what most of us knew already :)

[palo1]

It is just the law that those responsible for illegal hunting are hunt staff; I have pointed this out elsewhere but purely because, pedantically it irritates me that people who don't know assume that anyone can be responsible for illegal hunting (well they can if they are hunting with more than 2 dogs actually but I think it's clear what I meant). I have certainly never, ever suggested that this would be any kind of cop out or reason to be present if you knew illegal hunting was taking place.

 

[The Jokers Girl]

Ok, apologies, it must have been another poster who said that.

Not on this thread but in another thread some months back, that another poster referenced. Don't know how to link threads but post below

" I am sorry to say this but you are wrong about participating in illegal hunting meaning that you are breaking the law. The law is quite clear that the person hunting the hounds and any formal and identified staff with him are responsible in that situation. The field may be entirely in the wrong morally if they are participating knowingly in illegal hunting but they are not responsible for it so are not breaking the law. I don't believe that there is any law that relates to that particular situation though potentially being complicit in animal cruelty may have some legal relevance."

 

[palo1]

Not on this thread but in another thread some months back, that another poster referenced. Don't know how to link threads but post below

" I am sorry to say this but you are wrong about participating in illegal hunting meaning that you are breaking the law. The law is quite clear that the person hunting the hounds and any formal and identified staff with him are responsible in that situation. The field may be entirely in the wrong morally if they are participating knowingly in illegal hunting but they are not responsible for it so are not breaking the law. I don't believe that there is any law that relates to that particular situation though potentially being complicit in animal cruelty may have some legal relevance."

Thank you for retrieving this.

 

[The Jokers Girl]

Thank you for retrieving this.

You're welcome ?

 

[ester]

It was a figure speech I wasn't asking you to google anything

No need to roll your eyes, not everyone picks up on figures of speech especially when written, some of us are autistic but yeah you crack on and roll your eyes at us when we try to respond, makes us feel great.

 

[ycbm]

It is just the law that those responsible for illegal hunting are hunt staff

You've missed a word out Palo. Those criminally responsible are the hunt staff. Those responsible are all the people who follow the hunt and everyone else who knows what they are doing and doesn't report it.

I've been guilty in the past myself, failing to report friends who I know have been hunting fox, so I'm not suggesting it's easy. But in this case the entire hunting community including drag packs knew what was going on and are complicit.,

 

[The Jokers Girl]

No need to roll your eyes, not everyone picks up on figures of speech especially when written, some of us are autistic but yeah you crack on and roll your eyes at us when we try to respond, makes us feel great.

My husband has ASD so don't pull that card on me and I will roll my eyes at whomever i choose!
And you clearly knew what I meant as your response was rather sarcastic

 

[ester]

urgh, why can't people be a bit kinder to others it's not pulling a card, we aren't all the same it's stating a fact that you just made me feel terrible for taking your post as written, when I was trying to respond helpfully.

 

[Tiddlypom]

I have certainly never, ever suggested that this would be any kind of cop out or reason to be present if you knew illegal hunting was taking place.

No, you have not, and I did not intend you to take from my post to read that you condoned it.

My comment ‘It is fair to say that I have no time for people who are happy to use that cop out‘ was not intended to be aimed at you at all . I can only apologise for the misunderstanding.

 

[palo1]

No, you have not, and I did not intend you to take from my post to read that you condoned it.

My comment ‘It is fair to say that I have no time for people who are happy to use that cop out‘ was not intended to be aimed at you at all . I can only apologise for the misunderstanding.

No problem at all - thank you for clarifying that though.

 

[Bernster]

I wouldn’t expect pro fox hunters (or maybe a better term is those who don’t support the ban) to comment much on this thread as I don’t think it’s a very welcome place for them. I thought there was a much more constructive thread elsewhere on here which helped me to understand different perspectives a bit more.

I get that people feel very strongly but I also don’t think everyone who goes out with/follows trail hunts is quite as ‘evil‘ as some on here seem to feel. I can’t comment sensibly on the webinars posted about as I haven’t watched them.

And before people assume my opinions on it, I didn’t hunt pre the ban. I did trail hunt a bit but there were times it seemed like they weren’t acting within law. So I switched to drag hunting.

 

[Tiddlypom]

I get that people feel very strongly but I also don’t think everyone who goes out with/follows trail hunts is quite as ‘evil‘ as some on here seem to feel. I can’t comment sensibly on the webinars posted about as I haven’t watched them.

You really do need to watch the webinars or read the transcripts . They are dynamite.

It is not properly run trail hunting that is the problem, it is widespread fox hunting, which is going on under the guise of trail hunting, where people understandably have issues.

So when folk insist that they are trail hunting, but are actually cheerfully fox hunting, as commonly happens, no wonder we are leery about it.

I cannot imagine that anyone following a pack which is hunting foxes, rather than following trails, is unaware of that fact. You had your suspicions when you went out, weren’t happy and subsequently switched to drag hunting .

 

[Bernster]

Aye, TP, sadly one lot didn’t do much to hide it.

 

[shortstuff99]

You really do need to watch the webinars or read the transcripts . They are dynamite.

It is not properly run trail hunting that is the problem, it is widespread fox hunting, which is going on under the guise of trail hunting, where people understandably have issues.

So when folk insist that they are trail hunting, but are actually cheerfully fox hunting, as commonly happens, no wonder we are leery about it.

I cannot imagine that anyone following a pack which is hunting foxes, rather than following trails, is unaware of that fact. You had your suspicions when you went out, weren’t happy and subsequently switched to drag hunting .

Also the big issue is a lot of the hunts flouting the law take the general public for fools, people can tell when they are not trail hunting but instead we are told how they are hunting within the law and that 'townies' just hate them. This doesn't help their image. If they hunted within the law and could clearly show anyone that then I think they would (mostly) be left alone.

 

[ihatework]

I wouldn’t expect pro fox hunters (or maybe a better term is those who don’t support the ban) to comment much on this thread as I don’t think it’s a very welcome place for them. I thought there was a much more constructive thread elsewhere on here which helped me to understand different perspectives a bit more.

I get that people feel very strongly but I also don’t think everyone who goes out with/follows trail hunts is quite as ‘evil‘ as some on here seem to feel. I can’t comment sensibly on the webinars posted about as I haven’t watched them.

And before people assume my opinions on it, I didn’t hunt pre the ban. I did trail hunt a bit but there were times it seemed like they weren’t acting within law. So I switched to drag hunting.

I don’t think people who hunt are evil at all. In my experience the vast majority (London toffs excluded) are exceptionally countryside orientated, with conservation in mind and overall are very pro animal welfare. Living in the middle of big hunt country, individually, my experience of people who are pro hunt is very positive.

I think it’s very difficult for anti’s to see that when all they see in front of them are Fox murderers. For me it’s an ironic kind of situation when I generally support the act of hunting, which by its very nature kills animals.

But what I do not like it the collective ‘hunt’. These very nice individuals get together and then become something different. Disruptive. Entitled. Arrogant. Law Breaking.

I think this thread just goes to demonstrate what some hunts think they can or should be allowed to get away with. Like it or not, hunting is now illegal. We all know it goes on.

 

[Wishfilly]

I wouldn’t expect pro fox hunters (or maybe a better term is those who don’t support the ban) to comment much on this thread as I don’t think it’s a very welcome place for them. I thought there was a much more constructive thread elsewhere on here which helped me to understand different perspectives a bit more.

I get that people feel very strongly but I also don’t think everyone who goes out with/follows trail hunts is quite as ‘evil‘ as some on here seem to feel. I can’t comment sensibly on the webinars posted about as I haven’t watched them.

And before people assume my opinions on it, I didn’t hunt pre the ban. I did trail hunt a bit but there were times it seemed like they weren’t acting within law. So I switched to drag hunting.

I'm more concerned that ex-police officers and a Tory Peer seem to think encouraging law breaking is ok. In my opinion, that's actually a bigger problem than whether hunting is right or wrong.

If people want the law on hunting to change, surely they should try to do this through the legal channels, not just actively flout the law?

The law (currently) is what it is, and surely people should abide by that?

To me, this isn't really about the hunting debate as such. It's about the rule of law.

I would really suggest reading the transcripts, especially the second one. I found it quite shocking.

 

[ycbm]

I'm more concerned that ex-police officers and a Tory Peer seem to think encouraging law breaking is ok. In my opinion, that's actually a bigger problem than whether hunting is right or wrong.

If people want the law on hunting to change, surely they should try to do this through the legal channels, not just actively flout the law?

The law (currently) is what it is, and surely people should abide by that?

To me, this isn't really about the hunting debate as such. It's about the rule of law.

I would really suggest reading the transcripts, especially the second one. I found it quite shocking.

I agree with you. I thought there were parts which amounted to conspiracy to commit a crime and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and those are far more serious offences than illegal hunting.
.

 

[Wishfilly]

I agree with you. I thought there were parts which amounted to conspiracy to commit a crime and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and those are far more serious offences than illegal hunting.
.

Yes. Ironically, I'm sure one of the ex-police officers points this out in the transcript.

I am pretty sure if ex-police officers commit a serious crime, they can lose access to their pensions too, so this could have serious implications for them.

It seems like they are either very confident in not getting caught, or very confident that they wouldn't get prosecuted. I think it is a real problem for society when certain groups appear not to have to follow the same laws as everyone else.

 

[Tiddlypom]

This was posted by an anti FB group - I don’t know if this chap really said what was ascribed to him, but there is such a person who was indeed master of the Ryeford Chase Hunt.



The last sentence ‘An obvious problem is that now legislators are no longer going to believe in trail hunting’ is the crunch point.

No matter whether individuals can go on to be prosecuted for some of the more unguarded comments on the webinars, the cover and pretence of ‘trail hunting’ has been blown out of the water.

This is not going to be buried. The webinars are in public circulation, MPs have received them and it is only a matter of time before they are acted on.

My fear is that the backlash will result in the eventual prohibition of all hunting with hounds, drag packs included. This will be pretty tough on those who have done nothing wrong, but they will know who has let them down.

 

[ycbm]

My fear is that the backlash will result in the eventual prohibition of all hunting with hounds, drag packs included. This will be pretty tough on those who have done nothing wrong, but they will know who has let them down.

To be honest TP, those who have done nothing wrong have also let themselves down. The two drag packs I hunted with were organised by people who knew exactly what the "trail hunts" in other areas were doing but they said and did nothing to stop it.
.

 

[Flowerofthefen]

I used to avoid this section as I knew ( as most of us did and definitely the hunters did) what was going on. You could argue until you were blue in the face but having seen it all I knew what they were doing. Hopefully something will get done .

 

[Sandstone1]

Is there any update on whats happening about this? I guess once this lockdown ends they will be hunting again?

 

[Tiddlypom]

It’s just been reported today that the police and the CPS are looking into the indiscretions revealed in the leaked webinars.

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-11-24...ting-webinars-held-by-huntings-governing-body

A few individuals will be wishing that they had reworded some of their contributions to the webinars .

According to a senior police officer, they will “consider exactly what’s being said and what is going on” and the police say they now plan to review their relationships with hunts.

I bet they will. Whether or not the CPS decide to prosecute individuals, the tips and tricks of creating a smokescreen to facilitate illegal hunting are right out of the bag now.

 

[Tiddlypom]

Antis are expecting/hoping for a 5 minute report on this on tonight’s ITV News at 10.

 

[Tiddlypom]

I thought that the report on hunting on last night’s News at 10 was excellent and not sensationalist.

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-11-24...ting-webinars-held-by-huntings-governing-body

The quotes from the leaked webinars were voiced over by actors, and the speakers themselves were not identified.

The Hunting Office chose not to comment on the police investigating the webinars but they say: “Viewed objectively, the purpose of the webinars is very clear and the allegation that they were organised to discuss covering up unlawful activities is incorrect and can only be made by taking a few individual, short comments completely out of context.”

The trouble with that response is that the whole three hours is there to be viewed, listened to and dissected, it’s not a snatched conversation taken out of context.

ETA
Deputy Chief Constable Paul Netherton, National Police Chief Council lead for fox hunting, said: "The police are currently investigating and examining video content from two webinars on the theme of hunting which have recently come to our attention.

We are working in conjunction with the CPS to see if any criminal offences have been committed."

 

[Lipglosspukka]

I hunted perhaps 6 or 7 times with my local hunt a few years back. I never witnessed fox hunting and genuinely believed they acted within the law.

I was very shocked to see that one of the people on the video was one of the masters of the same hunt.

 

[palo1]

Just copying my post to another thread - in relation to the research/veterinary understanding of the issues around hunting. I know it is not directly related to this thread but I think people may find it useful when considering their attitudes to hunting (legal and pre-ban).

Is it possible for people to read this paper from 2018 (revised from 2009) ? https://vawm.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Hunting-Wildlife-Moral-Issue-March-2018.pdf It is from the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management and regards the moral issue around hunting and foxes in particular. Other studies consider a range of species management strategies too, including the second paper here: https://vawm.org.uk/animal-welfare/

Most of us believe that vets intrinsically have an objective and educated view of animal welfare issues and the VAWM is open to all vets with an interest in wildlife. I think that anyone who has an interest in hunting or wildlife should read this; there is no 'counter' paper produced by wildlife vets or vets at all on this subject nor are the conclusions in these papers challenged by any science or veterinary organisation.

 

[claireannejames]

I have always felt that the open claims of the MFHA that member hunts use 'animal scent' for trails 'to mimic the scent of the traditional quarry' was surely proof of intent, since hounds cannot tell the difference between a laid, animal scent trail, (even if there is one), and a live fox who happens by. This is used by them to plead 'accident' in court when caught killing but surely a decent lawyer should have been able to prove intent to break the law. If you don't want to break the Hunting Act you use non-animal scent like the True Drag hunts and Bloodhound hunts (clean boot) do. Hopefully now that this zoom footage is out there, there will finally be pressure to shut them down. Just a shame that the MDBA did not distance Drag and Bloodhound hunting from Trail hunting early on, I think this scandal could see the end of all types of hunting with hounds. And it will be the Trail Hunter's fault. They should have all converted to True Drag from day one after the law was passed - non animal scent trails, prepared lines of fences, no secrecy about lines so it's clear when hounds go off the scent. THAT is hunting within the law.

 

[claireannejames]

This was posted by an anti FB group - I don’t know if this chap really said what was ascribed to him, but there is such a person who was indeed master of the Ryeford Chase Hunt.

View attachment 59291

The last sentence ‘An obvious problem is that now legislators are no longer going to believe in trail hunting’ is the crunch point.

No matter whether individuals can go on to be prosecuted for some of the more unguarded comments on the webinars, the cover and pretence of ‘trail hunting’ has been blown out of the water.

This is not going to be buried. The webinars are in public circulation, MPs have received them and it is only a matter of time before they are acted on.

My fear is that the backlash will result in the eventual prohibition of all hunting with hounds, drag packs included. This will be pretty tough on those who have done nothing wrong, but they will know who has let them down.

YES agreed with your last point. Hopefully Bloodhound hunting can be saved, as it's a completely different type of hound and obvious to all that they follow the clean boot. That's my hope anyway. Here's to hundreds more Bloodhound packs and an end to Trail Hunting. I do feel sorry for the Drag packs but to be fair they have failed to distance themselves and speak out against Trail hunting officially, as they should have done. Lots of masters and huntsmen moved between Trail and Drag hunting and many who follow drag also follow trail, so I guess that's why. A shame. But then, there is alot of shame going around this week.

 

[Bernster]

Would this impact drag hunting though? Surely not?