TRAIL HUNTING CONSULTATION

[SEL]

Thought it was worth it having its own thread.

Consultation on Proposals to Prohibit Trail Hunting in England and Wales - Defra - Citizen Space

This site contains consultations that are run by Defra.

consult.defra.gov.uk

From a personal perspective given the police cannot deal with rural crime in this area (one of the statistics was 0% of household thefts investigated) I would personally prefer to see them focus on actual crimes rather than trying to work out whether hunts are chasing animal or synthetic scents. The existing legislation already covers actual hunting of foxes but the enforcement has been poor. The time and money which will be tied up in something which affects so few people is ridiculous.

I have more problems with domestic dogs chasing animals around me than the hunt and I live down the road from one.

 

[ihatework]

My gut feeling is that less than 1% of the population truely give a deep shit about this. Those that are staunch supporters or staunch antis. I’m sure a lot of the remaining 99% or so will have a leaning/opinion but ultimately if given the choice of £xxxxxxx being spent on trail hunting or invested in other matters, the majority would choose the latter.

Such a massive waste of public funds, on what is a bunch of privileged people that can’t uphold the law and politicians doing what politicians do.

 

[Nicnac]

I've just read it. Throughout they refer to dogs so reflects on their lack of understanding of all types of hunting.

 

[Tiddlypom]

Hounds are dogs .

 

[ihatework]

I've just read it. Throughout they refer to dogs so reflects on their lack of understanding of all types of hunting.

I imagine the terminology was deliberate.
Hounds being a type of dog, but the act not being limited to hounds.

 

[Widgeon]

From a personal perspective given the police cannot deal with rural crime in this area (one of the statistics was 0% of household thefts investigated) I would personally prefer to see them focus on actual crimes rather than trying to work out whether hunts are chasing animal or synthetic scents. The existing legislation already covers actual hunting of foxes but the enforcement has been poor. The time and money which will be tied up in something which affects so few people is ridiculous.

I completely agree. The legislation is there, it's just not being properly enforced. But as you say, I would prefer their very limited resources to go into following up thefts from farms and yards, dangerous driving, domestic abuse etc. The stuff that kills people and helps destroy livelihoods.

 

[Sandstone1]

Breaking the law is breaking the law. You would probably be surprised to know how strongly people feel about illegal hunting. Its also a lot bigger than that.
The secret deal between Warwickshire police and the hunt springs to mind, along with the Police crime commissioner being very pro hunting etc etc. Its all very shady.

 

[SEL]

Breaking the law is breaking the law. You would probably be surprised to know how strongly people feel about illegal hunting. Its also a lot bigger than that.
The secret deal between Warwickshire police and the hunt springs to mind, along with the Police crime commissioner being very pro hunting etc etc. Its all very shady.

Around here (rural Bucks) we would like the police to focus their efforts on shoplifting, car & house break-ins and the theft of farm machinery. They don't appear to have the resources to do that so how on earth they would be expected to police animal vs synthetic scent is beyond me.

The Warwickshire commissioner should not have been able to over turn that investigation / prosecution - but misuse of public office stands irrespective of this proposed legislation

 

[Marshpiper]

Thought it was worth it having its own thread.

Consultation on Proposals to Prohibit Trail Hunting in England and Wales - Defra - Citizen Space

This site contains consultations that are run by Defra.

consult.defra.gov.uk

From a personal perspective given the police cannot deal with rural crime in this area (one of the statistics was 0% of household thefts investigated) I would personally prefer to see them focus on actual crimes rather than trying to work out whether hunts are chasing animal or synthetic scents. The existing legislation already covers actual hunting of foxes but the enforcement has been poor. The time and money which will be tied up in something which affects so few people is ridiculous.

I have more problems with domestic dogs chasing animals around me than the hunt and I live down the road from one.

I agree with you 100%…..
The amount of farm animals being stolen over here is shocking, and the police do not have the capacity to do anything….150 in lamb ewes were stolen from a farm in the Glens a few weeks ago….and as you say farm machinery is stolen on a regular basis….

 

[Tiddlypom]

A ridiculous amount of time is used to police the naughty hunts in this area. I am more than p1ssed off with the entitled feckers who waste so much police time by carrying on with their entitled illegal behaviour. I think that the record on one hunting day hereabouts was 9 police cars, a riot van plus the eye in the sky police helicopter.

Much easier if the lot is banned outright, and you can squarely blame the numerous illegal packs for that, they have brought hunting down.

Then the police will be better able to deal with other rural crime.

 

[palo1]

I've responded to the consultation and like others feel a sense of genuine frustration that parliamentary time and money will be spent on something that is largely irrelevant to most people's lives. Other things, other animal welfare legislation would have a far greater impact and be more easily policed than this...I think it may well be an own goal for KS too. It will revisit very polarized minority opinions and it may also add to the sense of 'waging war' on rural communities (whether they support hunting or not). In view of the developing food security concerns, this seems utterly self defeating tbh.

I actually can't believe the govt thinks, after all their U-turns so far that this really is worth pursuing as a manifesto pledge ,in the context of a cost of living crisis, environmental disaster and the very real prospect of war....

 

[palo1]

A ridiculous amount of time is used to police the naughty hunts in this area. I am more than p1ssed off with the entitled feckers who waste so much police time by carrying on with with their entitled illegal behaviour. I think that the record on one hunting day hereabouts was 9 police cars, a riot van plus the eye in the sky police helicopter.

Much easier if the lot is banned outright, and you can squarely blame the numerous illegal packs for that, they have brought hunting down.

Then the police will be better able to deal with other rural crime.

So surely there would be enough evidence of illegality one way or another to have prosecuted by now? If not, why are your local force using so many resources on this?

 

[Clodagh]

So surely there would be enough evidence of illegality one way or another to have prosecuted by now? If not, why are your local force using so many resources on this?

Absolutely, are they policing the hunt against illegal hunting? If so Cheshire must have vast resources compared to other forces.

 

[Tiddlypom]

Cheshire Police Rural Crime Team are only a small team, but they are ace.

They are often out on hunt days. Not always.

Hunt prosecutions are pending, they are gunning for the hunt directors. There have already been successful prosecutions for illegal hunting.

 

[palo1]

Cheshire Police Rural Crime Team are only a small team, but they are ace.

They are often out on hunt days. Not always.

Hunt prosecutions are pending, they are gunning for the hunt directors. There have already been successful prosecutions for illegal hunting.

I am surprised that this is a priority for resources in that area tbh and I wonder what the folks who don't care at all about hunting, or see it as a complete irrelevance to daily law and order issues feel about it. I understand that on some days it may impact small groups of people but most police forces have way more pressing issues to deal with I think. Pending prosecutions suggest the law is working and they have dealt with the problem too.

 

[SEL]

Cheshire Police Rural Crime Team are only a small team, but they are ace.

They are often out on hunt days. Not always.

Hunt prosecutions are pending, they are gunning for the hunt directors. There have already been successful prosecutions for illegal hunting.

So that means the existing legislation is working?

 

[Tiddlypom]

So that means the existing legislation is working?

No, because it takes a huge amount of police resource to police the hunts. A lot of illegal hunt activity goes unnnoticed or, if witnessed, the existing law is too wishy washy to prove intent to hunt.

So do we allow widespread flouting of the law or don’t we?

I’m a boringly law abiding citizen whether it be hunting (which I used to do pre ban, never after), driving according to the speed limit and never drinking alcohol at all if driving.

I’d much rather that the Cheshire Police Rural Team could just be free to continue their excellent work preventing and recovering stolen farm plant vehicles, stopping hare coursing, preventing caravan theft etc etc.

 

[Pearlsasinger]

So why on earth are we considering tying up even more of them up investigating every equine gathering to check that the local RC day's hack isn't a front for trail hunting?

Mind you, you can bet your bottom dollar that Sabs will be there too, just in case anyone looks 'rich', so you never know, they might manage a few BotP arrests.

The "consultation" document reads like a badly organised student dissertation info gathering survey, with questions you've answered No to refusing to allow you to move on until you've written something in the optional box. What a waste of time and public money!

 

[moosea]

So why on earth are we considering tying up even more of them up investigating every equine gathering to check that the local RC day's hack isn't a front for trail hunting?

Mind you, you can bet your bottom dollar that Sabs will be there too, just in case anyone looks 'rich', so you never know, they might manage a few BotP arrests.

The "consultation" document reads like a badly organised student dissertation info gathering survey, with questions you've answered No to refusing to allow you to move on until you've written something in the optional box. What a waste of time and public money!

It's a waste of money in your opinion, but not in mine.

When allocating police would I rather they investigated a stolen tractor ( that is probably insured, can be replaced and does not feel pain) or a live animal being ripped apart for fun?
I'm sure you can guess which I'd prefer was investigated.

 

[SEL]

It's a waste of money in your opinion, but not in mine.

When allocating police would I rather they investigated a stolen tractor ( that is probably insured, can be replaced and does not feel pain) or a live animal being ripped apart for fun?
I'm sure you can guess which I'd prefer was investigated.

Foxes are still destroyed - but it's shooting or poison at the moment. Shooting is rarely as clean a death as people would like to believe so both leave an animal with a lingering painful death.

 

[moosea]

Foxes are still destroyed - but it's shooting or poison at the moment. Shooting is rarely as clean a death as people would like to believe so both leave an animal with a lingering painful death.

Why are people who can't shoot cleanly shooting foxes?

 

[Pearlsasinger]

It's a waste of money in your opinion, but not in mine.

When allocating police would I rather they investigated a stolen tractor ( that is probably insured, can be replaced and does not feel pain) or a live animal being ripped apart for fun?
I'm sure you can guess which I'd prefer was investigated.

Well it was actually the amateurish 'Consultation' that I meant was a waste of money, as we already know the outcome of the exercise.
I am all for investing in rural policing but I understand how important farm vehicles are to the farm businesses around me. I also understand the insurance goes no way to making up for what has been lost due to vehicle theft, in some cases supply contracts have been broken which incurs financial penalties.
And at the end of it all very few foxes will have been 'saved'. And trail hunting isn't fox hunting!

 

[Marshpiper]

Why are people who can't shoot cleanly shooting foxes?

Because unfortunately a lot of people who shoot at foxes are incapable of a clean shot….I am still angry that it took 10 shots to kill that XL bully and that was shooting by the police at short range….
I couldn’t repeat what my late husband said about the so called marksman who took numerous shots to kill a runaway bullock a few years ago…

 

[palo1]

Why are people who can't shoot cleanly shooting foxes?

Shooting is not a binary outcome and is a skill that is not infallible.

 

[palo1]

It's a waste of money in your opinion, but not in mine.

When allocating police would I rather they investigated a stolen tractor ( that is probably insured, can be replaced and does not feel pain) or a live animal being ripped apart for fun?
I'm sure you can guess which I'd prefer was investigated.

But the statistics from the ministry of justice do not support resources being allocated to policing trail hunting as there have been so few convictions; if you wish to allocate resources to prevent animal cruelty the police would be better directed to many other things - illegal puppy farming, organized dog fighting, sheep worrying etc all of which are more likely to result in prosecution and animal protection. In terms of legislation, animal welfare would be far better served in many other ways than trail hunting. It seems delusional to see trail hunting as the top animal welfare/cruelty priority.

 

[moosea]

But the statistics from the ministry of justice do not support resources being allocated to policing trail hunting as there have been so few convictions; if you wish to allocate resources to prevent animal cruelty the police would be better directed to many other things - illegal puppy farming, organized dog fighting, sheep worrying etc all of which are more likely to result in prosecution and animal protection. In terms of legislation, animal welfare would be far better served in many other ways than trail hunting. It seems delusional to see trail hunting as the top animal welfare/cruelty priority.

It's over.
Trail hunters caused this! No one else.

While it is delusional to you, to a large majority it is important.

I assume there were the same sort of arguments, for and against, when banning dog fighting, for example.

Killing live animals should not, IMHO, be a sport.

 

[Marshpiper]

Dog fighting, cock fighting (and yes this still is happening) is far far worse than trail hunting, as the abuse it causes to stolen animals for “practice/bait” is, to my mind unimaginable….

 

[SEL]

It's over.
Trail hunters caused this! No one else.

While it is delusional to you, to a large majority it is important.

I assume there were the same sort of arguments, for and against, when banning dog fighting, for example.

Killing live animals should not, IMHO, be a sport.

It really isn't a large majority though. Most people couldn't give a about it. They may think it's all about toffs on horses or they may think the idea of chasing foxes is deeply unpleasant but the law has already been changed to make that a criminal offence. The fact that there are so few convictions is because its 1) badly drawn up and 2) not a good use of police / CPS time.

Foxes will continue to be culled and it's naive to think shooting or poisoning are a better death.

 

[palo1]

It's over.
Trail hunters caused this! No one else.

While it is delusional to you, to a large majority it is important.

I assume there were the same sort of arguments, for and against, when banning dog fighting, for example.

Killing live animals should not, IMHO, be a sport.

I understand your point of view, but don't understand why trail hunting is the animal welfare priority when parliamentary time could be spent genuinely addressing welfare issues that affect far larger numbers of animals in predictably worse ways: killing pigs in gas gondalas for example - the RSPCA reckons that is 9-10 million pigs annually and it is recognized as an appallingly cruel death: or perhaps addressing the 7-10 million hens that have cages the size of a sheet of A4 paper to live in, or addressing 'rescues' that keep all sorts of animals in desperate and cruel conditions. I genuinely don't understand why those provable cruelties are less important than the potential cruelties by abuse of the existing trail hunting law.

What is the moral justification for prioritising lobbying, campaigning funds, parliamentary time and the cost of legislation in relation to trail hunting over all of the more numerous and easy to police animal welfare issues?

 

[Sandstone1]

The same old whataboutery ! Yes there are other animal welfare issues. Yes there is huge cruelty in the world. However, if you think like that nothing would ever get done about anything! Halal slaughter? oh but what about Gassing pigs? Greyhound racing? But oh what about horse racing. You could go on forever.
Trail hunting will go like it or not and you all know who to blame.
Its going to happen like it or not and yes there are other types of animal abuse but that does not mean a cruel and out dated practice should be allowed to continue.