sakura
Well-Known Member
You're not wrong!
Woman hunt sab hit by car now remanded in custody...bail refused
- Thread starter palo1
- Start date
You're not wrong!
Gallop_Away
Well-Known Member
I agree sadly, I think it's more a case of "when" not "if" trail hunting finally meets it's end.
Public opinion and mounting pressure from many factors such as loss of land and pressure from extremists groups, means that trail hunting and those hunts who are flouting the law, very much have their days numbered (also the fact that illegal hunts have dragged the rest of us down with them may I add).
I do however feel that we are setting a dangerous precedent by allowing masked vigilantism to continue. Once they are done with illegal hunting, they will no doubt turn on other legal activities. I completely support the morals people hold regarding animal rights and the absolute rights of these people to make their views known via peaceful means of protest, however forcing these views on others via intimidation, law breaking, and sometimes violent means is certainly not OK.
How many of us would support a group of masked individual trespassing and shouting abuse at a local showjumping competition for example? You may think this unlikely, however if we allow this behaviour to continue towards hunting, where does it then end? Horse racing? Cross Country? Showjumping? Dressage? Riding/the use of animals in general? Where will the line be drawn exactly?
shortstuff99
Well-Known Member
Violent protests got women the vote and minority rights. It's a difficult subject.
Gallop_Away
Well-Known Member
True but then times move on. I don't think in a modern society it is acceptable to inflict your views on others via violence and intimidation.
palo1
Well-Known Member
It is interesting to consider that view as it is more often thought now that the more militant activities of the suffragette movement held back progress and cemented some views on the unsuitability of women to have the vote. The Pankhurst group were somewhat alienated and historians tend to think that whilst their actions were newsworthy they didn't have as much impact as previously thought. Violent protest and violent action has hardly ever resulted in change; negotiation has achieved that far, far more often.
dogatemysalad
Well-Known Member
I'm so glad you said that. I'm beginning to think that the modern feminist movement has rewritten public perception of the actions of violence in the suffragette movement. It is well known, that, particularly amongst working class women, the suffragettes were not viewed with sympathy. These women had lost husbands, sons and fathers in WW1, most of whom died without ever having the right to vote. Those men that survived, returned to poverty and struggled to shelter and feed their families.
The public did not look kindly on the suffragette bombing and arson attacks. This was a campaign brought about by middle class women who had money and property. Of course, they rightly wanted the same rights as middle class men, but the real change was not brought about by their violent protest. It was due to generalised frustration by the public who felt they had lost so much after the war and returned to the same injustice afterwards. The vote was given to men and women.
honetpot
Well-Known Member
I live not far from Huntingdon Life Sciences, you tell no one you work there, even though what they do is legal and regulated. I have worked with drug trials, for literally life-saving drugs, that have given people a life they perhaps would not have had,in the last phase when they blind test drugs on patients,( because they are life saving, the blind is the established treatment) most drugs are tested on animals and some even come from animal products, I needed pig enzymes to digest my food.
Has a society we have to decide what we consider moral and ethical, and make laws that support that. It's when people are so extreme that any sense of responsibility, leads them to injure and harm people in other ways, and the harmed are not protected, it concerns me. It seems to become more a self feeding warped view, a bit like incel groups.
'Almost 100 people connected to the farm were targeted. Explosive devices were sent to some, mail threatening to kill and maim to others. There were attacks on homes, cars and businesses. The relentless campaign culminated in the theft of the body of Gladys Hammond, a close relative of the Hall family who ran the farm, from her grave in October 2004.'
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/may/12/animalwelfare.topstories3
Has a society we have to decide what we consider moral and ethical, and make laws that support that. It's when people are so extreme that any sense of responsibility, leads them to injure and harm people in other ways, and the harmed are not protected, it concerns me. It seems to become more a self feeding warped view, a bit like incel groups.
'Almost 100 people connected to the farm were targeted. Explosive devices were sent to some, mail threatening to kill and maim to others. There were attacks on homes, cars and businesses. The relentless campaign culminated in the theft of the body of Gladys Hammond, a close relative of the Hall family who ran the farm, from her grave in October 2004.'
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/may/12/animalwelfare.topstories3
Last edited:
Sossigpoker
Well-Known Member
Why do people keep starting these threads just to go around the same arguments again and again ?
FestiveG
Over the hill and far awa
This thread was started about a specific event. May I suggest if you find a thread to not be to your taste, that you ignore it?
shortstuff99
Well-Known Member
Hmmm I would disagree that violent action never leads to change. The American war of independence was a violent action, British civil war was a violent action. Fall of the Berlin wall was a violent action.
palo1
Well-Known Member
The fall of the Berlin Wall was definitely not violent. I was there for part of it and both at the time and now seen historically this was not a violent event. Violent action can lead to change but discourse does that far more often and at far less cost generally.
palo1
Well-Known Member
Thank you for posting this.
Sometimes it feels like history has been taken hostage!Sandstone1
Well-Known Member
If you drive purposely at someone and accelerate while doing so you have a very good chance of killing them. Thats why we have rules on the road. Fox hunting with a pack of hounds is illegal. Thats not emotive its fact.
Sandstone1
Well-Known Member
I am giving up and putting several more people on UI as its pointless.
HashRouge
Well-Known Member
I mean the clue is in the name for the first two - a war is not quite the same as a protest movement! And I thought the fall of the Berlin Wall was peaceful, isn't it actually know as the "peaceful revolution"?
shortstuff99
Well-Known Member
Okay, but I can't say I've ever seen any meaningful change happen from peaceful discourse.
Blimey even the current government is going out of it's way to make it impossible to do any form of protest and do you truly believe that when that happens they're going to give a flying fig what someone quietly in the corner is saying? Of course they're not because it is not going to impact them in any way.
What a lot seem to be missing is to the animal rights activists hunting is the equivalence of horror to them as slavery etc so they feel what they're doing is justified. Whether you or I agree with their actions is irrelevant as they think they need to do it.
shortstuff99
Well-Known Member
American war did start as a protest movement against taxation.
palo1
Well-Known Member
Sossigpoker
Well-Known Member
It's like they keep going on and on and until people agree with them.
It's so tedious.
palo1
Well-Known Member
Yes, I think people do understand how passionately people believe in their view (on both sides). I have heard hunting people say that they would die for the right to carry on hunting and of course there are people who are prepared to be violent and dangerous to promote their cause (not that it does of course) on both sides. That doesn't make it either right or excusable though it does provide context.
AmyMay
Situation normal
Well, tbf, I’ve never seen anyone have a change of mind following hunting discussion threads.
shortstuff99
Well-Known Member
Yes but they think they will be vindicated for their actions in the future, that's why they won't stop or see the 'other side' as they believe they are the morally correct and the hunters morally corrupt and that's why it will never come to an agreement unfortunately.
FestiveG
Over the hill and far awa
I worry that people will support direct action groups, believing that it will help to end something which they feel strongly about, without looking at the wider implications, or where the others in the group are moving. An example would be anyone who rides horses, supporting groups which are allied to PETA, not recognising that giving them support in one area, gives validity to their future actions to prevent people riding horses. That's without the incidental harm, such as releasing mink, en mass, to protest about fur farms, but destroying local ecosystems by their actions.
shortstuff99
Well-Known Member
Except (although them releasing in the 1990s was still stupid).
A widespread modern misconception is that the UK’s wild population of American mink originated from mass releases of mink from fur farms by animal rights activists in the 1990s. Many people will remember these dramatic events for the sheer numbers of mink involved. In fact, the wild population was established decades earlier from multiple escapes (and perhaps deliberate releases) all over the country.
Mink farms in the UK
Mink farms had been established in the UK from the 1920s, and expansion of the industry resumed after WWII. At its peak in the 1950s, there were 400 known fur farms in the UK, and there were suspected to be additional ‘backyard’ units. Mink were first confirmed to be breeding in the wild in 1956. By December 1967, wild mink were present in over half the counties of England and Wales, and in much of lowland Scotland.
https://www.gwct.org.uk/wildlife/re...sconception is,sheer numbers of mink involved.
A widespread modern misconception is that the UK’s wild population of American mink originated from mass releases of mink from fur farms by animal rights activists in the 1990s. Many people will remember these dramatic events for the sheer numbers of mink involved. In fact, the wild population was established decades earlier from multiple escapes (and perhaps deliberate releases) all over the country.
Mink farms in the UK
Mink farms had been established in the UK from the 1920s, and expansion of the industry resumed after WWII. At its peak in the 1950s, there were 400 known fur farms in the UK, and there were suspected to be additional ‘backyard’ units. Mink were first confirmed to be breeding in the wild in 1956. By December 1967, wild mink were present in over half the counties of England and Wales, and in much of lowland Scotland.
https://www.gwct.org.uk/wildlife/re...sconception is,sheer numbers of mink involved.
Rowreach
Adjusting my sails
I think there are a lot of people on here whose views on hunting with hounds have changed dramatically since the 90s, and I'm one of them. I live in a part of the UK where hunting live prey with hounds is still legal, and I do not like it at all. And yet, during the 90s, my entire income was derived from running a hunter livery yard in England. I went back for a day with my old pack in 2014, fully expecting to be educated in a proper day's trail hunting, and was absolutely disgusted to find what they were really doing.
But having said all that, I have seen more atrocious behaviour over the years, both then and now, from the sabs, much of which constituted the most awful animal welfare situations I've witnessed, caused by them.
I'm all for dialogue over violent protest and yes, it is more effective.
Last edited:
AmyMay
Situation normal
As am I.
Sossigpoker
Well-Known Member
And this is why having these same arguments is so stupid.
They say that the definition of lunacy is repeating the same thing and expecting a different result.
palo1
Well-Known Member
I too changed my mind about hunting having had a fairly long spell as a passive anti-hunter. The hunting I had done as a child was quite challenging and the hunting style and community at that time felt aggressive and hierarchical at times though I loved the riding, the hounds and the connection to a community. As a student I found hunting alien in every way and I had friends paid to sab hunts, and doing so very regularly and that opened my eyes somewhat but still I was either ambivalent or mildly anti - with many attitudes and ideas that I recognise in sabs now still. I never thought it was about foxes and even when I felt most strongly anti-hunt it was more to do with the unease I felt with this social group and sense of privilege around hunting, as well as a belief that it wasn't 'modern' to want to hunt or engage in any kind of hunting behaviours and culture. I was never convinced of the welfare argument.
As an adult before the ban I went hunting again, more out of curiosity and equestrian boredom than anything else. I was prepared to reject it more permanently and certainly but found it quite different; different location, different country and different manners. I was welcomed even though I was very irregular and not at all conforming to the 'typical' hunter; politically, socially or financially. Post ban I was interested to see how things changed, hoping that the sabbing and moral war of attrition would settle down. It didn't but I have seen hunting change, seen those joining us change and continue to love watching hounds, riding across magnificent country and being part of a local community.
I have never failed to understand the view of sabs but that is not my view.
Rowreach
Adjusting my sails
Best thing is if you ignore these threads then.