweyka]

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 was the Wynnstay Hunt, I believe the pony was badly injured as it was frightened by the hunt, it was the same day the Wynnstay chased and killed a fox in the back garden of an innocent family and two young children.

 

[Rowreach]

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.

Well I suppose you could argue that the fox was despatched quickly, unlike the hundreds of diseased deer who starved to death over time.

Re your second paragraph, I think this is a delusion. The anti-hunt lobby did not get what they wanted with the Hunting Act, they wanted a wholesale disbanding of all forms of hunting because of what it represented, as in people with too much money galloping round the countryside on horseback. And they didn't get it.

Ask anyone who drag hunts or goes out with the bloodhounds and they'll tell you that the average person doesn't have a clue what the difference is between that and trail hunting, and will assume they are hunting a live prey. The antis won't go away until all forms of hunting are gone.

 

[paddy555]

Can anyone please explain to me, why if a hunt is " trail hunting" they have terrier men on a quad with terriers and spades? ...

be patient, I expect Palo will get to you after the LACS have been suitably dealt with.

 

[Clodagh]

Can anyone please explain to me, why if a hunt is " trail hunting" they have terrier men on a quad with terriers and spades? Also why they have a large Bird of prey? Any answers please as it baffles me and the local hunt have both.......

be patient, I expect Palo will get to you after the LACS have been suitably dealt with.

It is still legal to dig to and dispatch a Fox if one is marked to ground. Many farmers want foxes dispatched and therefore the hunt performs this service.
A bird of prey was legally allowed to dispatch a Fox if flushed by hounds. I don’t know of any hunts that still do this but I haven’t hunted for years.

 

[Clodagh]

As for the NT I can quite see that hunting does not fit with their business model nowadays.
I’m a bit torn as think of all the pro hunting people who left land to them (eg Beatrix Potter) and were very pro hunting. Perhaps they would accept that things have changed, perhaps not.

 

[Rowreach]

This piling on to one poster who manages to make reasonable comments re something they have a different view on to most of you isn't very attractive.

 

[ycbm]

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.

Everyone I know who is anti hunting has formed that view from knowing that fox hunting consists of chasing an animal with a pack of hounds until the hounds catch it and kill it, or it goes to ground, when it is routinely dug out and shot/dug out and thrown to the hounds/dragged out by terriers.

That is indispurable fact, and that is what they are deciding is not right in the 21st century, not anything which is written in the papers.

It always strikes me that you badly underestimate the feeling against hunting fox with hounds in this country among people from every walk of life.
.

 

[GoldenWillow]

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..

A lot of us form our 'own' opinions based on directly witnessing our local hunts behaviour and its consequences. Until 10 years ago I was sitting on the fence on the hunting argument but many incidents with them which I've mention before disgusted me. Local large landowner had always given permission for the hunt to go over his land, again after numerous incidents that permission was withdrawn. The THIRD time the hunt went over his 900 acres, so a large enough area to avoid, things got very heated.

Please stop saying we all are led by biased newspaper reports.

 

[Rowreach]

I’m a bit torn as think of all the pro hunting people who left land to them (eg Beatrix Potter) and were very pro hunting. Perhaps they would accept that things have changed, perhaps not.

Maybe but people like BP were pragmatic farming people and were capable of respecting animals while understanding that predator control was a necessary thing to do, especially if you're trying to raise sheep in the Lake District.

I think hunting in all forms has basically had it, and while I certainly don't condone the behaviour of some of the hunts, it never sits well with me that people with beggar all understanding of a topic can monumentally affect something based on a vote which is based largely on propaganda.

I know a bit about the NT having worked for them previously and they fall over themselves not to offend while often managing to do just that at the same time (like opening up all their places at the start of the pandemic, thus pissing off their membership, then having to close them all completely, thus pissing off their membership all over again).

 

[AmyMay]

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.

Not me. I hunted for years. Attended marches in London opposed to the ban. For purely selfish reasons. I didn’t want my opportunity of riding with hounds taken away from me because I absolutely loved it. It was absolutely thrilling. However over the years I’ve come to realise that my responsibility to animal and countryside extends to more than me just enjoying it - I need to look to protect it. And trashing it for my own enjoyment doesn’t protect anything.

 

[Rowreach]

Everyone I know who is anti hunting has formed that view purely from knowing that fox hunting consists of chasing an animal with a pack of hounds until the hounds catch it and kill it, or it goes to ground, when it is routinely dug out and shot/dug out and thrown to the hounds/dragged out by terriers.

.

Which is exactly the point, that is a very simplistic view of what hunting was about.

I have far more respect for people who have either first hand knowledge of hunting or have done some in depth research and have then come to the conclusion (as I .have) that hunting in the 21st century is not something they want to see continuing, than those whose perception is what you have stated

 

[Rowreach]

Not me. I hunted for years. Attended marches in London opposed to the ban. For purely selfish reasons. I didn’t want my opportunity of riding with hounds taken away from me because I absolutely loved it. It was absolutely thrilling. However over the years I’ve come to realise that my responsibility to animal and countryside extends to more than me just enjoying it - I need to look to protect it. And trashing it for my own enjoyment doesn’t protect anything.

This.

 

[ycbm]

Which is exactly the point, that is a very simplistic view of what hunting was about.

I have far more respect for people who have either first hand knowledge of hunting or have done some in depth research and have then come to the conclusion (as I .have) that hunting in the 21st century is not something they want to see continuing, than those whose perception is what you have stated

It isn't a "perception" that people are taking exception to, it's the facts. And many people find those facts unacceptable in the 21st century. I see no need for people to have done what I have done, actually hunt and research hunting in some depth, to come to the conclusion that it isn't right in the 21st century to cull an animal by chasing it first with a pack of hounds.

This insistence by those who want hunting to return/continue that people must understand every facet of hunting before coming to the conclusion that an animal should not be chased before it dies when an equally humane method of control exists (Burns, shooting) is like putting your hands over your ears and saying "I can't hear you" to a very large and varied proportion of the population.
.

 

[ycbm]

Maybe but people like BP were pragmatic farming people and were capable of respecting animals while understanding that predator control was a necessary thing to do,

There are plenty of pragmatic farming people who understand predator control who don't agree with fox hunting.

especially if you're trying to raise sheep in the Lake District.

How does sheep farming in the Lake District differ from sheep farming in the west of the Peak District? Foxes which are worrying livestock are shot here and have been for many decades.
.

 

[ycbm]

By the by I think that if land was bequeathed with hunting rights then monitored, proven trail hunting with artificial (not fox) scent should continue.
.

 

[SantaVera]

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.

there was info and a voting form in the most recent magazine. I voted. . to ban trail hunting. I used to hunt. not anymore, and sick and tired of hunts flouting the law.

 

[palo1]

Can anyone please explain to me, why if a hunt is " trail hunting" they have terrier men on a quad with terriers and spades? Also why they have a large Bird of prey? Any answers please as it baffles me and the local hunt have both.......

It's very simple and I would have thought that as you are a committed anti-hunter you would already know this. You should read the excerpts from the Bonomy review that I have included in my answer below. Then you will know for future reference.

The use of terriermen and birds of prey are entirely legal activities within the Hunting Act. Traditionally hounds hunted foxes, those that went to ground were taken on by terriers - handled by experienced terrriermen/countrymen. Those people were the same that would block earths prior to a hunting day so that foxes could not go to ground. Inevitably not all earths were blocked so terriers were used when a hunted fox went to ground. That did not always happen as huntsmen would sometimes allow that fox that chance and move on. Where farmers wanted (and still want) foxes killed terriers were deployed. In fact terriers as a type, and all of their breeds, were bred for exactly that purpose.

The Bonomy Review (2016) explains here: A terrier is then used to locate the fox underground, to bark at it continuously, and to either cause it to leave the earth or alternatively to indicate where in the earth it is located so that it can be dug out by the terrierman and despatched. Before the terrier is put into the hole a radio transmitter device is attached to it so that it can be located for that purpose should there be any material delay in the fox and the terrier emerging from the 40 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100512151544/http:/www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/ mainsections/huntingreport.htm (para 2.23) 54 hole. The Code of Conduct of the National Working Terrier Federation (NWTF) recommends that, wherever possible and practical, only one terrier should be entered to ground at a time. The legislation does not impose such a restriction.

6.27 The material presented to the Review is persuasive of the need for the use of terriers to ensure the despatch of a fox gone to ground. The principal issue is ensuring that the practice is used humanely and not abused. The rules of the MFHA require that the huntmaster or someone of authority personally appointed by him should supervise the terrierman's operation.

6.28 Parliament legislated to allow flushing from below ground in the full knowledge of the possibility that the digging-out process, combined with the fact that the fox is prevented from escaping may cause serious distress to the fox [42] . As was the case at that time, there is no firm scientific evidence of the extent of the impact on the fox. Indeed it was observed in the Burns Report [43] that the banning of hunting could have an adverse effect on the welfare of foxes in upland areas unless dogs could be used at least to flush foxes from cover. The same would apply in the case of young cubs orphaned below ground in a den.
6.29 In the event that it is accepted that the use of terriers is a necessary ancillary to fox control using packs of hounds or other dogs, then it would be appropriate to specify clearly that only one dog should be used below ground. Public confidence in the activities of terriermen could be enhanced if all undertaking that activity were committed to adherence to an enhanced Code of Conduct drafted by the NWTF, following consultation with the principal bodies involved in terrier work in Scotland such as the MFHA, the Scottish Hillpacks Fox Control Association and the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, and designed to reflect the position in Scotland in the light of any changes that result from this Review.
6.30 An example of a provision which might be included in any Code of Conduct would be a requirement to attach to any hole from which the fox might bolt a purse net which would restrain the fox and enable it to be immediately shot. There could also be provision for the hounds to be removed from the proximity of any possible bolthole to ensure that no chase takes place.


After the Hunting Act there was no pressure on hunts at all, legally or in any other way not to continue to maintain their terriermen who now both use the trail hunting day to provide them with a more traditional feel to an entirely legal activity alongside the trail hunt as well as assist with gates, providing hot coffee, assisting riders and maintaining the structure of the day. Terriermen, in my experience are brilliant at keeping the huntsman aware of where hounds are running if they separate and thus provide a good backup and control to any hounds where they are not supposed to be. They are not very popular in numbers in these parts but farmers want the terriermen as they know that they can deal with foxes without it being a legal issue; it works to support the trail hunting and for those that support the activity, it still feels as it did prior to the Hunting Act.

It is not illegal for people on quad bikes with terriers to follow a trail hunt and use that as a chance to carry out entirely legal and often requested fox control. It certainly provides a difficult contradiction for trail hunts as this question about the necessity of terriermen is reqularly questioned, in spite of it being clear. What a great many people forget is that when the Hunting Act came in, terriermen/countrymen were employed by the hunt; they had to find a way to include those people and their livelihoods in the new setting. That could be done within the law so it was done.

It is an entirely legal activity too to for hounds to flush a fox to a bird of prey. There are a couple of hunts that do that though it was never really mainstream practice.

It is very difficult.

Remember that when the Scottish Government commissioned the Bonomy Review in 2016, the recommendations of that review were a contradiction to those intended. In fact The indepedent Bonomy Review, carried out on behalf of ScotGov, recommended that a full pack hounds should be allowed to operate as a pest control service in Scotland.

Bonomy identified:
I am persuaded by the submissions and such other evidence as there is, in particular that of the experience of those who work with packs, the scientific study paper by Naylor and Knott [53] (taking full account of its limitations and the criticisms made of it [54] ) , and the fact that in England and Wales hunts do not generally flush to guns using two dogs, not only that searching and flushing by two dogs would not be as effective as that done by a full pack of hounds, but also that imposing such a restriction could seriously compromise effective pest control in the country, particularly on rough and hilly ground and in extensive areas of dense cover such as conifer woodlands.

Whatever you think and believe, it has not been possible for independent reviews in England (the Burns Report) or Scotland (the Bonomy Report) to identify the use of terriers (or hounds) as more cruel or damaging to foxes individually or as species than any other method of control either before or since the Hunting Act.

 

[Chianti]

My view's on hunting have changed back and forth over the years - anti and then pro. I'm now anti again. This is partly because I'm basically a law abiding person and it pisses me off when people and institutions don't do the same. Soon after the ban I spoke to someone who'd been out with the local hunt. I asked her what was different and she replied that she couldn't see any difference - they'd just hunted. Just after the recent court case I was talking to a local farmer. They'd had the local hunt meet on the farm. The hounds 'put up a fox' and followed it until it reached a road where they had to call the hounds off. That wasn't a mistake it was deliberate and at a time when you would have thought they would be really trying to show that they were hunting within the law. I'm a NT member but didn't vote - bad at reading all the paperwork that comes with the magazine. I would have voted in favour of a ban. I'm sorry for the hunts that have kept to the law but they should have been louder in calling out the hunts that weren't.

 

[Rowreach]

There are plenty of pragmatic farming people who understand predator control who don't agree with fox hunting.



How does sheep farming in the Lake District differ from sheep farming in the west of the Peak District? Foxes which are worrying livestock are shot here and have been for many decades.
.

It was a reference to BP and where she lived.

 

[Rowreach]

It isn't a "perception" that people are taking exception to, it's the facts. And many people find those facts unacceptable in the 21st century. I see no need for people to have done what I have done, actually hunt and research hunting in some depth, to come to the conclusion that it isn't right in the 21st century to cull an animal by chasing it first with a pack of hounds.

This insistence by those who want hunting to return/continue that people must understand every facet of hunting before coming to the conclusion that an animal should not be chased before it dies when an equally humane method of control exists (Burns, shooting) is like putting your hands over your ears and saying "I can't hear you" to a very large and varied proportion of the population.
.

If you read my comments you’d know that I am not one of those you refer to in your second paragraph yet I am able to understand “perspectives”.

 

[Clodagh]

Apropos of nothing much as I stopped hunting post ban but we did go to a local meet yesterday and hearing hounds speak in the valley below was a sound I would hate to not hear again. It made me want a horse ?

 

[thefarsideofthefield]

According to the newspaper I am currently reading only 1 hunt actually uses National Trust land . Is that true ?

 

[Sandstone1]

It's very simple and I would have thought that as you are a committed anti-hunter you would already know this. You should read the excerpts from the Bonomy review that I have included in my answer below. Then you will know for future reference.

The use of terriermen and birds of prey are entirely legal activities within the Hunting Act. Traditionally hounds hunted foxes, those that went to ground were taken on by terriers - handled by experienced terrriermen/countrymen. Those people were the same that would block earths prior to a hunting day so that foxes could not go to ground. Inevitably not all earths were blocked so terriers were used when a hunted fox went to ground. That did not always happen as huntsmen would sometimes allow that fox that chance and move on. Where farmers wanted (and still want) foxes killed terriers were deployed. In fact terriers as a type, and all of their breeds, were bred for exactly that purpose.

The Bonomy Review (2016) explains here: A terrier is then used to locate the fox underground, to bark at it continuously, and to either cause it to leave the earth or alternatively to indicate where in the earth it is located so that it can be dug out by the terrierman and despatched. Before the terrier is put into the hole a radio transmitter device is attached to it so that it can be located for that purpose should there be any material delay in the fox and the terrier emerging from the 40 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100512151544/http:/www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/ mainsections/huntingreport.htm (para 2.23) 54 hole. The Code of Conduct of the National Working Terrier Federation (NWTF) recommends that, wherever possible and practical, only one terrier should be entered to ground at a time. The legislation does not impose such a restriction.

6.27 The material presented to the Review is persuasive of the need for the use of terriers to ensure the despatch of a fox gone to ground. The principal issue is ensuring that the practice is used humanely and not abused. The rules of the MFHA require that the huntmaster or someone of authority personally appointed by him should supervise the terrierman's operation.

6.28 Parliament legislated to allow flushing from below ground in the full knowledge of the possibility that the digging-out process, combined with the fact that the fox is prevented from escaping may cause serious distress to the fox [42] . As was the case at that time, there is no firm scientific evidence of the extent of the impact on the fox. Indeed it was observed in the Burns Report [43] that the banning of hunting could have an adverse effect on the welfare of foxes in upland areas unless dogs could be used at least to flush foxes from cover. The same would apply in the case of young cubs orphaned below ground in a den.
6.29 In the event that it is accepted that the use of terriers is a necessary ancillary to fox control using packs of hounds or other dogs, then it would be appropriate to specify clearly that only one dog should be used below ground. Public confidence in the activities of terriermen could be enhanced if all undertaking that activity were committed to adherence to an enhanced Code of Conduct drafted by the NWTF, following consultation with the principal bodies involved in terrier work in Scotland such as the MFHA, the Scottish Hillpacks Fox Control Association and the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, and designed to reflect the position in Scotland in the light of any changes that result from this Review.
6.30 An example of a provision which might be included in any Code of Conduct would be a requirement to attach to any hole from which the fox might bolt a purse net which would restrain the fox and enable it to be immediately shot. There could also be provision for the hounds to be removed from the proximity of any possible bolthole to ensure that no chase takes place.


After the Hunting Act there was no pressure on hunts at all, legally or in any other way not to continue to maintain their terriermen who now both use the trail hunting day to provide them with a more traditional feel to an entirely legal activity alongside the trail hunt as well as assist with gates, providing hot coffee, assisting riders and maintaining the structure of the day. Terriermen, in my experience are brilliant at keeping the huntsman aware of where hounds are running if they separate and thus provide a good backup and control to any hounds where they are not supposed to be. They are not very popular in numbers in these parts but farmers want the terriermen as they know that they can deal with foxes without it being a legal issue; it works to support the trail hunting and for those that support the activity, it still feels as it did prior to the Hunting Act.

It is not illegal for people on quad bikes with terriers to follow a trail hunt and use that as a chance to carry out entirely legal and often requested fox control. It certainly provides a difficult contradiction for trail hunts as this question about the necessity of terriermen is reqularly questioned, in spite of it being clear. What a great many people forget is that when the Hunting Act came in, terriermen/countrymen were employed by the hunt; they had to find a way to include those people and their livelihoods in the new setting. That could be done within the law so it was done.

It is an entirely legal activity too to for hounds to flush a fox to a bird of prey. There are a couple of hunts that do that though it was never really mainstream practice.

It is very difficult.

Remember that when the Scottish Government commissioned the Bonomy Review in 2016, the recommendations of that review were a contradiction to those intended. In fact The indepedent Bonomy Review, carried out on behalf of ScotGov, recommended that a full pack hounds should be allowed to operate as a pest control service in Scotland.

Bonomy identified:
I am persuaded by the submissions and such other evidence as there is, in particular that of the experience of those who work with packs, the scientific study paper by Naylor and Knott [53] (taking full account of its limitations and the criticisms made of it [54] ) , and the fact that in England and Wales hunts do not generally flush to guns using two dogs, not only that searching and flushing by two dogs would not be as effective as that done by a full pack of hounds, but also that imposing such a restriction could seriously compromise effective pest control in the country, particularly on rough and hilly ground and in extensive areas of dense cover such as conifer woodlands.

Whatever you think and believe, it has not been possible for independent reviews in England (the Burns Report) or Scotland (the Bonomy Report) to identify the use of terriers (or hounds) as more cruel or damaging to foxes individually or as species than any other method of control either before or since the Hunting Act.

You are right in the fact that I am anti fox hunting, I have nothing against trail hunting but I am not convinced that trail hunting goes on very much.
In most hunts terrrier mens name has been changed to country men. You have told me the purpose of terrier men pre ban, Im fully aware of that thanks. My question is what is the reason for them going out trail hunting????? If the hunt is following a trail why would they be using it as a chance for fox control if the hunt is not chasing foxes but a trail....
I know the purpose of a bird of prey, its a excuse for " flushing foxes" in practice it means hunting foxes but having the bird there is another smokescreen.
Come on be honest with yourself, You know it, I know it, Fox hunting has done and still does go on illegally. You can defend it as much as you like and quote what you like but that will not change the facts. For someone that defends trail hunting you seem to know a lot about proper fox hunting....
My question about terrier men and birds of prey was to see if there was any sensible excuse for them. Seems not.