Two articles

[Ereiam_jh]

I enjoyed both of these articles on hunting.

Martin Hesp in my local rag:

Then I asked another fellow in pink if they'd caught anything. I don't know why, but it's the sort of question hunting folk hate unless you put it in the right lingo. "Accounted for???" is what they say. This guy, for a moment, didn't seem to know how to reply. All he could muster was: "Ummm, no. Not yet."

http://www.thisisdevon.co.uk/displa...&sourceNode=141513&contentPK=16838809

And simon jenkins in the guardian:

This time, however, the country has got the better of the town. It has not only gone on killing foxes, and using dogs to do so, but has apparently upped the kill rate.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2029914,00.html

 

[suestowford]

Did you see yesterday's WMN? With the story about Peter Hain promoting hunting with dogs on his NI website?

Ha Ha is what I thought.

 

[peakpark]

I would love to see the article about Hain promoting hunting with dogs on his NI website. Do you have a link?

 

[suestowford]

Certainly!

www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/index

Then you need to 'search this site' just put in 'Peter Hain' and you will see the story.

 

[peakpark]

Thank you Jack Sprat.
Just as odd was LACS response quoted in the article:

Mike Hobday, spokesman for the League Against Cruel Sports, said: "I expect that Peter Hain has been rather busy with more important issues in Northern Ireland other than updating arcane elements of the Internet.
We have not brought prosecutions against hunts in Northern Ireland for cruelty against animals because we cannot access the land where they go. It is also the case that the fox is always fed to the dogs so there is no evidence to be examined."

Er, I wasn't aware that this was the 'evidence' used in the prosecutions they've brought, or tried to bring over here. Endy, can you shed any light on this

 

[endymion]

Kind of, I don't know how often it happens but the carcass can be postmortemed. However, even if it isn't fed to dogs it's usually removed.

But even if they secure the body and get it looked at I don't see what cause of death has to do with proving intent to hunt illegally so I'm a bit puzzled on this one.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Cruelty and illegal hunting aren't the same thing at all. You can be cruel while hunting legally and you can hunt illegally without being cruel. The law isn't based on cruelty.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

"Er, I wasn't aware that this was the 'evidence' used in the prosecutions they've brought, or tried to bring over here. Endy, can you shed any light on this "

Indeed the 'evidence' in the Tony Wright case was that he didn't shoot the foxes but allowed them escape once they were flushed out. Moreover there was no intent to hunt illegally proved. He was trying to obey the law. There was alos no intent to catch the foxes with the dogs proved, merely that he intended to flush them out, which he freely admitted.

LACS complained that he didn't have enouigh guns positioned. I wonder if they'd have that sort of law on the streets of Bristol.

I kind of object to animal rights fanatics complaining about a lack of guns in my neighbourhood.

Let the foxes go, that's what i say!