So National Trust have voted to ban trail hunting because …

[Clodagh]

I have to admit that as dogs can be taught to scent out guns, drugs and cash and the ability to find one doesn’t mean they can no longer do the other surely hounds could follow, say, chocolate buttons and still be taught to follow Fox if and when it becomes legal again? (Although I agree with CE that ain’t gonna happen).
I understand that the foxhound is bred for soundness, stamina, scenting ability and tongue but I do think any scent which was similarly tricky would do.

 

[Sossigpoker]

I am sick to the back teeth of the disruption hunting has caused over the years, both before and after the ban. Pissed off with the arrogance of them, very pissed off after they so very nearly caused an accident with my dog which could have resulted in him being shot, pissed off they didn't even know which was my land nor who else's land they were on without permission and hadn't even bothered to find out. That was the final straw for me. It was difficult to see which bit of keep your hounds off my land was unclear.

I could write another half page on it but won't bore you. Your quotes are all about whether there are welfare issues for foxes, terrier men, what is allowed and not allowed. They don't take into account the effect the hunt has on people living in the areas they frequent.

I am far from alone.

The local hunt (I'd replace the h with a c though) have lost so much access to land because they're right asses, go where they're not supposed to (funny that if you're really following a trail ?) , trash land , trespass, you name it.
They have their Boxing day meet at a NT property so a lot of us are hoping this will now be banned.
So many farms now have big signs around saying "strictly no hunting ".
You are far from alone with your anger.

 

[Clodagh]

Or bloodhounding, which is probably more similar due to the natural scent and slower pace

What do beagle/harrier packs do for scent? I've never seen them mentioned wrt illegal hunting

Beagles can hunt rabbits or injured hares. I assume harriers the same? Although they historically hunted foxes here in the west so the same thing as foxhounds in that case?
Pure supposition here.

 

[Clodagh]

As for why hunting, to me it was entirely about hound work and the skill of venery. The horse was an enjoyable means of transport with which to follow hounds. We walked puppies and had bitches at home to whelp and seeing them go on and learn their trade was a delight.
I was lucky in that I could go on point and be on my own.
I stopped largely after the ban because so many people came out who didn’t know or care about the countryside and just wanted a jolly. I have said on here before just go for a hack or Hunter trialling if you don’t want hound work.

 

[minesadouble]

I think there is something interesting that goes on on this forum which confused me until I worked it out this morning. Most people who post in favour of fox hunting say they do it because they love to watch the hounds work.

I've know many people who fox hunt in the last 40 years and not one of them has gone out to watch the hounds work. They've all gone out for the ride or the social aspects or both. They wouldn't necessarily admit this in the hearing of the Master.

I've only just cottoned on that the people who go for the ride know they could get a reasonably similar ride and socialisation from drag hunting. They don't post much in support of fox hunting because they realise at heart that after 17 years of ban it's not supportable in a public discussion.

So the people we get contributing are the ones who really fervently believe that it's all about the hounds, the skill, etc when in truth for most hunt followers it's all about the fun.
.

Well I am definitely one of those rare people as I'm just as happy out with a fell pack on foot as I am mounted. In fact some of my favourite days have been out with the Blencathra on foot.

 

[Tiddlypom]

What do beagle/harrier packs do for scent? I've never seen them mentioned wrt illegal hunting

Have a read of this. Most revealing. This is not talking about how a pack that is legally trail hunting should deal with antis.

This is a direct transcript of what Richard Tyacke, now the Director of the Association of Masters of Harriers and Beagles (“AMHB”), formerly master of the Wynnstay, said as a panel member as his contribution to the infamous webinars .

Richard Tyacke: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much indeed. Good evening everybody. I apologise in advance if I do slightly overlap with Phil’s excellent presentation but hopefully not too much. Now I’m going to start about talking about planning your day.

Beagle packs, I’ll start with beagle packs. Currently most beagle packs go home if sabs or monitors are present. This is the safe and sensible course of action.

While that can seem defeatist and it feel like they’re winning it is far better than a court case and then they really are winning and just remember you’re on foot and you’re very very susceptible. Depending on how aggressive and unpleasant they are you might consider hound exercise or hunting a trail if it is a place safe to do so, i.e. you are unlucky to bump into lots of hares or at the very least do hang around all afternoon and thus keep them from going and finding another hunt.

There are many more options to you including the trail hunting, hound exercise, taking off across the country than giving them a miserable day. Mark spoke about this earlier and gave great advice about having multiple trail layers. The nature of your country and the topography and the type and how many sabs or monitors you’re dealing with will dictate your plan. What is not acceptable is to carry on regardless with them all around you as if they weren’t there.

Whatever you decide, you must plan for this event. Even if your hunt has never seen sabs before, sooner or later they will turn up and you must have a plan and it’s not acceptable to just the, ignore the presence of the antis.

 

[cauda equina]

I liked that, but I don't
It seems that the rot is widespread

 

[paddy555]

surely hounds could follow, say, chocolate buttons .

possibly only you could come up with that solution. love it.

 

[GoldenWillow]

Is there any reason that the trail cannot be laid with a different scent like hound trails are laid, from a very distant memory I think it was aniseed and something used? As an aside I love watching the hound trails especially as they are all coming in although, again, the people involved don't help themselves at times.

 

[palo1]

Well I am definitely one of those rare people as I'm just as happy out with a fell pack on foot as I am mounted. In fact some of my favourite days have been out with the Blencathra on foot.

I would happily sacrifice any 'riding rights' with a hunt if it protected the hounds from a ban or destruction. Watching well managed, healthy hounds working a scent is magical and yes hounds could be trained on another scent but hindsight is a wonderful thing. I think both sides are absolutely dug in at the moment and hunters would see that action as a defeat when for many, there is no reason at all to change what they do. I don't necessarily agree with that. One of the key reasons for that attitude is that all of the research (including the Burns report and later the Bonomy report) could not squarely convince hunters of the cruelty of hunting; there was no conviction in the primary assertion that this was a demonstrably cruel way to kill foxes. Most hunters, and many other people, clearly saw the Hunting Act as a cynical and very poorly constructed bit of political nonsense which was directed at them and on them without any integrity in parliamentary or legislative terms. A repeal was not considered to be unrealistic because of this.

I do think too that many people commenting on hunting don't either understand or respect the depth of engagement that many hunting people have with what they do. That is reasonable of course but it does mean that there is a distance in communication and understanding between commentators, opinions and those actively involved. The keeping of hounds needs a team and the keeping of hunting horses is not only expensive but hugely time-consuming and requires not a little skill. Those are full-on lifestyle commitments so for many people the prospect of a ban is unthinkable; that isn't a good place to be when you may need to think more flexibly to survive. Hunts are also very traditional communities with very local infrastructures on which some people depend for their livelihoods so again that makes change very, very threatening.

As for what Richard Tyacke said in the Webinars, he is right; as hares are very widespread where harriers tend to be, then if sabs are out it is wise to go home as there is a huge likelihood that whatever the harriers/beagles are doing, the presence of hares will cause sabs to assert that illegal hunting is taking place. This is an absolute truth wrt; if sabs see a quarry animal they will absolutely try to find a way of saying that animal is being hunted. I have read report after report where this is stated as a truth and yet, and yet there is not in fact a crime report submitted, a video with evidence or any other 'fact'. Sabs don't want hounds in the countryside - simple. They will do anything to achieve the total ban and disbandment of all hunts.

Personally I think that some people would defy a ban and so there would not be an end to the issue.

 

[Fred66]

...

 

[Sandstone1]

I would happily sacrifice any 'riding rights' with a hunt if it protected the hounds from a ban or destruction. Watching well managed, healthy hounds working a scent is magical and yes hounds could be trained on another scent but hindsight is a wonderful thing. I think both sides are absolutely dug in at the moment and hunters would see that action as a defeat when for many, there is no reason at all to change what they do. I don't necessarily agree with that. One of the key reasons for that attitude is that all of the research (including the Burns report and later the Bonomy report) could not squarely convince hunters of the cruelty of hunting; there was no conviction in the primary assertion that this was a demonstrably cruel way to kill foxes. Most hunters, and many other people, clearly saw the Hunting Act as a cynical and very poorly constructed bit of political nonsense which was directed at them and on them without any integrity in parliamentary or legislative terms. A repeal was not considered to be unrealistic because of this.

I do think too that many people commenting on hunting don't either understand or respect the depth of engagement that many hunting people have with what they do. That is reasonable of course but it does mean that there is a distance in communication and understanding between commentators, opinions and those actively involved. The keeping of hounds needs a team and the keeping of hunting horses is not only expensive but hugely time-consuming and requires not a little skill. Those are full-on lifestyle commitments so for many people the prospect of a ban is unthinkable; that isn't a good place to be when you may need to think more flexibly to survive. Hunts are also very traditional communities with very local infrastructures on which some people depend for their livelihoods so again that makes change very, very threatening.

As for what Richard Tyacke said in the Webinars, he is right; as hares are very widespread where harriers tend to be, then if sabs are out it is wise to go home as there is a huge likelihood that whatever the harriers/beagles are doing, the presence of hares will cause sabs to assert that illegal hunting is taking place. This is an absolute truth wrt; if sabs see a quarry animal they will absolutely try to find a way of saying that animal is being hunted. I have read report after report where this is stated as a truth and yet, and yet there is not in fact a crime report submitted, a video with evidence or any other 'fact'. Sabs don't want hounds in the countryside - simple. They will do anything to achieve the total ban and disbandment of all hunts.

Personally I think that some people would defy a ban and so there would not be an end to the issue.

I think hunts are doing a great job of getting a total ban without sabs personally.
The very fact that you admit that people will defy a ban speaks volumes....
I honestly give up. The complete and absolute twaddle you spout is honestly not worth replying too.

 

[Rowreach]

I think hunts are doing a great job of getting a total ban without sabs personally.
The very fact that you admit that people will defy a ban speaks volumes....
I honestly give up. The complete and absolute twaddle you spout is honestly not worth replying too.

What you see as complete and absolute twaddle I see as honesr, open, eloquent and informative postings by someone with a wealth of knowledge and insight who is totally aware that some hunts are breaching the Act and has said time and again that that is wrong.

And not once has Palo resorted to being rude to another poster on these threads, despite the provocation from some people.

That's what speaks volumes to me.

 

[Sandstone1]

What you see as complete and absolute twaddle I see as honesr, open, eloquent and informative postings by someone with a wealth of knowledge and insight who is totally aware that some hunts are breaching the Act and has said time and again that that is wrong.

And not once has Palo resorted to being rude to another poster on these threads, despite the provocation from some people.

That's what speaks volumes to me.

Well we will have to disagree wont we.

 

[paddy555]

I think both sides are absolutely dug in at the moment and hunters would see that action as a defeat when for many, there is no reason at all to change what they do. I don't necessarily agree with that. One of the key reasons for that attitude is that all of the research (including the Burns report and later the Bonomy report) could not squarely convince hunters of the cruelty of hunting; there was no conviction in the primary assertion that this was a demonstrably cruel way to kill foxes. Most hunters, and many other people, clearly saw the Hunting Act as a cynical and very poorly constructed bit of political nonsense which was directed at them and on them without any integrity in parliamentary or legislative terms. A repeal was not considered to be unrealistic because of this.

I do think too that many people commenting on hunting don't either understand or respect the depth of engagement that many hunting people have with what they do.

forget the burns report or the bonomy report. Do many hunting people not realise the disruption and the damage they cause and that non hunting people are not over impressed by this and the fact that they have to put up with it and have had to for years. Your comments are always about various reports, cruelty or not and the rights of hunting people. What about the rest of us who have to put up with it? What about the rights of people whose animals have been hurt or had to be destroyed because of the hunt.

Do they also not realise that when you are unwilling to publish dates of your activity then people wonder what you have to hide. They are stuck for the day if there is a meet in their area not knowing if the hunt will be passing through, if they need to get their horses in. Is it safer to leave them out, field will be trashed, will they go through the fence. OTOH should I bring them in, shut top doors, how long for.

If there is a large bike ride I can go online and find out where it goes, how many involved etc etc. If there is an endurance horse ride I can see the venue and the markers tell me where it is going. .

Not so the secretive activities of the hunt.

 

[Nasicus]

I have to admit that as dogs can be taught to scent out guns, drugs and cash and the ability to find one doesn’t mean they can no longer do the other surely hounds could follow, say, chocolate buttons and still be taught to follow Fox if and when it becomes legal again? (Although I agree with CE that ain’t gonna happen).
I understand that the foxhound is bred for soundness, stamina, scenting ability and tongue but I do think any scent which was similarly tricky would do.

I've said this for years now. It's been more than long enough for several generations of hounds to have been trained onto another unique scent, to avoid the 'accidental' oopsie-whoopsie the hounds picked up a scent occurrences.
Why are they still trained on fox scent if the packs are intending to hunt within the law? Because they don't want to lose it should it be made legal again? Well, train it back in again. That's the cool thing about dogs, they can learn more than one thing.

 

[ycbm]

Watching well managed, healthy hounds working a scent is magical and yes hounds could be trained on another scent but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

I think you are probably talking about the law allowing fox scent, but it doesn't need to be hindsight. Hunts can start now.

Sabs don't want hounds in the countryside - simple.

I don't think this is true, at least in my own area(s). I've followed hounds many times with drag hunts in the north mostly but also further south and never seen a sab.

Sabs don't want hounds killing foxes and if there are hounds and foxes in close proximity then I feel it is unreasonable, given the amount of law breaking there has been and the continueduse of fox scent, to expect them to have any confidence that hounds are not going to be allowed to hunt fox.
.

 

[Rowreach]

forget the burns report or the bonomy report. Do many hunting people not realise the disruption and the damage they cause and that non hunting people are not over impressed by this and the fact that they have to put up with it and have had to for years. Your comments are always about various reports, cruelty or not and the rights of hunting people. What about the rest of us who have to put up with it? What about the rights of people whose animals have been hurt or had to be destroyed because of the hunt.

Do they also not realise that when you are unwilling to publish dates of your activity then people wonder what you have to hide. They are stuck for the day if there is a meet in their area not knowing if the hunt will be passing through, if they need to get their horses in. Is it safer to leave them out, field will be trashed, will they go through the fence. OTOH should I bring them in, shut top doors, how long for.

If there is a large bike ride I can go online and find out where it goes, how many involved etc etc. If there is an endurance horse ride I can see the venue and the markers tell me where it is going. .

Not so the secretive activities of the hunt.

You could apply this logic though to anything that disrupts our lives and puts our animals at risk, such as the tractor run past ycbm's house (sorry ycbm that just immediately came to mind as something you didn't know about but were nearly caught in), cycling road races, fireworks, road rallying (happens round here a lot and although planned it quite often catches people out) - and I could go on with more examples. Do we all have the right to say oh well I don't like that thing that those people are doing so I think it should be banned?

Hunt calendars were always published in H&H until the sabs made it impossible to do that (and the police advised hunts not to).

At least the animal welfare argument which you don't mention is something I can understand.

 

[Tiddlypom]

Do we all have the right to say oh well I don't like that thing that those people are doing so I think it should be banned?

We do have the right to be very peeved if a known potentially disruptive activity goes ahead secret squirrel, despite locals asking to be notified when the hunt will be coming, and being ignored.

It's a huge relief that my local pack feel able to issue meet cards again this season. I can prepare in advance re sorting animals large and small for those days when they are here.

But, of course, local pack is now trail hunting...

 

[paddy555]

You could apply this logic though to anything that disrupts our lives and puts our animals at risk, such as the tractor run past ycbm's house (sorry ycbm that just immediately came to mind as something you didn't know about but were nearly caught in), cycling road races, fireworks, road rallying (happens round here a lot and although planned it quite often catches people out) - and I could go on with more examples. Do we all have the right to say oh well I don't like that thing that those people are doing so I think it should be banned?

Hunt calendars were always published in H&H until the sabs made it impossible to do that (and the police advised hunts not to).

At least the animal welfare argument which you don't mention is something I can understand.

thing is though that I haven't found that road rallies or cycle road races venture across my fields unannounced and without permission. Equally they don't go through people animals in fields and cause damage to property let alone animals.

 

[palo1]

I think hunts are doing a great job of getting a total ban without sabs personally.
The very fact that you admit that people will defy a ban speaks volumes....
I honestly give up. The complete and absolute twaddle you spout is honestly not worth replying too.

You are clearly NOT interested in anything anyone who disagrees with you on this subject has to say. I don't really know why you wouldn't want to 'engage' in a real way if you want to change other peoples' attitudes and ideas (ie people like me). Perhaps hunts will finish themselves off, perhaps not. However, it is important I think to live life with integrity and to stand up for the things you value and believe in. I value liberty, political fairness and the informed view of proven experts in general terms as well as in relation to specific things. I value the diversity that minority groups bring to our culture and society as well as the resilience that diversity 'builds in' to a community. I value tolerance, openness and an acceptance that some things that may seem difficult to understand or accept don't necessarily come from a negative or destructive position.

I don't see any of those things demonstrated or valued in action by anti-hunters on the whole though I have met polite, interesting and respectful hunt monitors on occasion. I have met rude and ignorant hunters too. I am not really interested in discussing the hunting issue with anyone who can't at least be polite, adult and interested in alternative perspectives.

 

[Sandstone1]

You are clearly NOT interested in anything anyone who disagrees with you on this subject has to say. I don't really know why you wouldn't want to 'engage' in a real way if you want to change other peoples' attitudes and ideas (ie people like me). Perhaps hunts will finish themselves off, perhaps not. However, it is important I think to live life with integrity and to stand up for the things you value and believe in. I value liberty, political fairness and the informed view of proven experts in general terms as well as in relation to specific things. I value the diversity that minority groups bring to our culture and society as well as the resilience that diversity 'builds in' to a community. I value tolerance, openness and an acceptance that some things that may seem difficult to understand or accept don't necessarily come from a negative or destructive position.

I don't see any of those things demonstrated or valued in action by anti-hunters on the whole though I have met polite, interesting and respectful hunt monitors on occasion. I have met rude and ignorant hunters too. I am not really interested in discussing the hunting issue with anyone who can't at least be polite, adult and interested in alternative perspectives.

You can not answer any of the questions I have asked without quoting reports, You cant see the disruption and heartache cased by the hunt, you cant or dont want to see that the law is being broken and illegal hunting is going on. Killing peoples pets, upsetting livestock and trespassing dont seem to matter.
For example yesterday my local hunt was hunting alongside a major busy road, Now why would that happen if they were following a trail?

 

[palo1]

Is there any reason that the trail cannot be laid with a different scent like hound trails are laid, from a very distant memory I think it was aniseed and something used? As an aside I love watching the hound trails especially as they are all coming in although, again, the people involved don't help themselves at times.

The only reasons for not adopting a different scent are political and cultural really; politically the UK hunt offices have not wanted to accept that repeal of the hunting act is unlikely and culturally hunters do not want to lose the unique relationship between hounds and the scent of their traditional quarry species.

Both of those reasons feel very compelling to a lot of hunters and the chance to step back from that position was never really addressed in the Hunting Act. With no government really wanting to revisit that, it is very difficult...

 

[ycbm]

Both of those reasons feel very compelling to a lot of hunters and the chance to step back from that position was never really addressed in the Hunting Act. With no government really wanting to revisit that, it is very difficult...

I don't understand what you're trying to say here Palo, sorry.

The act does not mandate using fox scent, afaik. The chance was always there to revisit what scent is used. Hunts can stop using fox scent whenever they choose. The government doesn't need to revisit it.
.

 

[SO1]

I think what is being said by Palo is that trial hunts use fox scent because they believe hunting fox could be allowed again at any point and they want to be ready to start again immediately should that be the case and not have to retrain the hounds. It is not so they can "accidentally" hunt fox.

The anti hunting brigade now is more than just not wanting fox to be hunted but because local country people are getting irritated as the hunts trespass on to private land where they are not welcome and also upset their animals.

Large cycling events, tractors, bad drivers, people who cannot control their dogs which may annoy riders do not not normally trespass on private land and people can avoid them if they want. A hunt which gives no notice of when and where it will go, that trespasses on to private land and is unable to control its hounds can be a public nuisance and danger to peoples pets even if they are not actively hunting fox.

 

[GSD Woman]

trail hunting with fox scent is very doable. Packs in the more populated areas of the east coast of the USA do it. pick up the drag for short distances, drag it along a fence, things like this. It still makes the hounds work, can avoid areas where the hunt isn't wanted, can be published in advanced so property owners can know and possibly give permission to ride over parts of their land.

I'm guessing that most fox hunters are very upper crust and entitled. Obviously to keep a horse costs money. Supporting a pack and the land to maintain it is expensive. It isn't so costly in my part of the world so things can work differently I know 2 school teachers who hunt with a pack that doesn't have a huge subscription. Another friend keeps her horses at her in-laws farm as it is the only way she can make it work. I'm sure she pinches pennies in other areas of her life to be able to afford the everyday costs off her horses and showing and capping at hunts.

Just some thoughts from my corner of the world.

 

[GoldenWillow]

forget the burns report or the bonomy report. Do many hunting people not realise the disruption and the damage they cause and that non hunting people are not over impressed by this and the fact that they have to put up with it and have had to for years. Your comments are always about various reports, cruelty or not and the rights of hunting people. What about the rest of us who have to put up with it? What about the rights of people whose animals have been hurt or had to be destroyed because of the hunt.

Do they also not realise that when you are unwilling to publish dates of your activity then people wonder what you have to hide. They are stuck for the day if there is a meet in their area not knowing if the hunt will be passing through, if they need to get their horses in. Is it safer to leave them out, field will be trashed, will they go through the fence. OTOH should I bring them in, shut top doors, how long for.

If there is a large bike ride I can go online and find out where it goes, how many involved etc etc. If there is an endurance horse ride I can see the venue and the markers tell me where it is going. .

Not so the secretive activities of the hunt.

Have you contacted the hunt secretary and asked for a meet card? That's what I did when I had problems and they sent me a card after that which at least allowed me to keep the horses in so that if (when!) they went through my field without my permission at least they weren't actually going through the horses.

 

[OldNag]

I think what is being said by Palo is that trial hunts use fox scent because they believe hunting fox could be allowed again at any point and they want to be ready to start again immediately should that be the case and not have to retrain the hounds. It is not so they can "accidentally" hunt fox.

The anti hunting brigade now is more than just not wanting fox to be hunted but because local country people are getting irritated as the hunts trespass on to private land where they are not welcome and also upset their animals.

Large cycling events, tractors, bad drivers, people who cannot control their dogs which may annoy riders do not not normally trespass on private land and people can avoid them if they want. A hunt which gives no notice of when and where it will go, that trespasses on to private land and is unable to control its hounds can be a public nuisance and danger to peoples pets even if they are not actively hunting fox.

Realistically, is there any chance fox hunting will resume? I think it is extremely unlikely . Probably moreso given the recent events.

They may as well switch to another scent- and that should lessen the risk of them "accidentally" picking up a fox trail ....

 

[palo1]

QUOTE="Sandstone1, post: 14758800, member: 74377"]You can not answer any of the questions I have asked without quoting reports, You cant see the disruption and heartache cased by the hunt, you cant or dont want to see that the law is being broken and illegal hunting is going on. Killing peoples pets, upsetting livestock and trespassing dont seem to matter.
For example yesterday my local hunt was hunting alongside a major busy road, Now why would that happen if they were following a trail?[/QUOTE]

@Sandstone - I quote reports because they are informed and expert opinion, not purely my own view. That is intended to bring a sense of seriousness, objectivity and expertise to a discussion which I think is valuable. I understand that the law has been broken in relation to the Hunting Act; that is a police matter though I don't want hunting brought into disrepute personally. The killing of pets, upsetting of livestock and damage to property all do matter, of course they do. The way those are 'capitalised on' by an aggressive campaign belies their frequency though I have no problems at all condemning outright and without any reservation the loss of control of hounds where pets are injured or killed and stock harassed.

trail hunting with fox scent is very doable. Packs in the more populated areas of the east coast of the USA do it. pick up the drag for short distances, drag it along a fence, things like this. It still makes the hounds work, can avoid areas where the hunt isn't wanted, can be published in advanced so property owners can know and possibly give permission to ride over parts of their land.

I'm guessing that most fox hunters are very upper crust and entitled. Obviously to keep a horse costs money. Supporting a pack and the land to maintain it is expensive. It isn't so costly in my part of the world so things can work differently I know 2 school teachers who hunt with a pack that doesn't have a huge subscription. Another friend keeps her horses at her in-laws farm as it is the only way she can make it work. I'm sure she pinches pennies in other areas of her life to be able to afford the everyday costs off her horses and showing and capping at hunts.

Just some thoughts from my corner of the world.

It is very, very similar to that in parts of Britain @GSD Woman. A great many people hunting (trail, drag and bloodhound) are very ordinary and work hard to fund their equestrian things.

 

[palo1]

You can not answer any of the questions I have asked without quoting reports, You cant see the disruption and heartache cased by the hunt, you cant or dont want to see that the law is being broken and illegal hunting is going on. Killing peoples pets, upsetting livestock and trespassing dont seem to matter.
For example yesterday my local hunt was hunting alongside a major busy road, Now why would that happen if they were following a trail?

I think, as well as my reply to this just now I want to say that whenever I ask a specific, serious question about anti-hunting perspectives on those reports or research or about other related things, they are never answered with any degree of seriousness or respect which really leaves me no option but to think that your views are subjective, personal and possibly ill-informed. That is partly the culture we live in which validates any opinion, however bonkers!!

For example, the anti hunt brigade repeatedly assert that it can never be ok for people to allow/encourage one animal to hunt and kill another. That is the basis of the hunting act. Yet, the use of terriers to control rats is not only legal but considered humane. Rats are equally as valuable in their own right and have the same right to live naturally as any other animal but never once has LACS, the Vegan Society, the HSA, the RSPCA or other individual that I have asked been able to tell me why this contradiction exists. Nor has anyone been able to answer why, if cruelty is the basis of their view on hunting why there is no absolute outrage at the mass poisoning of rats which results in an appallingly cruel and lengthy period of suffering, nor more widespread outrage at some of the ways in which we farm animals for food or legislate around pets. It is very hard to take a point of view seriously if it has such enormous, unanswered contradictions. My own view is that it is all to do with convenience and judgements about 'personal' situational ethics.

I have shared my own personal experiences too which often contradict yours but every lived experience is different. Objective expertise tends to take the personal largely out of that which is why I think it helpful and why I am so frustrated that the anti-hunting brigade fail time after time to do that. Opinion politics and knee jerk reaction to events are not a sensible, adult way to debate or make policy.